aspect ratio

[DREW WILEY]

Matt - have you actually calculated the ratio of nautilus spiral, or the spirals of an unfolding fern frond? I have an entire book somewhere
about this. The Greeks obsessed about it, and so did my Aunt when she taught art history and technique (though hypocritically, since she
never seems to have used it herself in her murals, to my knowledge). But she could sure argue about it.

 

[MattKing]

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

Matt - have you actually calculated the ratio of nautilus spiral, or the spirals of an unfolding fern frond? I have an entire book somewhere
about this. The Greeks obsessed about it, and so did my Aunt when she taught art history and technique (though hypocritically, since she
never seems to have used it herself in her murals, to my knowledge). But she could sure argue about it.

The Nautilus spiral uses the same progression as the Fibonacci progression, and is a so called "golden spiral".

As per Wikipedia: "In geometry, a golden spiral is a logarithmic spiral whose growth factor is φ, the golden ratio.[1] That is, a golden spiral gets wider (or further from its origin) by a factor of φ for every quarter turn it makes."

The "golden ratio" is an imaginary number which is close to

. The golden ratio also is called the golden mean or golden section (Latin: sectio aurea).[1][2][3] Other names include extreme and mean ratio,[4] medial section, divine proportion, divine section (Latin: sectio divina), golden proportion, golden cut, and golden number. (also from Wikipedia).

 

[RobC]

They didn't know about fractals when the golden mean was worked out. Now all you number crunchers should get your head around fractals and apply them to your ratios since they are naturally occuring numbers. Check out the Mandelbrot set. Ferns come to mind when considering fractals.

 

[wiltw]

Yes, the equation shows 1.62, but the way that shell fit nicely within the edges of that posted cropped frame which computed to a tiny bit less than 1.25

 

[Arklatexian]

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

Standard paper sizes, outside of the USA, Canada, and maybe the British Isles, (though with change to metrics, I don't really know), are not 4x5, 8x10, 11x14, etc. I may be talking from the past, is this still true? I have found 5x7 more closely matches the 35mm aspect ratios than the others. By the way, what would an average aspect ratio of a human hand held palm toward you and held horonzontally. I have been told by paint artists, etc. that our use of rectangular formats comes from that and goes back in time a thousand or two years......Regards!

 

[David Lyga]

Obviously, especially given the readership of my original post, this topic garners much thought; thus, it is not trivial. I get the impression here that this ratio has less to do with personal preference because there are deeper meanings at work here.

Perhaps, there is not a perfect answer to all this, but one closest to perfection might delve into our inner, subliminal perception of just what constitutes a compelling definition of 'form'. Is 'form', like Plato said, an essence in and of itself: abstract, but pure? Is 'form' something that merely satisfies, or is it something that offers a solution to some hidden algorithm of the human mind?

I think that we find ourselves discovering much about ourselves while discussing this 'casual' topic. Am I correct? - David Lyga

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I'd stick to the golden ratiofrom which 24x36 is not to far off from by the way.

 

[RobC]

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

But who prints edge to edge? If you work out the logical white border width then you find that:

3x2 ratio neg prints really well on 4x3 ratio paper (e.g. 135 format neg on 16x12 paper with 2 inch border)

4x3 ratio neg prints really well on 5x4 ratio paper (e.g 6x4.5 neg on 8x10 paper with 1 inch border or on 20x16 paper with 2 inch border)

5x4 ratio neg prints really well on 6x5 ratio paper (e.g 5x4 neg on 24x20 paper with 2 inch border)

7x6 ratio neg prints really well on 14x11 ratio paper (e.g 7x6cm neg on 14x11 inch paper with 1.5 inch border)

so its really just a question of working out that to give an even width border around print with any neg format what the border width should be. And that is an elementary exercise in maths.

You can mat and frame with with any border width you like.

 

[RobC]

I would add that 135 format neg printed as 12x8 image on 16x12 inch paper is enalargement factor of approx 8X and most 50mm enlarging lenses are optimised for 8X to 10X enlargement so all the stars are aligned for a high quality print if you get all the other variables correct.

 

[wiltw]

The folks who decided to package 8 hotdogs in a pack, yet provide 6 buns to a pack are behind the photographic conspiracy, too!

No matter what aspect ratio you shoot, eventually you run into the need to print some combination of the following from the same neg...

