Why 4:3?

[Rich42]

Im very sensitive to the shape. But the image dictates it. Not something else.

You're still using a shape that has an effect on the viewer, both in its own right and in relation to the image it encloses. Whether you've chosen that shape as a constraint or an accommodation ... that's only a matter of working habits. Whether you think of the shape as something that has any power on its own or not ... your viewer's can't read your mind.

You're just repeating yourself and ignoring the point.

Of course, every print I make has shape, a rectangle. We've established that ad nauseam.

The laws of physics are the same where I live as where you live. I agree.

But that rectangle is a property of the image, not the camera. I don't let the camera's physical properties influence the composition I see. And that distinction makes all the difference in the world.

 

[Rich42]

Thank you. Like you, I was used to the 3:2 ratio of FF sensors, and MF 4:3 felt a bit strange. I did use 4:3 for two years back in 2010-2011 when I used to use m4/3 cameras.

Now I love 4:3. This is one of the points for sticking with MF. I don't like 3:2 anymore, it feels long and narrow. 4:3 is so much better, and specially I love how the wide landscapes looks not stretched in a 4:3 ratio.

Me too. I love 4:3. However, that said, with the 20-35 at 20mm (which I use a lot), I tend top crop off the bottom 1/4th of the frame at my feet, thus making a sort of Pano.

What aspect ratio is that? It ain't 4:3! LOL.

I think that is just the classic pano 16:9 ..

If you remove 1/4 from the short side then the 3 -> 2.25, which gives you 4:2.5

And you multiply both sides by 4 to get a whole number and.. voila 16:9

You guys actually calculate ratios when you shoot?!

When you print?! (Oh, I forgot, no one prints anymore).

Ratios are really so important?

You actually come up with a number? A specific number?!

Really?!

I have prints all over the walls of my house. Some are square. Some are long and narrow. I know the X and Y dimensions, for sure. Because I cut the mats and made the frames.















But the image ratios?

C'mon! Why? What the heck does an arbitrary number ratio have to do with anything in the creative process?

Just because film manufacturers and camera makers had to decide on some specific size and shape to make their product? That means your image must assume that shape?

When you fill your car's tank with gasoline, do you then drive non-stop until the tank is completely used? Or do you use varying amounts of fuel to suit the needs of each shorter trip you need to make, up to and including using a full tank?

(Yeah, I know, not a great analogy, but the best one I could come up with.)

--
Rich
"That's like, just your opinion, man." ;-)

 

[TimoKoo]

I kinda think you completely ignored what I said.

Cropping after the fact is a completely different thing, no matter how loosely you frame something, and no matter how much room you leave for later adjustment.

When you take a photograph, you convert the ( to you) visible 3D scene to a 2D picture.

And when taking photos you moving in the 3D space.

When you do the post correction you manage the 2D picture from your camera.

No amount of cropping can change the spacing between subject elements within the image, it can only affect the areas around the edges of the frame.The spacing between elements within the frame can only be affected at the time of shooting by choice of viewpoint, shooting distance, focal length etc.

I agree with viewing point, but I disagree with shooting distance, focal length and possibly with etc. They have no effect if there's pixels enough to crop.

But the viewpoint is important. It sets the picture. It says if the thing B in the picture is behind of the thing A or besides of A. And how much the thing B is behind of the thing A if B is behind.

The depth of field is another thing photgrapher sets when taking a photo. Hard to correct in post. You can't change the aperture in InDesign.

You can crop the edges of an image and change its overall shape in post, but you can't change the basic composition, you have to get this right in camera.

I think that basic composition is selecting the point of view, or viewpoint and the DOF. When taking a photograph you set those and it's hard to change them in post.

For some people, it it easier to make those compositional choices within the constraints of a certain aspect ratio frame where the edges are visible in the viewfinder to provide reference points. For those people, a camera which allows you to change the shape of the viewfinder is very helpful indeed. For example, if I'm shooting a single frame wide pano, using a camera with a fixed square viewfinder is not a great choice is it?

