Aspect Ratios: L x W (Image) vs W x L (Print)

Started Sep 5, 2012 | Discussions thread
ForumParentFirstPreviousNextNext unread
Flat view
larrytusaz
Senior MemberPosts: 2,214Gear list
Like?
Aspect Ratios: L x W (Image) vs W x L (Print)
Sep 5, 2012

I understand aspect ratios very well in terms of how they result in cropped images unless you get a "full frame" image (my preference). However, when explaining how it works to other people, I find that an element of complications are thrown in because in recent years most articles describe the aspect ratio of the original image as 3:2 (length x width) instead of 2:3 (width x length) whereas the prints are described in width x length (8 x 10 instead of 10 x 8). In the old days they described the original width x length (2:3, 35mm image is 24x36mm) the same as they did with prints, so it was more comparable image-to-print, but with it being switched around it's confusing.

(In the same way, they describe the mirrorless Olympus & Panasonic cameras as micro 4/3rds, or 4:3, which is length x width, but again any prints' dimensions are mentioned in the reverse order, width x length, so again it doesn't compare.)

Why is that? Also, does anyone know where it explains how sizes like 5x7 and 8x10 became popular sizes, because I don't see where any original image ever had those dimesions to where they would match up.

 larrytusaz's gear list:larrytusaz's gear list
Nikon 1 J1 Sony Alpha NEX-6 Sony E 50mm F1.8 OSS Nikon 1 Nikkor VR 10-30mm f/3.5-5.6 Sony E 16-50mm F3.5-5.6 PZ OSS +1 more
ForumParentFirstPreviousNextNext unread
Flat view
ForumParentFirstPreviousNextNext unread
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow