Velocity Reviews (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/index.php)
-   Digital Photography (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/f37-digital-photography.html)
-   -   What's the fuss over 3:2 aspect ratio? (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/t685687-whats-the-fuss-over-3-2-aspect-ratio.html)

 DMac 05-27-2009 03:05 AM

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.brisbaneweddingphotograph...pect-ratio.htm

Doug.

 eNo 05-27-2009 05:05 AM

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

On May 26, 8:05*pm, DMac <d-...@d-mac.info.delete> wrote:
> 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.brisbaneweddingphotograph...pect-ratio.htm
>
> Doug.

Don't know about the earlier thread, but 3:2 corresponds to the most
popular 4x6 print size (4:6 = 2:3 = 3:2).

eNo
http://esfotoclix.com

 Matt Ion 05-27-2009 06:55 AM

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

DMac wrote:
> 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.brisbaneweddingphotograph...pect-ratio.htm

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.

 snapper@mailinator.com 05-27-2009 12:17 PM

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

On Tue, 26 May 2009 22:05:13 -0700 (PDT), eNo <grandepatzer@gmail.com> wrote:

> Don't know about the earlier thread, but 3:2 corresponds to the most
> popular 4x6 print size (4:6 = 2:3 = 3:2).

No it doesn't.

 Peter Irwin 05-27-2009 12:21 PM

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

eNo <grandepatzer@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Don't know about the earlier thread, but 3:2 corresponds to the most
> popular 4x6 print size (4:6 = 2:3 = 3:2).

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.
--
pirwin@ktb.net

 Matt Ion 05-27-2009 01:21 PM

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

Alfred Molon wrote:
> In article <gvio5n\$9lm\$1@news.eternal-september.org>, Matt Ion says...
>
>> 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.

>
> Exactly - and 4:3 is closer to circular than 3:2.

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

Like I said, the whole argument is ridiculous.

 sligoNoSPAMjoe@hotmail.com 05-27-2009 02:33 PM

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

On Wed, 27 May 2009 12:38:18 +0200, Alfred Molon
<alfred_molon@yahoo.com> wrote:

>In article <gvio5n\$9lm\$1@news.eternal-september.org>, Matt Ion says...
>
>> 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.

>
>Exactly - and 4:3 is closer to circular than 3:2.

Not really. Few people would choose a circle or a square

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.

 Wally 05-27-2009 03:41 PM

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

On Wed, 27 May 2009 10:33:19 -0400, sligoNoSPAMjoe@hotmail.com wrote:

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

Number worship.

Just like the rule of thirds.

Wally

 Bruce 05-27-2009 05:55 PM

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

eNo <grandepatzer@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>Don't know about the earlier thread, but 3:2 corresponds to the most
>popular 4x6 print size (4:6 =3D 2:3 =3D 3:2).

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

 jeffc 05-28-2009 11:40 AM

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

Most cameras do not have 100% viewfinders so the resulting 'negative'
has more to it than was seen at
the time of shooting. When cropped to remove the unforeseen parts of
the image, the 2:3 ratio often
is well suited to a 3.5 x 5 or a 5x7 (as opposed to a 4x6 or 5 x 7.5)
but aspect ratio in the 'print' should be determined
by the desired composition -- not some arbitrary numerical
relationship. Unlike painters, we do not have the convenience
of altering perspective and content to suit a predetermined
'frame' (with the exception of view cameras and Photoshop warp and
transform with their inherent distortions).

Those who argue for a specific format fail to recognize the value of
having the entire projected image of the lens
available after the exposure is made.
Those who argue for a round or square format fail to recognize the
need of some people to fit 3D reality into a 2D
window determined by a camera manufacturer or paper supplier. The
often taught concepts of the image being seen
either as a mirror or a window reinforces the need of some for a
'frame to fill' which more often than not is an arbitrary decision
e.g. 3:4, 2:3, 4:5, 6x4.5, 6x6, 6x7, 6x8 (Fuji680), 6x9, 6x12, 6x17
and the Cirkut Camera variable length... not to mention all those old
Kodak roll film formats. The solution for me was the Sinar Roll film
back which allowed mid-roll
changes ranging from 6x4.5 to 6x12 -- but ultimately what I was doing
was deciding (in the field) what portion of the
projected image I would be using in the final print. With due respect
to Weston's previsualization, there were times when
having just a little more of what fell outside the frame would have

As has been said, the final crop and presentation format should be
part of the aesthetic decisions made by
the 'artist' in best revealing whatever it was that compelled him/her
to release the shutter at the specific time and
with the lens pointed in a specific direction.

Photography is a method of recording a two dimensional version of
three dimensional reality at a specific moment using a mechanical
(electronic)/optical system. The art is in where you point the device
and when you release the shutter.

All times are GMT. The time now is 08:02 PM.