It sounds to me like you have the ability to do this mentally and don't need technological assistance to visualise the frame constraints. Brilliant for you! But for those of us who can't, being able to see the effect of different aspect ratios on composition in the viewfinder is very helpful. I recently upgraded my A7Rii to a A7Riv because the ii does not support 1:1 or 4:3 aspect ratios in the EVF. The only option is gridlines, which I used, but hated. As a primarily square shooter at the moment, using a 3:2 viewfinder is horrible. The 1:1 option in the EVF transforms the shooting experience for me.

None of this means you are bound to the original aspect ratio decision, you can change it in post, at least as far as cropping away the edges of the image. But you can't change the spacing between elements in the frame after the fact by cropping, only how much of the edges you retain.

 

[xx573V3xx]

4.854 : 3

The golden ratio, how do you translate it to aspect ratio?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_ratio

Best regards

Erik

close to 16 : 10

(16.18 : 10 actual)

 

[Rob de Loe]

Im very sensitive to the shape. But the image dictates it. Not something else.

You're still using a shape that has an effect on the viewer, both in its own right and in relation to the image it encloses. Whether you've chosen that shape as a constraint or an accommodation ... that's only a matter of working habits. Whether you think of the shape as something that has any power on its own or not ... your viewer's can't read your mind.

You're just repeating yourself and ignoring the point.

Of course, every print I make has shape, a rectangle. We've established that ad nauseam.

The laws of physics are the same where I live as where you live. I agree.

But that rectangle is a property of the image, not the camera. I don't let the camera's physical properties influence the composition I see. And that distinction makes all the difference in the world.

But why limit yourself to a rectangle? Are you a slave to the camera's physical (rectangular) properties? Why not use circles, pentagons, hexagons, triangles, or completely arbitrary polygons?

 

[Doppler9000]

Im very sensitive to the shape. But the image dictates it. Not something else.

You're still using a shape that has an effect on the viewer, both in its own right and in relation to the image it encloses. Whether you've chosen that shape as a constraint or an accommodation ... that's only a matter of working habits. Whether you think of the shape as something that has any power on its own or not ... your viewer's can't read your mind.

You're just repeating yourself and ignoring the point.

Of course, every print I make has shape, a rectangle. We've established that ad nauseam.

The laws of physics are the same where I live as where you live. I agree.

But that rectangle is a property of the image, not the camera. I don't let the camera's physical properties influence the composition I see. And that distinction makes all the difference in the world.

But why limit yourself to a rectangle? Are you a slave to the camera's physical (rectangular) properties? Why not use circles, pentagons, hexagons, triangles, or completely arbitrary polygons?

Now you’re thinking outside the square!

 

[Rich42]

Im very sensitive to the shape. But the image dictates it. Not something else.

You're still using a shape that has an effect on the viewer, both in its own right and in relation to the image it encloses. Whether you've chosen that shape as a constraint or an accommodation ... that's only a matter of working habits. Whether you think of the shape as something that has any power on its own or not ... your viewer's can't read your mind.

You're just repeating yourself and ignoring the point.

Of course, every print I make has shape, a rectangle. We've established that ad nauseam.

The laws of physics are the same where I live as where you live. I agree.

But that rectangle is a property of the image, not the camera. I don't let the camera's physical properties influence the composition I see. And that distinction makes all the difference in the world.

But why limit yourself to a rectangle? Are you a slave to the camera's physical (rectangular) properties? Why not use circles, pentagons, hexagons, triangles, or completely arbitrary polygons?

Sure. Have at it. An oval cutter was a popular thing in picture framing shops for as long as I can remember. I don't think I've seen it used much since the 90s. And not much then.

Any shape is valid. I've seen free-form.

I've never used any shape but a rectangle. Frankly, I've always thought any other framing shape looked cheesy and amateurish. In the extreme. Call me quirky.

