2:3 or maybe 16:9?

[jlharris]

<p>I've always embraced the idea of cropping in-camera when possible, because it made sense. The 35mm film frame has a 2:3 aspect ratio, which is almost a perfect Golden Rectangle, which is the mathematical basis for some of the greatest art in history. My favorite photographer, Henri Cartier-Bresson never cropped his photos, he trained as a painter before becoming a photographer and <a href="http://fotogenetic.dearingfilm.com/golden_rectangle_2.html">his work shows a clear application of the GR</a> . The main reason people crop images is so they can conform to standard print sizes. 4x6 is 2:3, 5x7 is almost 2:3, but 8x10 is 4:5 and is cropped. But with all the printing being done digitally now, it's not like the images are being printed on pre-cut 8x10" sheets of photo paper. It's just as easy to print an 8x12" image and maintain it's original aspect ratio and crop!<br /> <br /> A friend of mine bought a video camera and wants to make films. I've always been a huge fan of motion pictures, and for me, Pan & Scan is profanity. Always Letterbox, even on standard definition displays with their 4:3 ratio. Over the last month, he's been making his first short film. He asked me what I thought he should make the aspect ratio. Then, today I was scanning through the recent additions to Flickr's Wedding Photography pool and I saw several nice images that have narrow crops. This made me think. 2:3 is the standard for still, and 16:9 is the standard for motion. Why not switch it up?<br /> <br /> So I'm going to experiment with making 16:9 still images. I think they'll be particularly appropriate for large prints. I want to see how they look on a nice, big gallery wrap. I think it will be subconsciously reminiscent of high def LCD TV's.<br /> <br /> Anyway, I went back and re-cropped a couple images from Lauren's senior photos. This one looks the best. What do you think? Does the 16:9 crop add to or detract from the image? Do you think it doesn't make a difference at all?<br /> <br /> I was going to embed the images in the post, but viewing them side-by-side I don't think is the best way to evaluate them, so I'm linking to them instead. <a title="2:3" href=" title="2:3">2:3</a> & <a title="16:9" href=" title="16:9">16:9</a><br>

Here's another pair of images <a title="2:3" href=" title="2:3">2:3</a> & <a title="16:9" href=" title="16:9">16:9</a> .<br /> I'm shooting a wedding next week, I'm going to try to make some images with a 16:9 crop in mind.</p>

[steve_swinehart]

<blockquote>

<p>The main reason people crop images is so they can conform to standard print sizes.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I don't know any photographer doing personal photography that crops images for that reason. Commercial work yes...</p>

<p>Also, 16:9 is not the "standard" for motion pictures. It is for HD television - that's different than motion pictures. There are a number of different motion picture formats.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>it's not like the images are being printed on pre-cut 8x10" sheets of photo paper</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Hmmm...so you're saying people don't print digital images on pre-cut 8.5x11, 11x17, 13x19, etc. paper? Really? Everyone uses roll paper for everything?</p>

<p>Lastly, why is this in philosophy of photography instead of casual conversations? It's hardly philosophical in nature...</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>I crop images in order for them to look or feel the way I want them to and/or to make the statement I want.</p>

<p>Printing considerations usually come later.</p>

[mendel_leisk]

<p>We went to a digital slide show of the Canadian far North, an exploration of 3 rivers that end up in the Arctic Ocean. One thing that occured to me: and the photographer must have made a conscious decision on this: <em>all</em> the images were landscape oriented, ie: longer dimension horizontal.</p>

<p>Just more grist for the discussion mill ;)</p>

[beartooth1]

<p>Interesting thought process...I don't crop for a certain print size (sometimes for standard protrait stuff) but never for landscape work..although my eye prefers 16:9 ish look...<br>

I like the portraits you cropped for 16:9...might have to try that myself...thanks for the thought...</p>

[matthew_newton]

<p>I work off what I see in the view finder. Every once in a great while I visuallize something as say 16:9, or even a skinnier aspect ratio, but rarely. I pretty just print as 4x6 or 8x12 with a few 5x7s in there. I don't print digitally and I wish more places offered 6x9 to keep the aspect ratio and give me a good option between 4x6 and 8x12 that didn't involve cropping. Just like I hate that the next step up if you want to keep the aspect ratio isn't 10x15, its 12x18. Of course if I had a digital camera or scanned anything I wanted printed, and then did my own printing it wouldn't be a problem. However I do neither currently.</p>

[jpo3136b]

<p>I don't think the ratios I've seen discussed here matched the phi ratios I used to look for. Beware, I believe there have been several definitions of the Golden Mean over the years. I'm no art historian, but I remember coming across such a warning years ago.</p>

<p>I think that if you are going to chase phi, you're in for a hard time. I looked into it and focused on it; while it does occur often in nature; phi is more elusive than it might seem. One thing that did come up for me, though, was that phi is awful close to the rule of thirds. I feel that, visually, phi and thirds are interchangeable. </p>

<p>During my readings on phi, I came across a notation about a study that said had covered several hundred master works of art. Less than 2% of master paintings hanging in museums today had subject placement that conformed to phi; so they said. I never broke out a measuring tape and checked their stuff. </p>

<p>I don't remember the exact answers; I ended up computing some long tables; my goal at the time was to see if I could apply phi from the very beginning of building a painting by selecting dimensions for the perimeter that would comply with phi. Idea was, if I thought a picture would be so high, then use that figure to compute phi for the corresponding width, etc. </p>

<p>It was a lot of math for a limited amount of impact. I don't think the average viewer would be able to detect phi, or distinguish it from a rule of thirds composition without measurements. So, what I'm getting at is, because of this, I'd say, use whatever format you like.<br>

