Aspect ratios.

As written, on rare occasions it does work well. Bresson made it work extremely well, at least with his selection edits… he was a rare calibre of photographer. 

But for so many images taken - and then shown - with 3:2 sensors today, there seems little to no care made with verticals to place, fill and frame visual components with the care and consideration that he typically would (for the images he printed).

Stanmore said

But for so many images taken - and then shown - with 3:2 sensors today, there seems little to no care made with verticals to place, fill and frame visual components with the care and consideration that he typically would (for the images he printed).

Hm -- well I agree with the bit in bold. But I also see the same pattern issues in 4:3 medium format digital users and 6x7 film users, to be honest. Part of why I got so bored with the Taylor Wessing Prize. 6x7, someone smack in the middle, 4x3, someone sat at the three quarter line facing into the frame, etc.

I'm far from convinced that other aspect ratios bring any magical advantages over 3:2. Indeed, 3:2 has some pretty interesting compositional possibilities. 

(We can of course stipulate that Purpleport displays 2:3 portrait poorly)

Edited by Unfocussed Mike

Lightingman said

The film is still available as well.   

5x7" is one of the formats of choice for DIY camera makers, lately, largely thanks to Harman and Adox's commitment to the format.

I guess it has advantages for DIY project maintainers in that it has less competition, but also there's a really huge range of lenses that can be pressed into service to cover that format.

And it's probably the smallest format where contact prints feel right when framed.

Unfocussed Mike said

Lightingman said

The film is still available as well.   

5x7" is one of the formats of choice for DIY camera makers, lately, largely thanks to Harman and Adox's commitment to the format.

I guess it has advantages for DIY project maintainers in that it has less competition, but also there's a really huge range of lenses that can be pressed into service to cover that format.

And it's probably the smallest format where contact prints feel right when framed.

Yes, I think Fomapan do it as well, that was my last batch before ‘retiring’  5x7 as you say, still produces good sized contact prints and I was doing “alternative processes “ like cyanotypes, Argyrotype ( Van Dyke) and very occasionally Palladium.

Colour film is, I think unavailable unless one wants to construct a jig and cut 10x8 down, but including processing would be around £30/shot!

Lightingman said

Unfocussed Mike said

Lightingman said

The film is still available as well.   

5x7" is one of the formats of choice for DIY camera makers, lately, largely thanks to Harman and Adox's commitment to the format.

I guess it has advantages for DIY project maintainers in that it has less competition, but also there's a really huge range of lenses that can be pressed into service to cover that format.

And it's probably the smallest format where contact prints feel right when framed.

Yes, I think Fomapan do it as well, that was my last batch before ‘retiring’  5x7 as you say, still produces good sized contact prints and I was doing “alternative processes “ like cyanotypes, Argyrotype ( Van Dyke) and very occasionally Palladium.

Colour film is, I think unavailable unless one wants to construct a jig and cut 10x8 down, but including processing would be around £30/shot!

Oh yes -- sorry, you're right -- Foma, not Adox. 

Unfocussed Mike said

Hm -- well I agree with the bit in bold. But I also see the same pattern issues in 4:3 medium format digital users and 6x7 film users, to be honest. Part of why I got so bored with the Taylor Wessing Prize. 6x7, someone smack in the middle, 4x3, someone sat at the three quarter line facing into the frame, etc.

I'm far from convinced that other aspect ratios bring any magical advantages over 3:2. Indeed, 3:2 has some pretty interesting compositional possibilities. 

(We can of course stipulate that Purpleport displays 2:3 portrait poorly)

 

Given that Taylor Wessing is a portraiture competition, 'smack in the middle' doesn't smack of compositional neglect. When there is simply head & shoulders, particularly in a 'non' environment, anything else can appear contrived with vertical framing. No ratio has any inherent 'catch all' advantage over another, but they all have their place(s). Consider wall art for example - 3:2 vertical can often appear  'unwieldy' in comparison to something like 5:7 or 5:4 in a typical domestic setting. These are not black & white issues / statements, but overall a high proportion of 3:2 verticals I see these days would clearly benefit from a crop-down.

