Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > What's the fuss over 3:2 aspect ratio?

Reply
Thread Tools

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

 
 
Peter
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-30-2009
"Chris Malcolm" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Peter <(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:
>> "Crippled DSLRs" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:(E-Mail Removed)...

>
>>> As someone else stated, the subject determines the cropping ratio--it
>>> must.
>>> I don't think there's one print I've ever made during my lifetime that
>>> accurately fits any of the "standard" aspect ratios. Only the lazy, the
>>> snapshooters, and the incompetent photographers and artists would abide
>>> by
>>> someone else's idea of how to crop their compositions. I use those
>>> alignment/cropping grids as quick guidelines only, so as not to
>>> inadvertently clip something needed later. This too is why I despise any
>>> viewfinder that isn't 100%. They're nearly useless. I make every pixel
>>> count, as any seasoned photographer should. Frame/mat-makers and
>>> paper-suppliers don't determine my compositions for me. I tell them what
>>> size frames that they have to make for me, while I keep a sharp and
>>> accurate paper-trimmer handy.
>>>
>>> "There are none so lost as those who follow."
>>>
>>> That simple saying is deeply true in all walks and beliefs in life. This
>>> includes letting someone else dictate your compositions for you because
>>> you're too mentally lame or lack any creativity of your own.
>>>
>>> Keep on arguing about "standard" aspect ratios. It lets everyone know
>>> which
>>> of you are the blase snapshooters or the tomes of sheep-following
>>> pretend-photographer trolls online.

>
>> 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.

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



Which is why I used quotes.

--
Peter

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Peter
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-30-2009
"Chris Malcolm" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems DMac <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> Chris Malcolm wrote:
>>> In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Peter <(E-Mail Removed)>
>>> wrote:
>>>> "Crippled DSLRs" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>>> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>
>>>>> As someone else stated, the subject determines the cropping ratio--it
>>>>> must.
>>>>> I don't think there's one print I've ever made during my lifetime that
>>>>> accurately fits any of the "standard" aspect ratios. Only the lazy,
>>>>> the
>>>>> snapshooters, and the incompetent photographers and artists would
>>>>> abide by
>>>>> someone else's idea of how to crop their compositions. I use those
>>>>> alignment/cropping grids as quick guidelines only, so as not to
>>>>> inadvertently clip something needed later. This too is why I despise
>>>>> any
>>>>> viewfinder that isn't 100%. They're nearly useless. I make every pixel
>>>>> count, as any seasoned photographer should. Frame/mat-makers and
>>>>> paper-suppliers don't determine my compositions for me. I tell them
>>>>> what
>>>>> size frames that they have to make for me, while I keep a sharp and
>>>>> accurate paper-trimmer handy.
>>>>>
>>>>> "There are none so lost as those who follow."
>>>>>
>>>>> That simple saying is deeply true in all walks and beliefs in life.
>>>>> This
>>>>> includes letting someone else dictate your compositions for you
>>>>> because
>>>>> you're too mentally lame or lack any creativity of your own.
>>>>>
>>>>> Keep on arguing about "standard" aspect ratios. It lets everyone know
>>>>> which
>>>>> of you are the blase snapshooters or the tomes of sheep-following
>>>>> pretend-photographer trolls online.
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> There's no point to a rule which is broken whenever it's useful to do
>>> so.

>
>> I have yet to see a picture composed to the rule of thirds that would
>> look better (as in more pleasing) were it composed differently. Even
>> 16:3 aspect ratio.

>
> There have been quite a number of painters and art critics who thought
> the golden section was a definite improvement on thirds.
>



To my way of thinking the golden section is a client who commissions a
project.

--
Peter

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Bob Larter
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-30-2009
tony cooper wrote:
> On Fri, 29 May 2009 11:28:19 +1000, DMac <(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:
>
>> 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.

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


Hey, don't project D-Mac onto the rest of us in Oz! He's a whole subject
of his own.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
 
Reply With Quote
 
Bob Larter
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-30-2009
Jeff R. wrote:
> DMac wrote:
>> I have yet to see a picture composed to the rule of thirds that would
>> look better (as in more pleasing) were it composed differently. Even
>> 16:3 aspect ratio.

>
> DMac's example of composition:
> http://www.mendosus.com/photography/composition.jpg
>
> 'nuff said.


Oh dear.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
 
Reply With Quote
 
frank
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-30-2009
On May 30, 2:45*pm, Bob Larter <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Jeff R. wrote:
> > DMac wrote:
> >> I have yet to see a picture composed to the rule of thirds that would
> >> look better (as in more pleasing) were it composed differently. Even
> >> 16:3 aspect ratio.

>
> > DMac's example of composition:
> >http://www.mendosus.com/photography/composition.jpg

>
> > 'nuff said.

>
> Oh dear.
>
> --
> * * W
> * . | ,. w , * "Some people are alive only because
> * *\|/ *\|/ * * it is illegal to kill them." * *Perna condita delenda est
> ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------


I would have asked for a different tree if I wanted a hair transplant,
but hey, mebbee down under they have restrictions on the type of rug
you can plant....they've banned spray paint??
 
Reply With Quote
 
frank
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-30-2009
On May 29, 1:55*pm, Alan Browne <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:
> On 29-05-09 02:30, DRS wrote:
>
> > "Crippled DSLRs"<(E-Mail Removed)> *wrote in message
> >news:(E-Mail Removed)

>
> >> I make every pixel count, as any seasoned photographer should.

>
> > For some reason this strikes me as enormously funny.

>
> What kind of seasoning do you reckon? *Steak spices? *Col. Sanders
> secret herbs and spices? *Certainly cooked to be sure.
>
> Of course he doesn't realize that the camera makes every pixel "count"
> (photons that is).
>
> I'd strike "enormously funny" and use "pathetic". *YMMV.
>
> --
> -- r.p.e.35mm user resource:http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
> -- * * * *r.p.d.slr-systems:http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
> -- * * *[SI] gallery & rulz:http://www.pbase.com/shootin
> -- * * * * * * * * * e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
> -- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.


pixel dust. pretty expensive but you can just get ordinary dust if you
want....
 
Reply With Quote
 
Robert Coe
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-01-2009
On Thu, 28 May 2009 21:11:27 +0000 (UTC), James Goode <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:
: On Wed, 27 May 2009 13:05:45 +1000, 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
: >
: > Doug.
:
: 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?

I think some of the Katzeyes have that. In any case, if you buy a ruled
Katzeye, they'll let you design your own pattern.

Bob
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
bug fuss to print the time including zone jidanni@jidanni.org Perl Misc 1 05-16-2009 06:15 AM
Whats the fuss in becoming MCSA? Paul Smith MCSA 9 09-29-2008 03:51 PM
What's all the fuss? ANovice Computer Support 19 11-17-2005 12:56 AM
What's all the fuss? ANovice Computer Support 0 11-15-2005 06:58 PM
why all the fuss? tbm Digital Photography 17 10-05-2004 04:39 PM



Advertisments