dritz Posted October 1, 2006 Share #1 Posted October 1, 2006 Advertisement (gone after registration) Wondering how others feel about this aspect ratio. I've been spending much more film in my Mamiya 7 6x7 (when bokeh permits). The native aspect ratio it offers makes it easier to crop in the rangefinder for an 8x10. In 35mm, I too often have images that lose their punch when cropped. I shoot what I see -- not what I would like to see. Even if the image works cropped (and it is a different image after cropping) it remain disappointing to lose 20% of a 35mm frame due to cropping. And, this gets me thinking about the digital camera. Why are companies sticking with 2:3. Why not 1:1 on the R10? It's not like one would be wasting film! What are the projections for usable print size for the M8. 10mpix is enough for what size print -- compared with a decent 400 ISO neg film? Dean Seattle, Washington Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 1, 2006 Posted October 1, 2006 Hi dritz, Take a look here 2:3 aspect ratio -- Give it up!. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
mat_mcdermott Posted October 1, 2006 Share #2 Posted October 1, 2006 My printer's maximum size is 13x19 and 10MP will be able to cover it without many problems. So I guess in 3:2 aspect ratio and allowing for the smallest margin I can print to, that would be a 12x18" print. It's a small enlargement from the native pixel size of 10MP, but the loss in quality isn't great. I have no experience printing to greater sizes than this from a digital file, but then again I don't have much desire to either. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
xray Posted October 1, 2006 Share #3 Posted October 1, 2006 Why not think outside the 8x10 format. There's absolutely no reason anyone can't print full frame. I love square and 2:3 formats but really dislike the 8x10 aspect ratio and find it boring. I rarel print or compose in the 8x10 format unless I'm shooting 4x5 or 8x10. There's really no perfect format as you can see from the various formats over the years. 2:3, 4x5, 6x6, 6x7, 6x8, 6x9, 6x12, 6x17, 6x24, 8x12, 7x17, 12x20 and on and on. http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showgallery.php?cat=5045 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lambroving Posted October 1, 2006 Share #4 Posted October 1, 2006 Hmmm... I like the 2:3 ratio quite a lot. When you want to print full-frame, 11x17 is exceeding close. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dritz Posted October 2, 2006 Author Share #5 Posted October 2, 2006 If only I could get my haphazard clients (portraits of folks who don't conceive of prints larger than 8x10) to think larger. I think the other points are well made. It's up to me to provide samples demonstrating the difference. Real prints might make a real difference. Regarding prints, size does matter... Then again, maybe I'm just bored after 25 years of 2:3. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandokan Posted October 2, 2006 Share #6 Posted October 2, 2006 Theoretically the best ratio would be the golden mean 1:1.618 (8x13 being a close approximation, or 24x38.8 or 21x34). This is supposed to give the most pleasing perspective for the eye. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
vic vic Posted October 2, 2006 Share #7 Posted October 2, 2006 Advertisement (gone after registration) hi ravi, whats up :-))) hi alll ravi i think this calculation is good indeed but there are also other calcultaion (vision/brain/mind issues in psycology - hahah)... but then this format will not always be comforatble in vertical orientation... i love very much the 2;3 format.... indeed to refer to the "what i see" - it work very well.... but true - other formats have their use and their beauty as well, and have their use as well. about digital - well - this format 3;4 was carefully calculated to match the best cropping possibilities and also to match the usual page format of magazins and publcations... about printing full frame... i print full frame in nay format i want - whats the problem??? u just arrange the page and then... either u use those whote borders or if u want totally bordless then u cut (with cutters) the white sides... no problem at all. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stnami Posted October 2, 2006 Share #8 Posted October 2, 2006 ........5:7 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Micheal Posted October 3, 2006 Share #9 Posted October 3, 2006 Dean, Actually the 35mm format is close to the golden rectangle which works for me as I have always found the 8x10 proportion to be a little generic. Although, there have allways been a lot of great 8x10 images. Edward Weston for one. That was a long time ago. "Be true to your school". Use the full frame. Michael Stardust Grafik - Michael Dickey's Photography/Digital Imagery Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted October 3, 2006 Share #10 Posted October 3, 2006 I agree. I've always disliked the 2:3 aspect ratio of 35mm film. