Questioning the 3x2 Format

[leicar7]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The best, most comprehensive book covering the visual dynamics of the 3:2 aspect formats is Harald Mante's "The Photograph," in English or "Das Foto" in the original German. This is one of the two best books I know of on design/composition in photography, or painting, for that matter. Unlike Michael Freeman's "The Photographer's Eye," Mante presents all of his information assuming the 35mm frame, comparing when necessary to other formats, generally the square.

 

One thing not presented in any book of which I am aware, but occurred to me while I was translating Das Foto, is that the 3:2 frame is the most exaggerated commonly used aspect. Anything more exaggerated becomes panaramic, which is almost never used in the vertical mode. Mante points out that one's visual impression of the empty 3:2 vertical frame is of being somewhat tall compared to its width, or narrow relative to its height. The horizontal orientation is quite restful to one's eye. The actual golden section rectangle is about 10% less in the longer aspect.

 

What occurred to me was that, as the most exaggerated popular frame, it shares in a slight manner a visual characteristic of panaramic frames in that the long edges of the empty frames seem to bow toward each other. In the 3:2 case, this tendency is slight, but not absent. The most obvious way to counteract this tendency is to incorporate strong lines perpendicular to the long edges into the composition: verticals in the case of the horizontally oriented frame, and horizontals in the vertical frame.

 

One reason I like the 35mm frame is that other frames do not have the feel I'm looking for in verticals. The 4:3, 6:7, and others just don't give me the stretch I want in the vertical mode. So, as far as I'm concerned, I'm very fond of the 3:2 frame.

[Alessandro Fanchin]

When I was attending grad school (University of Missouri School of Journalism) I did some work for a professor, Paul Stevens. He's the founder of the Freedom of Information Center at the University, (and a founder of the movement for the legislation that lead to FOI).

 

Anyway, Paul was also considered one of the leading experts in magazine design and typography. One of the things I remember him saying is that the 35mm format ratio - 3:2 - is ideal according to the way the human eye works. So, you're not correct in stating that photo intensive magazines prefer the 4x5 format. And looking at most magazines I know of closely, and it's easy to see he is correct. (My degree includes graphics desk management, so this is in my area of expertise.)

 

Wedding photographers and portrait photographers, yes, 4x5 works. They use that format because that's what they've used since the beginning. But not designers in the magazine world. The best ratio is, in fact, 3:2 for using photos in magazines and other kinds of publications.

 

Some time ago and before the show off of S2 I launched a similar discussion that draw similar conclusions. We were also humbling about the possibility that 3/2 is the way that brain works, when the head is horizontal:

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/customer-forum/58775-4-3-2-3-a.html