• 6x4" snapshot for friends (1.5:1)
• 7x5" small enlargement for grandma to put in a frame for her mantlepiece or shelf (1.4:1)
• 10x8" larger enlargement for mom (1.25:1)
• 14 x 11" wall enlargement (1.27:1)
• 20 x 16" fullspread album center enlargment (1.25:1)
• 24" x 20" prominent display enlargement (1.2:1)

...wedding photographers from the film days will all have experienced this!
4:3 doesn't match any of these. APS-C/135 matches only 1 of them. The Golden Rule matches NONE of them!
Anyone from the European area should do a similar analysis of the photographic mismatch of hotdogs and buns in their paper print sizes.

The Greeks may have cobbled up the Golden Rule, but look at the economic condition of Greece today...Golden Rule vs. standard film format and standard print sizes is yet another mismatch! No wonder why Oddyseus wanderer around for years, leaving his wife to wonder, "Where in Hades did he go?! Why isn't he back yet?!"

 

[RobC]

The folks who decided to package 8 hotdogs in a pack, yet provide 6 buns to a pack are behind the photographic conspiracy, too!

No matter what aspect ratio you shoot, eventually you run into the need to print some combination of the following from the same neg...

• 6x4" snapshot for friends (1.5:1)
• 7x5" small enlargement for grandma to put in a frame for her mantlepiece or shelf (1.4:1)
• 10x8" larger enlargement for mom (1.25:1)
• 14 x 11" wall enlargement (1.27:1)
• 20 x 16" fullspread album center enlargment (1.25:1)
• 24" x 20" prominent display enlargement (1.2:1)

...wedding photographers from the film days will all have experienced this!
4:3 doesn't match any of these. APS-C/135 matches only 1 of them. The Golden Rule matches NONE of them!
Anyone from the European area should do a similar analysis of the photographic mismatch of hotdogs and buns in their paper print sizes.

The Greeks may have cobbled up the Golden Rule, but look at the economic condition of Greece today...Golden Rule vs. standard film format and standard print sizes is yet another mismatch! No wonder why Oddyseus wanderer around for years, leaving his wife to wonder, "Where in Hades did he go?! Why isn't he back yet?!"

Yeah but if you print a 6x4.5 neg which is 4x3 aspect ratio on 8x10 paper with a 1 inch white border you can put a mat into an 8x10 frame with an 8x6 inch image area which is perfect. The problem is people keep quoting aspect ratio of paper as though that is the same as the image size they print and it ain't 99.999% of the time. And do people really expect a framed picture to fill the window of 8x10 frame or do they use a mat border inside the 8x10 frame.

 

[NedL]

Yeah but if you print a 6x4.5 neg which is 4x3 aspect ratio on 8x10 paper with a 1 inch white border you can put a mat into an 8x10 frame with an 8x6 inch image area which is perfect. The problem is people keep quoting aspect ratio of paper as though that is the same as the image size they print and it ain't 99.999% of the time. And do people really expect a framed picture to fill the window of 8x10 frame or do they use a mat border inside the 8x10 frame.

This is a very good point. I am pretty good at visualizing how the mat borders will matter, but it's hard to account for the width of the frame itself. and how much of the mat will be under the frame.... all are important considerations for aspect ratio. I haven't sat down and worked this out, but I think almost any image size can be fit evenly into any mat size with the right borders....

 

[RobC]

This is a very good point. I am pretty good at visualizing how the mat borders will matter, but it's hard to account for the width of the frame itself. and how much of the mat will be under the frame.... all are important considerations for aspect ratio. I haven't sat down and worked this out, but I think almost any image size can be fit evenly into any mat size with the right borders....

exactly and that is why you know that all these people belly aching about paper size and aspect ratios have never actually spent any time thinking about how exactly they will present the finished article. They seem to think that becasue the paper is 4:3 ratio that they must have an image of 4:3. That simply isn't right.

 

[Sirius Glass]

This is a very good point. I am pretty good at visualizing how the mat borders will matter, but it's hard to account for the width of the frame itself. and how much of the mat will be under the frame.... all are important considerations for aspect ratio. I haven't sat down and worked this out, but I think almost any image size can be fit evenly into any mat size with the right borders....

exactly and that is why you know that all these people belly aching about paper size and aspect ratios have never actually spent any time thinking about how exactly they will present the finished article. They seem to think that becasue the paper is 4:3 ratio that they must have an image of 4:3. That simply isn't right.

