Guest malland Posted October 30, 2006 Share #1 Posted October 30, 2006 Advertisement (gone after registration) When I started shooting with my Ricoh GR-D a few months ago I was simplemindedly thought that my pictures should look like they had been shot on 35mm film. Initially, therefore, I used the 3:2 format. After a while I thought that I'd shoot in the 4:3 format and crop to 3:2 if that proved desirable. What I find is that I generally like the 4:3 format more than the 3:2 one for composition: I find that generally one can get better compositions in the 4:3 format, particularly for shots in the portrait (vertical) orientation. If you think about famous paintings that you have seen, whether ancient or modern, whether figurative of abstract, most of them are close to the 4:3 format; relatively few are close to 3:2. There has to be a reason that painters, who can stretch their canvas to any proportion, generally choose something close to 4:3. Is the reason that Leica has chosen the 3:2 format to keep to that of 35mm film, or is there another reason? —Mitch/Bangkok Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 30, 2006 Posted October 30, 2006 Hi Guest malland, Take a look here M8 has 35mm 3:2 format — no 4:3 format. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
newyorkone Posted October 30, 2006 Share #2 Posted October 30, 2006 Personally I hate 4:3. If Leica had adopted it for the M8 it would have been frowned upon and laughed at by the professional community. 4:3 is for point and shoot digital camera. Options for different formats like on the Digilux would also have been a joke...IMHO. The M8 is a professional camera first and foremost. That being said, many non-professionals will surely buy them. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest malland Posted October 30, 2006 Share #3 Posted October 30, 2006 If Leica had adopted it for the M8 it would have been frowned upon and laughed at by the professional community. 4:3 is for point and shoot digital camera. Options for different formats like on the Digilux would also have been a joke...IMHO. By that reasoning 4x5 and 8x10 view cameras should also be a joke, not to mention that 4:3 is close to the proportions used by the overwhelming majority of the most famous painters throughout history that I referred to. —Mitch/Bangkok http://www.flickr.com/photos/10268776@N00/ [lots of 4:3 proportion pictures here] Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
albertwang Posted October 30, 2006 Share #4 Posted October 30, 2006 I vant 16:9 format, pleezzzz! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted October 30, 2006 Share #5 Posted October 30, 2006 By that reasoning 4x5 and 8x10 view cameras should also be a joke, not to mention that 4:3 is close to the proportions used by the overwhelming majority of the most famous painters throughout history that I referred to. —Mitch/Bangkok Flickr: Photos from Mitch Alland [lots of 4:3 proportion pictures here] Hi Mitch, Here's a thought if you want to work with the M8 at that aspect ratio. Use the GR 28 mm finder in the hotshoe to show you 4:3 framing. Then create an action in Photoshop, probably using the canvas command, that automatically batches your converted RAW files to the ratio that corresponds with that finder. Cheers, Sean Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
larry Posted October 30, 2006 Share #6 Posted October 30, 2006 Mitch, I'm just guessing, but I think there are a number of reasons: Leica wanted to retain the same basic proportions as previous M cameras and changing the aspect ratio would have created problems in this regard. The 1.33 crop from the original 35mm 24 x 36mm frame size was the best they could achieve with current technology and using a different ratio might have required an even tighter crop. If the previous assumption is correct, you'd get less coverage from your lenses -- a real disadvantage with wide angles. The 3:2 ratio is the one we're familiar with as 35mm shooters (as you mentioned) and the 4:3 ratio in digital photography is commonly associated with P&S cameras (as others have mentioned). Personally, I don't have a problem with the 4:3 ratio -- it just means that when you crop, it's off the top or bottom instead of the sides. If there's a "stigma," it's only in the mind of the consumer. Larry Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
robbegibson Posted October 30, 2006 Share #7 Posted October 30, 2006 Advertisement (gone after registration) snip.....By that reasoning 4x5 and 8x10 view cameras should also be a joke, not to mention that 4:3 is close to the proportions used by the overwhelming majority of the most famous painters throughout history that I referred to. —Mitch/Bangkok ....snip 6x4.5 format is the same relationship (1.33:1) as 4:3. Even 11x14 format is closer to square than 35mm. Really, it's our beloved 35mm (3:2) that's the 'odd man out' in the grand scheme of formats. Robbe Gibson Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KevinA Posted October 30, 2006 Share #8 Posted October 30, 2006 If there's one thing I hate coming from 6x7 film to 35mm digital it's that bloody awkward 3:2 ratio. It's either not long enough to be dramatic or so shallow it's cramped. Come to that I would of quite liked 1:1 4:3 gives breathing space, a more relaxed format by far. Kevin. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
newyorkone Posted October 31, 2006 Share #9 Posted October 31, 2006 By that reasoning 4x5 and 8x10 view cameras should also be a joke, not to mention that 4:3 is close to the proportions used by the overwhelming majority of the most famous painters throughout history that I referred to. —Mitch/Bangkok Flickr: Photos from Mitch Alland [lots of 4:3 proportion pictures here] You say potato, I say potahto... (Dan Quayle says Potatoe) My comments were specifically concerning the 4:3 format and have nothing to do with 4x5 or 8x10. By the way, I also like 6x6 The fact of the matter is that the Leica M8 is 3:2 and some people prefer it (Landscape, ultra wide portraits, etc.) and some people don't. Your personal heaven is just a crop away... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
comapedrosa Posted October 31, 2006 Share #10 Posted October 31, 2006 For what it's worth, I had no pbs using the 4:3 format on the D2, but have found myself longing for the 3:2 format lately... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
albertwang Posted October 31, 2006 Share #11 Posted October 31, 2006 I really like 16:9 for portraits. You can do some innovative crops based on that! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MSmelik Posted October 31, 2006 Share #12 Posted October 31, 2006 (Dan Quayle says Potatoe) when he's able to speak sense at all that is ... Anyway, I like the 4:3 format to actually, it all depends on what you shoot, for my kind of shooting 4:3 is prety good. As for 16:9 I can see the advantage but it's something you have to get use to. I have shot some pictures with my DLux-3 and wasn' really impressed yet (apart from the noise) but I'm sure it will come to good use in time Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kamilsukun Posted November 1, 2006 Share #13 Posted November 1, 2006 I spent years with film 3:2, but enjoy 4:3 of D2 now. IMHO 4:3 is more mass'ive and perceived better. But of course it all depends on the content. Regards, Kamil Sukun Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.