aspect ratio

[David Lyga]

I have done a great deal of thinking about aspect ratio but have never been able to develop a rationale for why the normative pictorial ideal, i.e., 4:3, has been historically embraced. For me, the 24 X 36 format evidenced with full frame 35mm photography is too stressed, too much an increase in perceptual tension. The 6 X 6 format that is used with the TLR is, to me, too often too tame, too ‘square’. But I readily admit that some subjects benefit, indeed demand, such unorthodox ratios for best effect.

We are told, and tests, including historical evaluations predating photography, bear this out: the 4:3 (or 3:4) ratio is ideal for most purposes. However, is this ‘universal’ predilection ‘merely Western’ (mandated by cultural hegemony) or, rather, is there something about the human mind (inherent, divorced from cultural norms) which ensures its lasting legitimacy? Was the 24 X 36 ‘forced’ into the photographic paradigm or was its emergence due more to pragmatism and simplicity since it is precisely twice the size of the cinematic ideal of 3:4?

Of course, there are those reading this who will say, regularly, that they stray from this ‘ideal’, but those ‘deviants’ cannot deny this hitherto culturally established norm. Renegades: you might stray for creative purposes, or to found a personal image identity, but, you know that you are straying from a norm.

For me, this ‘ideal’ offers equanimity and solace, albeit, certainly, not for all subjects. I am the first to admit proper deviation therefrom becomes, at times, a trenchant necessity for certain subjects which might be better portrayed within a different format, thereby informing a different state of mind. Indeed, the creativity embedded within the craft of photography enduringly (and appropriately) challenges many established norms but, again, as a creative deviance, a diversion sought to enhance the intended aesthetic.

My query is thus: Is the established ideal format the result of vapid pragmatism or is there something about this ratio’s form that provides solace due to a sense of completeness and structural integrity for the human mind? - David Lyga

 

[Gerald C Koch]

The 24 x 36 mm format was first used by Oskar Barnack for the original design for the Ur-Leica. It was twice the area of the 35 mm cine frame. Remember that his original camera was designed to test cine film.

Artists for centuries have used a rectangular format as this had been determined to be most pleasing. The ratio of the adjacent sides is the golden ratio 1:1.6.

 

[Wallendo]

This article: http://www.intmath.com/numbers/math-of-beauty.php
suggests that the ideal ratio is about 1.6:1 (phi), a closer ratio to 1.5:1 (6x4) than 1.33:1 (4x3). The Mona Lisa has a ratio of about 1.4:1 (close to the square root of 2) (31x20), about half-way between. European A4 paper has a ration of 1.414:1 (square root of 2)

I suspect both the square root of 2 and phi have influence over our perceptions, and either could be considered part of the norm.

In movies, where horizontal action is emphasized, wider aspect ratios are used to good effect, but have never translated well to still photography.

 

[BrianShaw]

A very interesting question... but probably more of a philosophical discussion than a presentation & marketing question.

I've spent the bulk of my career working in this context of norms and standards. My conclusion is that many exist for the very same reason that stereotypes exist - often enough there is some truth that people see, recognize, and maybe even believe. Some exist based on experimentation or measurable data, but most seem to exist based on history of continued belief and support. Which is best, I don't know... but I'm not to quick to dismiss those that are historical in nature because if they have managed to persist they may not be totally right, but they probably aren't totally wrong.

But let me defend square format for just a moment. Indeed square is square and can sometimes be too square. But ideal can also be too rectangular too. I, personally find the 35mm format to be too rectangular most of the time... but oddly I tend to compose within those rules when using a 35mm camera. Perhaps it is a holdover form my days with slides. But as far as what format is really ideal...a lot, and maybe EVERYTHING, depends on the image and the vision. With regard to formats, I find "ideal" to be a construct applied to a resulting image, not a film gate. I tend to like square, shoot square, print and display square... but some images really need to be rectangle. It depends. Sometimes that decision is imposed by the camera, but most of the time it is not (if one accepts cropping as a legitimate part of the image-making process).

So my answer to your query is this: perhaps.

 

[BrianShaw]

This article: http://www.intmath.com/numbers/math-of-beauty.php
suggests that the ideal ratio is about 1.6:1 (phi), a closer ratio to 1.5:1 (6x4) than 1.33:1 (4x3). The Mona Lisa has a ratio of about 1.4:1 (close to the square root of 2) (31x20), about half-way between. European A4 paper has a ration of 1.414:1 (square root of 2)

I suspect both the square root of 2 and phi have influence over our perceptions, and either could be considered part of the norm.

In movies, where horizontal action is emphasized, wider aspect ratios are used to good effect, but have never translated well to still photography.

While not about image ratios... the notion of mathematical explanations of beauty are not a new question:

https://archive.org/details/panharmonicondes00webbrich

 

[Jim Jones]

The International Paper Size Standard is logical, efficient, and esthetically pleasing. We should heed those wise people who also created the metric system of measurements. For practical reasons most of my exhibition prints have an aspect ratio of 1.4:1. Of course creative people should feel free to deviate from well-established standards. However, nobody should impose their ad hoc standards on rational people, nor insist that a legacy of hundreds of years is proof of excellency. Anyone who has struggled with the entire English system of weights and measurements understands this.