Stanmore said

Unfocussed Mike said

Hm -- well I agree with the bit in bold. But I also see the same pattern issues in 4:3 medium format digital users and 6x7 film users, to be honest. Part of why I got so bored with the Taylor Wessing Prize. 6x7, someone smack in the middle, 4x3, someone sat at the three quarter line facing into the frame, etc.

I'm far from convinced that other aspect ratios bring any magical advantages over 3:2. Indeed, 3:2 has some pretty interesting compositional possibilities. 

(We can of course stipulate that Purpleport displays 2:3 portrait poorly)

 

Given that Taylor Wessing is a portraiture competition, 'smack in the middle' doesn't smack of compositional neglect. When there is simply head & shoulders, particularly in a 'non' environment, anything else can appear contrived with vertical framing. No ratio has any inherent 'catch all' advantage over another, but they all have their place(s). Consider wall art for example - 3:2 vertical can often appear  'unwieldy' in comparison to something like 5:7 or 5:4 in a typical domestic setting. These are not black & white issues / statements, but overall a high proportion of 3:2 verticals I see these days would clearly benefit from a crop-down.

4x5 vertical may an easier ratio to compose for than 2x3.

Maybe always using the full frame teaches one to compose for 2x3?

I sometimes find that 3:2 looks too tall in portrait mode and crop to something nearer 5:4, especially for an actual portrait.

Stanmore said

Given that Taylor Wessing is a portraiture competition, 'smack in the middle' doesn't smack of compositional neglect.

This isn't how it feels viewing the exhibition.

I print my digital shots in A4 or A3 sized paper and keep the prints in folders with plastic pockets so I crop my images to 1:1.41 during my edits. When I'm looking through my raw files now I dont conider any other crop aspect ratios.  I never got into printing a lot smaller than the papersize leaving a huge border around the edges.

Not really a fan of square crop but would love a Hassleblad to change my mind,   with film I'm shooting 35mm and with 120 film I'm using a Mayima 645, but have left the darkroom days behind me so only dabble in it for the fun of developing the rolls but never print it any longer.

~B

My default is 1.414:1

Dynamic Symmetry, innit?

Simon Carter said

My default is 1.414:1

Dynamic Symmetry, innit?

Also much more efficient use of paper ;-)

Back in the day 10 x 8 inches was pretty much the standard print size for submissions to magazines, stock picture agencies etc. Hasselblad used to try and promote their square format but most people nearly always made a 10 x 8 crop. Likewise 35mm was usually printed on 10 x 8  paper. With 5 x 4 inch cameras of course no cropping was needed.

In my experience post-processing, aspect ratio 'rightness' is best established 'after the fact'.

Even when the obviously planned ratio is a match to the 'rightness' ratio, it's typically just a close approximation to that ratio.

Interestingly, I find that the vast majority of out-of-camera images benefit (in my opinion) greatly from an alternative aspect to that intended.

And like Stanmore "I often wonder why otherwise largely competent photographers aren’t seeing this with their work".

The only 'ratio' I continue to struggle with (even though probably not a ratio in this context) is the Fibonacci Sequence: it just does my head in trying to make it work with other people's work.

Bullets has given me something new to explore with the 1:1.41, so thank you Bullets :-)

Retoucher Cam said

In my experience post-processing, aspect ratio 'rightness' is best established 'after the fact'.

Even when the obviously planned ratio is a match to the 'rightness' ratio, it's typically just a close approximation to that ratio.

Interestingly, I find that the vast majority of out-of-camera images benefit (in my opinion) greatly from an alternative aspect to that intended.

And like Stanmore "I often wonder why otherwise largely competent photographers aren’t seeing this with their work".

The only 'ratio' I continue to struggle with (even though probably not a ratio in this context) is the Fibonacci Sequence: it just does my head in trying to make it work with other people's work.

Bullets has given me something new to explore with the 1:1.41, so thank you Bullets :-)

It’s one way of working.

The other is to compose to fit the camera.

I would pick up the Pentax 67 or 5x4 and shoot 5x4 format, or 35mm and shoot 2x3 format. 
For me, it just seems natural.

The only one I struggle with is panoramas because I use the 24mm Tilt-Shift and stitch later.

So as usual I think there’s more than one way to shoot.