 

[Rob de Loe]

Im very sensitive to the shape. But the image dictates it. Not something else.

You're still using a shape that has an effect on the viewer, both in its own right and in relation to the image it encloses. Whether you've chosen that shape as a constraint or an accommodation ... that's only a matter of working habits. Whether you think of the shape as something that has any power on its own or not ... your viewer's can't read your mind.

You're just repeating yourself and ignoring the point.

Of course, every print I make has shape, a rectangle. We've established that ad nauseam.

The laws of physics are the same where I live as where you live. I agree.

But that rectangle is a property of the image, not the camera. I don't let the camera's physical properties influence the composition I see. And that distinction makes all the difference in the world.

But why limit yourself to a rectangle? Are you a slave to the camera's physical (rectangular) properties? Why not use circles, pentagons, hexagons, triangles, or completely arbitrary polygons?

Sure. Have at it. An oval cutter was a popular thing in picture framing shops for as long as I can remember. I don't think I've seen it used much since the 90s. And not much then.

Any shape is valid. I've seen free-form.

I've never used any shape but a rectangle. Frankly, I've always thought any other framing shape looked cheesy and amateurish. In the extreme. Call me quirky.

I'm with you on the cheesiness of shapes that aren't rectangles, but my question was in the spirit of "in for a penny, in for a pound". You feel very strongly that the photographer should not slavishly use the aspect ratio the camera's engineers settled on. I understand that position, but I think the rectangular shape is equally a choice that you don't have to be limited to.

It's obvious from this conversation that people think and work in different ways. I think that's just fine. I find using the camera's default aspect ratio is liberating rather than constraining. It frees me to focus on what's in the frame. Your way of thinking about images is diametrically opposed, and perfectly valid because it works for you.

Bad analogy time: When preparing documents in Word, some people absolutely obsess about typefaces. I like a nice, professional document, but when the default typeface Microsoft used was Calibri, I almost always used Calibri. My focus was the content rather than the typeface. Microsoft recently switched to a new default typeface, Aptos. It looks nice, so I'm happy to use it. Am I a slave to Microsoft Word because my focus is the content, and I don't spend any time choosing a typeface for every document?

 

[JimKasson]

But why limit yourself to a rectangle? Are you a slave to the camera's physical (rectangular) properties? Why not use circles, pentagons, hexagons, triangles, or completely arbitrary polygons?

Like this?

Los Robles

www.kasson.com

--

the last word the last word - Photography meets digital computer technology. Photography wins -- most of the time.

Photography meets digital computer technology. Photography wins -- most of the time.

blog.kasson.com

 

[bobby350z]

eom.

 

[Rob de Loe]

But why limit yourself to a rectangle? Are you a slave to the camera's physical (rectangular) properties? Why not use circles, pentagons, hexagons, triangles, or completely arbitrary polygons?

Like this?



https://www.kasson.com/gallery/los-robles/

There we go!

 

[Rich42]

Im very sensitive to the shape. But the image dictates it. Not something else.

You're still using a shape that has an effect on the viewer, both in its own right and in relation to the image it encloses. Whether you've chosen that shape as a constraint or an accommodation ... that's only a matter of working habits. Whether you think of the shape as something that has any power on its own or not ... your viewer's can't read your mind.

You're just repeating yourself and ignoring the point.

Of course, every print I make has shape, a rectangle. We've established that ad nauseam.

The laws of physics are the same where I live as where you live. I agree.

But that rectangle is a property of the image, not the camera. I don't let the camera's physical properties influence the composition I see. And that distinction makes all the difference in the world.

But why limit yourself to a rectangle? Are you a slave to the camera's physical (rectangular) properties? Why not use circles, pentagons, hexagons, triangles, or completely arbitrary polygons?

Sure. Have at it. An oval cutter was a popular thing in picture framing shops for as long as I can remember. I don't think I've seen it used much since the 90s. And not much then.

Any shape is valid. I've seen free-form.