 

[gone]

4:3, or something close to it, is what one would normally use for a painting or drawing/print. The 35mm format is too wide for most image compositions, at least w/ fine art (which was around eons before photography), but it became a standard for many reasons other than the compositional needs of still photography. I suspect the 35mm aspect ratio came about due to the popularity of movie films. They had to standardize on something at some point, and this size gave outstanding resolution on a large screen, at least if it was run through the machines fast enough, and the audience sat far enough back from the movie screens. It also made the cameras easy to handle, as the film mechanism was a reasonable size. Having a small light, motor driven, handheld camera revolutionized film making. When you had to rest it on a tripod all the time and crank it, you had few options on how to film your shots.

As for the stretched out format, watching a film in a square format is not a comfortable experience, as you have to crane your neck too high. Since our eyes are positioned the way they are on our faces, a stretched out format is easier to deal with and more comfortable to watch. Still photography became something for everyone, and spun off from movie photography, when small, fast, portable cameras became popular. So the 35mm film was just waiting to be used for that. Since more people were using it, prices could remain low, and it was easy and economical to process. It was also much more convenient to shoot and develop multiple images than sheet or roll film. When film makers tried to miniaturize 35mm movie film, which was already essentially a miniature medium, problems w/ grain and loss of sharpness became apparent on the projected images.

Some camera makers did play w/ the 35 film aspect ratio. Half frame was tried in a number of cameras, and some were square. But this caused mass produced processing difficulties and lower image quality. There really is no ideal image format, but some are better, and some are worse. I'm not fond of panoramic images myself, as it is difficult to know where to look in all that space. It's not how I see the world. And since I started out as a painter, I've always thought the 35m aspect ratio was "wrong". But it's not wrong, it's just different than what I was used to, and requires a different type of composition.

 

[Chan Tran]

Many paper size standard are 5:4 rather than 4:3. 8x10, 11x14 are closer to 5:4 than 4:3.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

IMO, aspect ratio depends mostly on the subject and composition. However, I nearly always prefer wider formats such as 2:3 and 1:2. Much wider than that and the narrow side becomes constrained for most subjects, IMO.

 

[NedL]

IMO, aspect ratio depends mostly on the subject and composition. However, I nearly always prefer wider formats such as 2:3 and 1:2. Much wider than that and the narrow side becomes constrained for most subjects, IMO.

I agree. This is from Andrew Loomis' Eye of the Painter, showing the effect of different aspect ratios on a composition:

Also, there is a long history of wider ( or taller depending on which way the camera is turned! ) formats. 122 film was made for over 75 years and 116 film was made for over 85 years. These were popular formats and cover most of the history of film photography! These are both close to 6.5:11 and I suspect they were chosen because the film dimensions are multiples of 1/4 inch and close to 7:11. They are a little "wider" than a golden ratio rectangle, which would be something like 6.8:11. Widescreen TVs and computer monitors starting around 10 or 15 years ago became more common in the 16:9 format, which is about 6.2:11 so "wider" still.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I guess 5x7 would be about the closest standard format to the ideal Greek "Golden Mean" ratio. And I does appeal to me; but I never personally went that route due to 5x7 color film selection often being hard to acquire. Otherwise, my favorite format happens to be the one
I'm carrying at any given moment, and I tend to compose accordingly, without significant cropping.

 

[David Brown]

Ya know, one can crop any negative to any aspect ratio for the print ... :munch:

 

[cliveh]

I would suggest that as 35mm cameras and film, before digital were the most numerous cameras used worldwide, it would allow that aspect ratio to score the greatest hits of revered compositions.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Cropping wastes surface area. That might be fine if you have a lot of surface area to spare. But if I'm shooting some tiny subminiature format
like 6x7, and hoping to turn it into a 16x20 portfolio print mixed in with prints made from 8x10 film, I have damn little to spare. Every millimeter counts. In other words, little dogs need to bark louder than big dogs if they want the same respect. But if I'm taking a wholly different tack, like deliberately seeking off-the-cuff grainy 35mm images, printed small, the game is back on. But film can be expensive,
so why waste it. Methinks people who do also spend ten bucks for a bag of theater popcorn with only five cents of popcorn kernels in it;
and only half of it actually popped. The rest was "cropped".

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

Decades ago I was of the same thought... NEVER waste film but compose to use every millimeter of film available. It wasn't a cost issue for me but I wanted to squeeze the very last bit of quality I could get out of every shot. This usually worked fine but composition often suffered. Now, I have no qualms about cropping 4x5in to 3.5x5in or switching to a 6x12cm roll film back to get the aspect ratio to fit the subject.

 

[Dr Croubie]

Ideal ratio? For what? What subject? Landscape? Portrait? Fullbody, head & shoulders?