Forget all these ratios. What size print do you want? What shape will the print be after cropping? The rest does not matter.

 

[wiltw]

Yeah but if you print a 6x4.5 neg which is 4x3 aspect ratio on 8x10 paper with a 1 inch white border you can put a mat into an 8x10 frame with an 8x6 inch image area which is perfect. The problem is people keep quoting aspect ratio of paper as though that is the same as the image size they print and it ain't 99.999% of the time. And do people really expect a framed picture to fill the window of 8x10 frame or do they use a mat border inside the 8x10 frame.

Hey I own a comprehensive 645 system, and I used it decades ago to shoot weddings. And when I put negs on aperture cards provided by the lab to print commercially most economically, the aperture cards always masked the neg down to fit one specific aspect ratio which matched the print aspect ratio. Different print aspect ratio was something of 'custom print' (read 'pricier') specifications, or forcing me to print custom in my own darkroom (taking my time away from selling and helping customers).

1" white borders! The finest leather wedding albums you could deliver to a client had mattes with openings 188 x237mm (9.3 x 7.4") or 1.26:1, very close to standard 8x10 paper aspect ratio -- and not working well with an image area of 8" x 6"!

Such is the reality of commercial prints vs. theory as driven by the hobbyist / fine art custom darkroom. As Sirius posted, "What size print do you want? What shape will the print be after cropping? The rest does not matter." It is not one standardized answer!

 

[RobC]

Hey I own a comprehensive 645 system, and I used it decades ago to shoot weddings. And when I put negs on aperture cards provided by the lab to print commercially most economically, the aperture cards always masked the neg down to fit one specific aspect ratio which matched the print aspect ratio. Different print aspect ratio was something of 'custom print' (read 'pricier') specifications, or forcing me to print custom in my own darkroom (taking my time away from selling and helping customers).

1" white borders! The finest leather wedding albums you could deliver to a client had mattes with openings 188 x237mm or 1.26:1, very close to standard 8x10 paper aspect ratio.

And that only goes to show that the people making them didn't think about it enough and probably never took advice from photographers who could explain what would be optimum for a 645 or 6x6 or 6x7 or 6x9 system. i.e. you get what we give you regardless of whether its optimum for you.


Nowadays its all digital size papers and I bet they are even worse.

 

[RobC]

Forget all these ratios. What size print do you want? What shape will the print be after cropping? The rest does not matter.

Yes this is true but with a little forethought and planning you can make life easier for yourself by understanding what your print target size is.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

Commercial 'standards' seldom precisely fit the subject's 'best' ratio for the subject. Commercial ratios are a compromise... a compromise I'm extremely happy I no longer must limit myself to.

 

[NedL]

I like this optical print centering page to help visualize the final image size and the borders around it.

You don't have to follow what it says, but it's useful to play with and get a sense of balance for the final result.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Yes this is true but with a little forethought and planning you can make life easier for yourself by understanding what your print target size is.

But why would we want to make life easier for us?? We shoot film!

 

[MDR]

The Golden mean is supposed to be the most pleasant Ratio for humans and here comes the but many Images don't want to be quiet and pleasant a slight derivation of the golden mean adds a bit of unease or action to the image and makes the image artwork more interesting. Very few artworks except for the Parthenon are made in the golden Ratio. Also the image format doesn't have to be made in the golden Ratio it's enough if the composition fits the golden ratio. And many famous photographers and painters did just that the composed the image Content in the golden ratio.

 

[RobC]

what about the frame and or mat size. They can't all be the golden mean. Which is more important, the image, the mat windows/s or the frame?

 

[Fr. Mark]

Whole plate fits nicely into an 8x10 frame with 3/4" borders. Whole plate is perfect...

 

[cliveh]

I would suggest that aspect ratio and composition have a symbiotic relationship. Good composition can’t be achieved without regard to aspect ratio and aspect ratio has little function without the composition to fit it.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

But who prints edge to edge?

I do.
I print on 8x10 and 5x7 with very thin edge. This the only way I could print with easel I have.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/43107-REG/Doran_PRME41_ME_41_4_in_1_Enlarging_Easel.html