i print big borders, which are no equal on all sides
Originally Posted by Kevin Caulfield
Square is great! Other than that I enjoy 1x1.3 (6x4.5) and 1x1.25 (4x5) ratios. The 1x1.5 of 35mm or 6x9 is just too long for me.
I quite like the 2:3 ratio of 135 and 6x9 but i also love square format.
I usually compose in the finder and rarely crop.
Square composition is sometimes tricky but it can be nice too.
As mentioned, the Golden Mean is probably a format that easily "acceptable" to the human mind. Sort of a primal thing. But perhaps for more impact another format would draw attention because of it's "discomfort" level.
Personally I crop everything, shot mostly Hasselblad square but never printed square, and still shoot for a little "coverage" of what I'm seeing on a full frame digital sensor. Used to print 16x20 but now more 16x24.
I couldn't think of anything witty to say so I left this blank.
Almost all my rectangular pictures are cropped to 3:4 ratio, so I always crop my 35mm negatives, for example.
It fits so perfectly on 8x10 (6x8), 11x14 (9x12), and almost 16x20 (13.5x18).
"Often moments come looking for us". - Robert Frank
"Make good art!" - Neil Gaiman
"...the heart and mind are the true lens of the camera". - Yousuf Karsh
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Thomas, doesn't that mean you are letting the paper size dictate the composition?
Originally Posted by Thomas Bertilsson
“The contemplation of things as they are, without error or confusion, without substitution or imposture, is in itself a nobler thing than a whole harvest of invention”
I see, and now I understand that would work uncropped.
Originally Posted by tomalophicon
Interesting question really. I've realized for some time that I tend to prefer more squarish and less rectangular ratios than most people. I find wide screen TVs and computer monitors too wide - whether this is something in the way I see or just my aversion to change and the fact I'm used to the more traditional rectangle I don't know.
I do like 4x5"ish" proportions and sometimes, but less often, the 35mm ratio. Anything wider than that strikes me (usually) as contrived and too "stretched." You can try to get the impact of a big outdoor scene for example with a wide panoramic ratio, but it seems to me you're just cutting off the sky and/or ground to do it, and that's often not worth the trade. Really wide screen movies look to me like I'm viewing the action through a slit window.
Since getting my TLR I've found I often enjoy the square format. I happily print square or crop in any ratio that suits me. I'm not averse in the slightest to cropping. Scenes don't come in pre-packaged ratios. If a crop lets me eliminate a distracting element or otherwise make a more pleasing composition, I'll crop away.
The comments about circles are interesting. I've seen (recently I think - a link here?) some circular images I thought were incredibly good. It would be hard to visualize that at the time of shooting with my 35mm, but an overlay for the TLR might be possible and very easy for the 4x5. I have thought of making a 4" circular mask for the ground glass, and shoot some negatives intending to print that way. But how would I get a circular easel?? I guess I look for a smooth, evenly cut circular mask of some kind, which may not be easy to find or make.
How about a vacuum easel, Roger?
What renewed my interest in circles, recently, was the thought of spin coating glass disks with emulsion. The mundane reason for circles being that you get a more uniform distribution of material that way.
I've done some LF circles using RB lenses, e.g. with the fisheye. Quite interesting look, but I didn't go anywhere with it. Reminded me too much of trendy skateboarder photography atg the time. And then I imagined portraits looking like those portrait cameo things, ugh.
I think that if and when I do shoot more circles I will let the image circle define the edges, as opposed to a sharper edge. There's something appealing about calling the resulting photographs "image circles" and knowing that it's the full image that came through the lens.
Last edited by keithwms; 02-15-2012 at 05:11 PM. Click to view previous post history.