• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

2:3 ratio vs. 3:4 ratio . Mostly curiosity question why ?

lhalcong

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
Nov 26, 2012
Messages
245
Location
Miami, Flori
Format
35mm
Short of using rolls to cut to measure, were 8x12 or 12x18 paper sheets and/or easels ever made ? it seems that although 35mm format was ever so popular, even today 11x14 / 16x20 picture frames are easier to find than 8x12 or 13x19 frames. (well I have to admit that in the last year or so , finally now you can find more of these options). since 35mm format is nothing new, why was that like that in the past ?
 
35mm is sort of an "accident of history" - Oskar Barnack designed the Ur-Leica to take double width 18mm film and the rest is history.

Personally, I like to shoot both panoramic (617/Xpan) and more square-ish (4/3, 4x5) and while I photograph a lot with my Leica (2:3 obviously), I always thought that 2:3 is slight too wide for "normal" and too short for pano.
 
And with more people printing digitally, cropping is easier than ever.
 
My oldest camera has a 2.5" x 4.5" film gate - even more rectangular than 135. Typically, the negatives from it were contact printed. The results are very satisfying.

And of course 2 1/4 x 3 1/4 is a common size historically.

European aspect ratios have historically differed from North American.

Most of the aspect ratio traditions are essentially accidents of history.
 
MattKing said:
Most of the aspect ratio traditions are essentially accidents of history.
Click to expand...

I understand why film image area would have odd ball aspect ratios, but why are paper aspect ratios so far off typical film apect ratios? If square aspect ratio was so popular in medium format, why is there no square paper format?
 
MattKing said:
European aspect ratios have historically differed from North American.
Click to expand...

Not strictly true, North American aspect ratios and plate/film sizes are based on European sizes from Britain, it's continental Europe that differed as they used metric sizes.

7x5" is the only major film/plate format to originate in the US and took the place of half plate and whole plate.

I shoot to suit and fit the format, I like the 2:3 aspect ratio but have hardly used it in recent years, I do have a 6x9 RF back for my Wista and 2 or 3 6x9 SLR's (pre WWII) as well as an Ensigh 820. The 3:4 format is quite nice as well, I have a few 9x12 cameras it's a touch different to 5x4 and 10x8.

In practice I regularly shoot 1:1 (TLRs), 3:4, 4:5 (4x5 & 10x8), 6x17 and will shortly start with 5:7 with a couple of 7x5 cameras.

Ian
 

+1 especially "I always thought that 2:3 is slight too wide for "normal" and too short for pano."
 
I guess the reality is that some pictures look better in 2:3 and some pictures look better in 4:3 , and of course there will be pictures that look better in all the other ratios. However, it seems like the only one that caught up more successfully in mass production (in terms of popularity) in papers and frames was 4:3 . up until recently unless you had an expensive custom cut , it was almost impossible to find a frame in 13x19 size But they are finally more accessible now.
 
I like 2:3, 1:2 and 2:5 ratios the best especially in horizontal format. Shorter formats feel constrained to me... sort of claustrophobic. It's just the way I usually see things. Some subjects do merit a shorter or square format but those are relatively few for me. For instance, vertical portraits and many other vertical imagery often look good to me in 4:5 ratio. OTOH, extremely narrow images usually bring back that claustrophobic feel but due to the extremely narrow side... it's like squinting hard. I don't like feeling "squished".
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I like 1:1 and 4:5.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register