What's the fuss over 3:2 aspect ratio?

An earlier thread about 3:2 Aspect ratio being jumped on by supposed
experts got me thinking. I use all three of the popular aspect ratios
now being used with digital cameras. I put together an short article on
the subject if anyone is interested.
http://www.brisbaneweddingphotographers.com/gallery/Aspect-ratio.htm

Doug.

 

The whole debate is patently ridiculous. Shoot a little wider and crop
it to whatever f'ing dimensions suit the application. Big freakin' deal.

NO rectangular sensor is the perfect shape - the optimum sensor shape is
circular, to match the actual light pattern projected by the lens.
Anything else is a waste of optics.

 

That's just a by-product of the popularity of 35mm film cameras.
When 126 instamatics were popular (and before that 12 on 120, 620 or
127) there were a lot of square prints. I think square format was
actually a rather good choice for snapshots.

The popularity of 24x36mm on 35mm film had very little to do with
any popular preference for a 3:2 aspect ratio.

Peter.

 

1:1 is closer still, so why not just go all the way?

Like I said, the whole argument is ridiculous.

 

Not really. Few people would choose a circle or a square
image to a rectangle. That is evidenced from your comments.

Over history the golden rectangle (1.6180339887 ratio) has
generally been chosen as the most esthetically pleasing.

From a practical view, we use rectangles of an image not a
circle. We rotate the camera to obtain a vertical subject so while we
are using a rectangular image out of a circle, it is not the circle
that is important.

 

Number worship.

Just like the rule of thirds.

Wally

 

On the contrary, the 4x6 print size followed the 35mm film format, not
the other way around.

 

The aspect ratio should really be determined by the subject. Modern
DSLRs allow cropping to small portions of the original image. Maybe we
should have a focusing screen with popular aspect ratios marked as a
guide?

 

All of that by-passes the convenience of being able to buy a $5 frame in
standard aspect ratio or needing to shell out $50 plus for a custom made
frame to fit an aspect ratio you invent.

Apart from the framing issue there is also the Album issue. A very well
made, flush fit, standard aspect ratio wedding album costs about $100. A
custom made one and the prices start at about $350... Provided you use
standard aspect ratio images. Custom sizes and it's pay by the hour to
make it.

I agree in many of the things you say and assume you are not in the
situation where the convenience or cost of framing your prints is an
issue. It is for me, particularly when I construct albums and coffee
table books.

Your grids would be very helpful to those who have no cost restraints
and don't mind paying for custom size finishing. Actually getting a Pro
lab to print odd shaped prints could be something else again.

My all time favourite camera is a square aspect ratio, Mamiya C330. It
allowed me to compose a shot with my own version of your grids which I
drew on the viewing glass.

Sadly Digital cameras all conform to aspect ratios determined long ago
to be "perfect portrait" or the biggest you can fit on a 35mm film and
still have a reasonable cost lens. Maybe one day... Hmmm.

 

Has the custom of matting photographs not yet made its way to
Australia?

 

Oh it certainly has Tony. I happen to just installed a nice little matt
cutter that lets me cut any shape I feel like, straight from the
computer. http://www.gunnar-europe.com/index.php?id=13.

Now if you can make an 8x10 print fit in a 8x12 (A4) frame with a custom
cut matt, and not look like it's out of place, you'll get my attention
immediately. I've trashed quite a few sheets of matt material trying to
achieve the impossible.

If however you worked in my studio, you'd discover it's not until you
get to very, large 16x24 and larger print size that a matt can be longer
or wider to accommodate a standard size frame and you can get away
with it... *IF* the odd measurement happens to be in the vertical
dimension. If it's in the horizontal dimension, you need to start larger
again before it doesn't look out of place.

Try as I might, I've never been able to make a 16x24 (landscape) print
look right in a frame designed for 4:3 aspect ratio, no matter how large
the matt is.

I might change my mind next month when the PMA is held in conjunction
with the framing industry show in Sydney. I'm told picture framing
suppliers can perform miracles in hard times. Like supplying ISO
standard size frames to suit 3:2 aspect ratio in a country committed to
metric measurements 30 years ago... We'll see!

 

Give me time, I'm working on it. Getting over the insertion of steel
rods in my back and the subsequent spinal fusion is slowing me down a
little. Check again in July, will you?

 

Well, see, we do it a bit differently in the US. If we have an 8 x10
print that we want matted, we buy a standard frame larger than 8 x 12.
Like a 9 x 12 or a 10 x 13. American ingenuity, you know.

Perhaps the rules are different in Oz, and only 8 x 12s are available
at Wallaby-Mart or wherever it is you shop.

 

For some reason this strikes me as enormously funny.

 

Actually A4 size frames are everywhere. They fit home made certificates.
and cost under $2.00 when bought in boxes of 10. All Australian dollar
value here.

It's the proper picture frames in ISO sizes that are not made for the US
market we have trouble getting. 4:3 Aspect ratio frames are cheap as
chips. I can't buy the glass as cheaply as I can the frames so I buy
those frames to stay competitive. 20"x30" frames for $11.97.

A case (50 sheets) of 2mm glass is the only way I get glass at wholesale
prices and by the time I allow for wastage and the odd breakage it costs
me close enough to $14.00 for that size glass. The cheap frames come
with backing board too. Some even have half way decent matts in them.

Wallaby-mart in in New York City mate. My wife is the only member of
this family who shops at 'marts'. We have to order all our goods and
weekly supplies for delivery to the ferry terminal or pick them up in a
neighbour's power boat when at home. We only have a small convenience
store here.
http://www.tangalooma.com/info/resort_information/facilities/resort_shop/default.asp

Oddly I live up the hill, just behind it! If you like paying 90% over
mainland prices for what you buy, I suppose it's convenient. Duh. That's
why it a convenience store I guess!

 

Well stated. I keep the grid on my screen only as a guide. The "rule of
thirds" may be and should be violated whenever the subject says so.

 

Have you considered purchasing frames in section pairs?

http://www.dickblick.com/products/nielsen-metal-frame-sections-silver-style-93/

Yes, I know they are not metric sizes, but you can trim the mat and maintain
your desired aspect ratios.

 

Matt Ion wrote:

I prefer triangular myself...

;-)

 

Plenty of framing suppliers have what they call a "chomp service" where
you buy the frames pre-cut so you only have to under pin them, cut some
backing board and glass the make whatever you wish to suit to print.

It's these sort of frames that cost an arm and a leg compared to the
cheap stuff dumped in Australia when the Asian makers over produce for
the US market.

 

There's no point to a rule which is broken whenever it's useful to do
so.