The 16:9 picture looked good to me. BTW, I do print to those sizes; not so much because of the paper (although that counts for me, for simple economy) but also because of display. It is cheaper, cheaper, cheaper to stick with aspect ratios and sizes that are readily supported. Admittedly, today we see a whole line of framing products that match the DSLR conventions. I guess that's okay. Not a big deal. </p>

<p>But, point is, I think you should use whatever you want. Maybe if you had some pub constraints; that would be different. And, I'd warn anybody about chasing phi. It's a downward spiral to stalling out a project, most of the time. Good luck. J.</p><div></div>

[jpo3136b]

<p>Ponder this, my fair phi fans: should phi be applied in American Standard or metric measurements? Is it dimensionless? If it is, how would you apply that dimensionless figure to produce a perfect composition?</p>

<p>Yeah.</p>

<p>Just use rule of thirds and whatever format you like. J.</p>

[danny_chiu]

<p>same problem came in my mind these days, and most of the time i prefer 16:9 photos... cropped from a 2:3 photo<br>

what i believe is that the ratio should not be constrainted as long as the ratio can give the BEST PRESENTATION of the "icon" in the photo</p>

[GerrySiegel]

<p>I got news for all of you. Aspect ratio has no great importance. A mural is nice. A square frame is nice. Sculpture is closer to the real thing. We have two eyes. The best form of representation would be a two eyed display. Something that is bound to be a new pictorial standard one day. Although High Definition has revealed a lot of things I never noticed before in good movies on TV. Like the set detail in West Side Story. Robert Wise just knew how to adapt to the wide format. Which does not diminish his work on the 1951 version of Day the Earth Stood Still. It's all justification after the fact I am afraid.</p>

[KenPapai]

<p>According to the tech info on the "Day" (1951) movie, it was shot on 35mm film stock (3:2 ratio) and (?later cropped and?) displayed at a 1.37:1 aspect ratio.</p>

[steve_swinehart]

<p>The problem with trying to mathematically calculate Phi is that, much like Pi, you can take it to as many decimal places as you desire. I know someone has calculated it to at least 20,000 decimal points. However, like a circle, you can easily construct a golden rectangle using geometry and drafting instruments (or a CAD program).<br />1. Construct a square.<br />2. Draw a line from the midpoint of one side to an opposite corner.<br />3. Use that line as the radius to draw an arc that defines the long dimension of the rectangle.<br />4. Extend the side of square to meet the arc.<br />5. Extend the opposite side to the same length.<br />6. Close the new end and you have a golden rectangle.<br>

When I printed fine art lithographs I worked with an artist that based all of his art on Phi concepts. While some of it was interesting - my observation was that it constrained his art as he tried to make works conforming to the Golden Mean, Golden Rectangle, or Golden Spiral as a first priority. This meant that many ideas that were interesting were discarded as they could not be made to fit within the geometric constraints imposed.</p>

 

[GerrySiegel]

<p>Ken, where did ou see that it was shot in 3:2. 35mm stock run vertically is ...now I got me confused. ?I thought academy aspect was about 1: 1.33. Oh well, they used to crop a lot of pictures to make them seem wider to audiences in early '50s before Vista Vision and the wild format races that came around then. I get lost frankly,</p>

[KenPapai]

<p>Some details on the 1951 "Day..." --<br>

<br />''The film was shot on the 20th Century-Fox back lot, which is now an upscale office complex known as Century City.'' [my wife used to work there]<br>

<br />Film negative format (mm/video inches) 35 mm<br>

Cinematographic process Spherical<br>

Printed film format 35 mm<br>

Aspect ratio 1.37 : 1 [very common]<br />DVD details show this: DVD Format: Keep Case, Academy , 1.33:1, Closed.<br>

<br />(all data easily found on IMDB.com)<br />I've read the original 1940 story and both the 1951 film (seen numerous times) and the 2008 film (seen once) are dramatically different than the book (which takes place in the near future).</p>

 

[GerrySiegel]

<p>The actor- director and choreographer Gene Kelly said he disliked the Cinemascope format which was something like 2.35 to 1. Others managed to film beautifully even in that really almost too wide aspect. Only now do we get to see how a brilliant choreographer can use a wide stage to give animation and life to a film that needs space. that is why I mentiion West Side Story( Jerome Robbins at his best dance staging). A movie like 12 Angry Men otoh profited from a smaller frame. And you are right, Internet Movie Data Base is a real treasure for film lovers. I forgot about that one at first... My wife and I well remember the original Day with Michael Rennie and have the DVD. Don' t think I can rush to see the remake based on reviews, Ken. (But Jennifer Connelly, who hoo...charming she ).</p>

[andreas_manessinger]

<p>Do you know <a href="../photodb/user?user_id=782528">Mark Hobson</a> and his blog "<a href="http://landscapist.squarespace.com/">The Landscapist</a> "? He obviously used to hang around here, at least he has a <a href="../photos/canoe%20guide">portfolio</a> . All of his recent work is SQUARE!</p>

<p>If there is any proof necessary for the fact that there is no "given" proportion for photographic stills, then it's Mark's work, especially when you consider it in conjunction with that of his son Aaron, "<a href="http://aaronhobson.com/">The Cinemascapist</a> " :)</p>

<p>Both are remarkably successful in what they do, both deny the common formats.</p>

<p>On the other hand, I myself work mostly from what I see in the viewfinder. It's easy, it's direct, but it still makes sometimes sense to deviate. There is simply no hard rule. If it works, it's OK.</p>