Not saying it can't be done, but anyone ever tried to shoot a head-table at a wedding with a square negative? That's a whole lot of roof and floor you're getting in there, and you'd need a really wide lens or step really far back to get all the bridesmaids and groomsmen in. It'll take a lot of skill to make it look good.
There's a reason 7x17" are called 'banquet' cameras, 2.5:1, or there's 617 (3:1). Even 3:2 (35mm, 6x9) aren't 'panoramic' enough.
Some landscapes look better as panoramas (2:1 - 3:1), crop out a dull boring sky and foreground and focus on the interesting horizon. But some work better as 4:5 and even 1:1 if there's a funky cloud formation to draw interest.

So is 3:1 ideal? Hells no, ever shot a head&shoulders with that? That's where 1:1 and 4:5 and golden-ratio look good.
Tried getting a waist-up shot of someone? 3:2 works well for that. But what about waist-up of a couple? That's where 1:1 works.

And that doesn't even account for backgrounds. What if someone wants a tightly-cropped head-shot. 3:2 might look better for someone with a long face, but 1:1 might look better for a rounder-faced baby.
And what if the next guy wants a bit of whitespace around, doesn't mind a shoulder or two, then you've got a lot more ratios to choose from.

I think the crux of the original question was more about whether these 'preferred aspect ratios' are universal or cultural, but I wouldn't even say that 'preferred ratios' are even preferred for all circumstances.
I've heard of those 'studies proclaiming the best ratio' before, but what were the subjects, what focal lengths?
I haven't read the papers themselves but I know how most scientific papers work, depending on the authors' intentions (or those of the people reading the study and writing a news article about it), any slim majority can be claimed as a 'universal truth' (at least, until the next paper comes along disproving it)

So if 70% of people prefer one aspect ratio for a print or group of prints, does that mean the other 30% are dead wrong? What about personal taste?
Will even those 70% prefer that same aspect ratio for every other print?
I highly doubt either of those.

Hourses for courses.

 

[MattKing]

There are some physiological factors that influence the question - things like the fact that we have two eyes (not one).

I expect, however, that the preferences for particular ratio are related as much to what we encounter and therefore are most familiar with.

Despite what Fibonacci might prefer

 

[ic-racer]

In terms of roll film photography, the aspect ratio is dictated by the length of the film roll and the number of expected exposures. Sheet film in the USA has an aspect ratio that conforms to arbitrary SAE measuring standards (the inch).

 

[trojancast]

OK now, everyone take a deep breathe, go outside and give your heads a shake. There are way more important things to worry about, like can you really stand develop 400 asa with 125?[emoji854]


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Peltigera]

I would suggest that as 35mm cameras and film, before digital were the most numerous cameras used worldwide, it would allow that aspect ratio to score the greatest hits of revered compositions.

Before 135 existed, 127 and 120 both used the same aspect ratio. I suspect Leica used 24x36 to match them.

Sent from my A1-840 using Tapatalk

 

[David Lyga]

Of the offerings given, I think that the fact that we have two eyes positioned the way we do, dictates the preferred aspect ratio of 4:3. This makes the most sense out of any of the replies. And the fact that some prefer more square or more rectangle than that seems indicative of the fact that 4:3 (or 3:4) is a good standard, at least theoretically if not practically, to adopt for best film format.

Again, there are countless exceptions, but if I could go back in time and dictate what should be what, I would opt for, say with 35mm cinema film, an image 24mm high and 32mm long. There would be no loss in image quality. I cannot quote the source, but way back someone did a critical survey with half frame vs full frame and created prints out of both of those formats. These prints were judged by professional photographers and they could not tell which were from full or half frame. - David Lyga

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Many paper size standard are 5:4 rather than 4:3. 8x10, 11x14 are closer to 5:4 than 4:3.

You beat me to it.

 

[wiltw]

There are some physiological factors that influence the question - things like the fact that we have two eyes (not one).

I expect, however, that the preferences for particular ratio are related as much to what we encounter and therefore are most familiar with.

Despite what Fibonacci might prefer

...the proportions that fit Fibonacci progression, as illustrated above, happens to be 1.25:1, or 5:4

 

[RobC]

Methinks people worry about this far too much. Let the subject dictate the compositional framing of it and then matt and frame that according to the composition. If you plan to crop the neg that is fine but always trying to use some mathematical series or ratio will not make your image any better than you can by matting and framing with well proportioned border and moulding sizing at that stage of the process which will make any print ratio look good if its done well.

 

[Sirius Glass]

We all know that square is the prefect format. Hasselblad advertised that for years so you know in your heart that is right.

http://digital-photography-school.com/6-lessons-the-square-format-can-teach-you-about-composition/

It is the shape of Instagram so it has to be good.

http://erickimphotography.com/blog/2014/06/24/composition-lesson-14-square-format/

http://photofocus.com/2015/04/17/the-advantages-of-square-format-photography/

http://www.earthboundlight.com/phototips/why-not-square-format-sensor.html