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lars_bergquist Posted October 3, 2006 Share #11 Posted October 3, 2006 There seems to be two questions here: 1) Which is the best aspect ratio -- which is a matter of taste -- and 2) what size can we print with good visual quality -- a matter which is scientifically ascertainable. So I will address the second question. Most small print sizes we see as too small. We compensate by wiewing them at the closest distance we can cope with. The comfortable close focusing limit of a pair of young healthy eyes -- or a pair of reading glasses -- is 25 to 30 cm (10 -- 12") which BTW is what all book and newspaper typography uses as a standard. So as we hold all smallish prints, from the 6x9 cm contact prints of yore, via the usual 10x15 postcard size prints, at the same distance, the need for resolution increases with increasing size. A neg which is enlarged to 13x18 (5x7") cm does indeed need better resolution and definition of detail than one which is blown up to 8x9 cm. Until we pass 18x24 cm or 8X10"! For this is the largest size that we can assess at close focus. The outer areas of larger prints fall outside our detail vision. So we stretch our arms -- and as the prints grow larger, we frame them and hang them on a wall. As soon as we are free to move closer or away, we adjust the distance so that the picture subtends more or less the same angle of wiew as an 18x24 or an A4 at 30 cm, normal reading distance. Some quite large prints on the wall above my computer confirm that. Now you can of course make a 2 by 3 meter print and look at it close up -- which would be equivalent to scrutinising that 18x24 with a magnifier (a magnifier just makes it possibler too have a closer look, literally). And then you may well see lack of detail. But hey, we are talking of photography here, of the making and viewing of pictures as PICTURES, not as some perverted parlour game! So if you can do a visually really good 18x24 or A4, you can in fact do anything. The old badger from the age of flashpowder Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
xray Posted October 3, 2006 Share #12 Posted October 3, 2006 Then again, maybe I'm just bored after 25 years of 2:3. I feel the same way after 48 years of 8x10. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Micheal Posted October 3, 2006 Share #13 Posted October 3, 2006 Lars, I agree aspect ratio is totally a matter of taste. Size can be looked upon in a different light although your explanation was excellent, logical, & physically on the mark. In the contemporary world of the gallery it has more to do with trends. In the late 60s, early seventies a very common exhibition size print was 4"x6", 5"x7" or contact 4'x5", like Emmit Gowin in the US. I recall seeing a Duane Michaels show in Toronto in which the prints were around 5"x7" in those years.For the past few years we have been seeing larger & larger gallery prints with the advent of the Epson & Roland roll printers. Correct viewing distance be damned. Trends are, of course, cyclical. The smaller prints from past years have, to me, an intimate presence I find lacking in the five foot by seven foot "monumental" print. Big is presently in "style" here in the US. I feel the cycle starting to move . . . Sincerely, Michael Dickey http://www.stardustgrafik.com Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
batmobile Posted October 4, 2006 Share #14 Posted October 4, 2006 Surely aspect ratio at the point of capture is irrelevant? Life does not conform to our neg shape so why do we worry about it? I will admit that a format that feels very awkward for your mind's eye will make capture less slick and spontaneous, but this is rarely the case with the 'normal formats'. I shoot 35mm, 6x4.5, 6x9 (120 back for LF), 5x7 and 5x4/10x8. It just is not an issue. I find the most natural to be 645 as it has a wonderful balance, but it makes little difference which I use as I will crop the image to whatever shape and print to whatever size it wants to be. Certainly the paper size (and the fear of neg cropping) is the last things that governs how an image is printed...especially when using a Leica;) Why be concerned about 'wasting' some of the 10x8 sheet of paper? If you want to print 6x6 as a pano, then do so. The few cents of paper wasted and neg areas not printed is surely preferable to the magic that is 'wasted' when pushing that square peg into the round hole. All images want to be something; big, small, panos, stubby, in your face, demure.... This is all that matters. When it is in a frame on the wall, all other considerations disappear. Nobody will ever ask you how much neg area you threw away to make that fantastic, captivating image! I would shoot 35mm when I want the speed, infrequent film changes, discretion, light weight etc. I would shoot 6x7 when you will sacrifice some of the above for greater enlargements and smoother tonality. The aspect ratio has no influnce on what I walk out the door with (exclusing pano). I for one find it useful to use many formats as it prevents the eye getting lazy. I will admit that I found the reversed 6x6 TLR image a bit trying for spontaneous work! Damn, I have only just started in this forum and am being so opinionated:eek: Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted October 4, 2006 Share #15 Posted October 4, 2006 Personally, I love 3:2. I find the 645/4:3/8x10 variants to be insipid and lacking in dynamism. Nothing puts me to sleep faster than an actual 8x10-proportioned image. The 2:3 format was obviously 'accidental' - put two movie frames together, as Oskar did, and that's what you end up with. But it was a happy accident. The 2:3 format (or 1:1.5) falls right in between two 'classic' rectangles - the "Golden" 1.61xxx, and the root-2 proportion of 1.41xxx. A root-2 rectangle split in half across the short dimension forms two identical root-2 rectangles, so it has been useful for printing labs, who could make 2.5" x 3.5" prints, 3.5" x 5" prints, and 5 x 7" prints all from the same 7" paper by subdividing - and print 35mm images with a minimum of cropping (until 4 x 6 came along). National Geographic's format is root-2 based (roughly) - a 10 x 14" spread, and a 7 x10" page. Easy to fill a page with a 35mm vertical, or the spread with a 35mm horizontal. Formats are certainly a matter of taste - however, my visual 'taste' allowed me to more-or-less teach myself graphic design and be gainfully employed thereby for 20 years, so I have a lot of faith in it. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
albertwang Posted October 4, 2006 Share #16 Posted October 4, 2006 I like all types of aspect ratios... but lately it has been 16:9. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.