I've never used any shape but a rectangle. Frankly, I've always thought any other framing shape looked cheesy and amateurish. In the extreme. Call me quirky.

I'm with you on the cheesiness of shapes that aren't rectangles, but my question was in the spirit of "in for a penny, in for a pound". You feel very strongly that the photographer should not slavishly use the aspect ratio the camera's engineers settled on. I understand that position, but I think the rectangular shape is equally a choice that you don't have to be limited to.

OK.

It's obvious from this conversation that people think and work in different ways. I think that's just fine. I find using the camera's default aspect ratio is liberating rather than constraining. It frees me to focus on what's in the frame. Your way of thinking about images is diametrically opposed, and perfectly valid because it works for you.

Bad analogy time: When preparing documents in Word, some people absolutely obsess about typefaces. I like a nice, professional document, but when the default typeface Microsoft used was Calibri, I almost always used Calibri. My focus was the content rather than the typeface. Microsoft recently switched to a new default typeface, Aptos. It looks nice, so I'm happy to use it. Am I a slave to Microsoft Word because my focus is the content, and I don't spend any time choosing a typeface for every document?

No. You're not a slave in the limited context of creating a simple document. Or similar, repetitive, documents that have little to no design component.

But what if your job is page layout and graphic design for advertising of clothes or cosmetics or just articles about celebrities for publishing in Vogue or Harpers Bazaar? A page containing three levels of headlines, body text, captions, and unique typographic elements?

13 pt. Aptos, only, might be somewhat limiting in that situation.

 

[Rich42]

But why limit yourself to a rectangle? Are you a slave to the camera's physical (rectangular) properties? Why not use circles, pentagons, hexagons, triangles, or completely arbitrary polygons?

Like this?



https://www.kasson.com/gallery/los-robles/

Jim,

I'm sorry. Nothing there is 4:3 or 3:2 or 4:5, 7:5 or 16:9.

You seem to have missed the memo. What you're doing is unacceptable in photography. Besides, where are the sprocket holes?!

--
Rich
"That's like, just your opinion, man." ;-)

 

[Rob de Loe]

I'm with you on the cheesiness of shapes that aren't rectangles, but my question was in the spirit of "in for a penny, in for a pound". You feel very strongly that the photographer should not slavishly use the aspect ratio the camera's engineers settled on. I understand that position, but I think the rectangular shape is equally a choice that you don't have to be limited to.

OK.

It's obvious from this conversation that people think and work in different ways. I think that's just fine. I find using the camera's default aspect ratio is liberating rather than constraining. It frees me to focus on what's in the frame. Your way of thinking about images is diametrically opposed, and perfectly valid because it works for you.

Bad analogy time: When preparing documents in Word, some people absolutely obsess about typefaces. I like a nice, professional document, but when the default typeface Microsoft used was Calibri, I almost always used Calibri. My focus was the content rather than the typeface. Microsoft recently switched to a new default typeface, Aptos. It looks nice, so I'm happy to use it. Am I a slave to Microsoft Word because my focus is the content, and I don't spend any time choosing a typeface for every document?

No. You're not a slave in the limited context of creating a simple document. Or similar, repetitive, documents that have little to no design component.

But what if your job is page layout and graphic design for advertising of clothes or cosmetics or just articles about celebrities for publishing in Vogue or Harpers Bazaar? A page containing three levels of headlines, body text, captions, and unique typographic elements?

13 pt. Aptos, only, might be somewhat limiting in that situation.

Sure, of course. Context rules.

 

[Rob de Loe]

As a slight tangent on this fun conversation, I predict that Rich is on the right side of technological history.

I can easily imagine a near future where the whole concept of pointing a device at the world, in a certain direction, during one moment in time, will seem exceptionally quaint. Instead, the direction we're heading is panoptic lenses and cameras.

If anyone does anything as old fashioned as creating a still image of a moment in time, with a fixed angle of view, it's going to be by selecting that moment and that angle of view from a continuous panoptic stream -- perhaps a bit like Rich selects the image from the larger 'stream' of data created by what was recorded by the sensor in that moment.

