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
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
Last edited by a moderator: