Aesthetic of different aspect ratio(s)

Don Heisz said:

I don't find much correlation between what my eyes see normally and what I see though a 6x6 camera. It's always a bit of a surprise, for lack of a better word, when trying to figure out how to compose something in a square. Maybe I'm too accustomed to 35mm. I can certainly see where @Steve-CA is coming from.

Click to expand...

I do not have that problem. I see in any format I am working with even if I am working with multiple formats.

Pieter12 said:

Once again, the painter starts with a blanc surface the will be filled, the photographer with a scene to be edited. While cropping out and eliminating may seem the same, if the object/person is to cropped out, they need to be near the edge of the scene. The painter can choose to eliminate something right in the middle of what he or she may be looking at.

Click to expand...

I get that. But you're just singling out one aspect in which they differ. I pointed other aspects in which they are similar, aspects that I find extremely significant in both art. I do think that figurative painters and photographers tend to think very similarly.

It's a combination of a square being more "at rest" than a 35mm aspect ratio, as well as the fact that medium format cameras inevitably mean a change in shooting styles. One composes more w/ MF, 35mm is just plain faster to shoot, which means you can get candids and grab shots.

Coming from paintings, I initially felt that 35mm was far too long on the long end. What was I supposed to do w/ all that room on either side of my subject? But after a while you get used to seeing the compositions that way, so it doesn't matter anymore. There's a million ideas on aspect ratios, one is usually thought to be better suited for this or that. I don't agree, a good photograph is a good photograph, a bad one is a bad one. The aspect ratio ain't much help either way.

I don't really see the point of using MF if you have to crop a lot of it away to get the composition you want.

I'm like Steve-CA, I find the 3:2 35mm format easy, but with 4:3, 1:1 etc I am lost.

snusmumriken said:

I don't really see the point of using MF if you have to crop a lot of it away to get the composition you want.

I'm like Steve-CA, I find the 3:2 35mm format easy, but with 4:3, 1:1 etc I am lost.

Click to expand...

For those of us who started with slides, we do the cropping in the viewfinder and print the full frame almost always. There is no violent cropping going on in our darkrooms. By the way, why would anyone settle for a cropped sensor, that makes no sense?

Sirius Glass said:

By the way, why would anyone settle for a cropped sensor, that makes no sense?

Click to expand...

Those who love bird photography would differ
Perhaps the biggest market for the high end M4/3 digital users.