Ironically, in some respects this panoptic idea is what we're doing now when we point our cameras and press the shutter button. Except in this panoptic future I see in my crystal ball, the moment of selection can happen any time because the stream is recorded and available. Right now we have to make the decision while we're in the stream.

Of course, like all those boring holiday videos that tourists make, people are rarely going to go back to the stream to find those still images. Maybe AI will do it all for us. "Panopticon 3000 -- I enjoyed grandma's birthday party last week. Snip an image of grandma blowing out the candles, and create one of those old timey 'print' things for me."

 

[paulraphael]

But the image ratios?

C'mon! Why? What the heck does an arbitrary number ratio have to do with anything in the creative process?

At this point, you're just dismissing outright 2000 years of esthetic philosophy. Did you even glance at the Bringhurst piece, or do a search on these ideas?

Just because film manufacturers and camera makers had to decide on some specific size and shape to make their product? That means your image must assume that shape?

Everyone agrees that you don't have to use the camera design as a constraint. Many people choose to.

 

[Andre Yew]

But why limit yourself to a rectangle? Are you a slave to the camera's physical (rectangular) properties? Why not use circles, pentagons, hexagons, triangles, or completely arbitrary polygons?

David Brookover has a series of platinum-palladium prints where the printer paints the material on in a similar shape to the subject, and the rest of the paper is left blank. It's interesting that we still view it in a rectangular context.


David Brookover's Fibonacci



--

Login • Instagram

Welcome back to Instagram. Sign in to check out what your friends, family & interests have been capturing & sharing around the world.

www.instagram.com

 

[Rich42]

But the image ratios?

C'mon! Why? What the heck does an arbitrary number ratio have to do with anything in the creative process?

At this point, you're just dismissing outright 2000 years of esthetic philosophy.

No I'm not. I asked what an arbitrary number imposed on the artist has to do with creativity.

Did you even glance at the Bringhurst piece,

Yes. I've consumed many such texts.

I earned a substantial part of my livelihood as a graphic artist and typographer. I think I'm damned good in that regard. My father taught me how to draw letterforms and to hand set type when I was about 5. I had my own printing press and was earning a living with it (and photography) when I was 15.

I hand coded in the Postscript page description language in the early 80s before Adobe's first release of Illustrator and had Fontographer from its earliest versions.

or do a search on these ideas?

Just because film manufacturers and camera makers had to decide on some specific size and shape to make their product? That means your image must assume that shape?

Everyone agrees that you don't have to use the camera design as a constraint. Many people choose to.

I would restate that as: "Many people do so blindly," having no realization they're making any choice at all . . . or following some dogma they learned.

 

[paulraphael]

But the image ratios?

C'mon! Why? What the heck does an arbitrary number ratio have to do with anything in the creative process?

At this point, you're just dismissing outright 2000 years of esthetic philosophy.

No I'm not. I asked what an arbitrary number imposed on the artist has to do with creativity.

Constraints can help people with creativity. No one forced Shakespeare to write sonnets. Or Bach to follow the rules for fugues. Or Robert Frank to stick to the 2:3 ratio built into his camera.

I don't know if you can call these constraints strictly arbitrary. They all evolved from experimentation. The ones that stuck presumably did because people liked them.

Did you even glance at the Bringhurst piece,

Everyone agrees that you don't have to use the camera design as a constraint. Many people choose to.

I would restate that as: "Many people do so blindly," having no realization they're making any choice at all . . . or following some dogma they learned.

People do all kinds of stuff blindly. This thread has been about shedding light on the history of something that might seem arbitrary and pointless.

I'm not interested in dogma. Everyone here seems to agree that you can choose to crop or not.

 

[DavidMillier]

Shooting distance is part of viewpoint, I think, as it is fundamental to perspective. You can't change the perspective in post by cropping, you would have to warp the image somehow.