Film Formats

Thomas Bertilsson · Feb 15, 2012

Almost all my rectangular pictures are cropped to 3:4 ratio, so I always crop my 35mm negatives, for example.
It fits so perfectly on 8x10 (6x8), 11x14 (9x12), and almost 16x20 (13.5x18).

Or square.

cliveh · Feb 15, 2012

Thomas Bertilsson said:
Almost all my rectangular pictures are cropped to 3:4 ratio, so I always crop my 35mm negatives, for example.
It fits so perfectly on 8x10 (6x8), 11x14 (9x12), and almost 16x20 (13.5x18).

Or square.

Thomas, doesn't that mean you are letting the paper size dictate the composition?

Kevin Caulfield · Feb 15, 2012

tomalophicon said:
i print big borders, which are no equal on all sides

I see, and now I understand that would work uncropped.

Roger Cole · Feb 15, 2012

Interesting question really. I've realized for some time that I tend to prefer more squarish and less rectangular ratios than most people. I find wide screen TVs and computer monitors too wide - whether this is something in the way I see or just my aversion to change and the fact I'm used to the more traditional rectangle I don't know.

I do like 4x5"ish" proportions and sometimes, but less often, the 35mm ratio. Anything wider than that strikes me (usually) as contrived and too "stretched." You can try to get the impact of a big outdoor scene for example with a wide panoramic ratio, but it seems to me you're just cutting off the sky and/or ground to do it, and that's often not worth the trade. Really wide screen movies look to me like I'm viewing the action through a slit window.

Since getting my TLR I've found I often enjoy the square format. I happily print square or crop in any ratio that suits me. I'm not averse in the slightest to cropping. Scenes don't come in pre-packaged ratios. If a crop lets me eliminate a distracting element or otherwise make a more pleasing composition, I'll crop away.

The comments about circles are interesting. I've seen (recently I think - a link here?) some circular images I thought were incredibly good. It would be hard to visualize that at the time of shooting with my 35mm, but an overlay for the TLR might be possible and very easy for the 4x5. I have thought of making a 4" circular mask for the ground glass, and shoot some negatives intending to print that way. But how would I get a circular easel?? I guess I look for a smooth, evenly cut circular mask of some kind, which may not be easy to find or make.

removed account4 · Feb 15, 2012

Roger Cole said:
But how would I get a circular easel?? I guess I look for a smooth, evenly cut circular mask of some kind, which may not be easy to find or make.

if you aren't using a lens that doesn't cover the format
you would take a pice of matboard, and cut a circle into it
it just has to be thicker than single ply ...

(alto and other companies sell a circular cutter for cutting mats that aren't square
or you can use a vignetter, or a disk, or pin tin bottom or a ... as a template to make your cut .. )

i have a set of vignettes that i bought from a prized apug seller that i plan on
using for this very purpose ...

keithwms · Feb 15, 2012

How about a vacuum easel, Roger?

What renewed my interest in circles, recently, was the thought of spin coating glass disks with emulsion. The mundane reason for circles being that you get a more uniform distribution of material that way.

I've done some LF circles using RB lenses, e.g. with the fisheye. Quite interesting look, but I didn't go anywhere with it. Reminded me too much of trendy skateboarder photography atg the time. And then I imagined portraits looking like those portrait cameo things, ugh.

I think that if and when I do shoot more circles I will let the image circle define the edges, as opposed to a sharper edge. There's something appealing about calling the resulting photographs "image circles" and knowing that it's the full image that came through the lens.

Roger Cole · Feb 15, 2012

I have a variable "vignetter" that I don't think I've ever used, but the edges are going to be like those of an iris diaphragm if printed sharply. It's made to keep in motion as in dodging. For sharp circular borders, I was just thinking it would be hard to get a really sharp, really circular cut. But maybe not - was just thinking out loud and hadn't really looked in to it.

L Gebhardt · Feb 15, 2012

I think square is my favorite for manmade things and people. For landscape I tend to favor wider, with 4x5 being a very nice compromise, and 6x17 being right for somethings.

clayne · Feb 15, 2012

Rarely crop. Fit the negative to whatever print size I choose to use. I try to compose in some kind of balanced 3rds regardless of the film ratio.

keithwms · Feb 15, 2012

I wonder what people think of my pet theory that rectangles seem to correspond to dynamic compositions (implied movement and/or imbalance, sense of passing time) whereas squares tend to convey static scenes... often literally timeless and balanced compositions. Clive?

Vaughn · Feb 15, 2012

Many of my square format images have a circular motion to them -- not static.

keithwms · Feb 15, 2012

Certainly there are many exceptions, and individual compositional styles vary, but I'd like to point out that squares are often associated with more balanced, statuesque, timeless compositions. I am painting with a very broad brush, of course.

ctsundevil · Feb 15, 2012

I shoot most of my photos at 6x7. However, my favorite format is 616. That's 2 1/2" x 4 1/4". I like it because it's just a little different. I print the proofs at 4"x7". It's great for a landscape, full length portrait, or a large group shot.

Bill Burk · Feb 16, 2012

Roger Cole said:
The comments about circles are interesting. I've seen (recently I think - a link here?) some circular images I thought were incredibly good.

I saw them too! Think they were in a blurb "book", or maybe the latest View Camera magazine I flipped through last week? Can't find them now. They were beautiful.

--

I feel like the horizontal wide format is being thrust upon us by monitors and TV's.

Vertical shots just don't look good on electronics (merely because they get shrunk to fit so they become "tiny" in comparison). So if verticals were rare before... I am sure they are even more rare today.

Roger Cole · Feb 16, 2012

Bill Burk said:
I saw them too! Think they were in a blurb "book", or maybe the latest View Camera magazine I flipped through last week? Can't find them now. They were beautiful.

--

I feel like the horizontal wide format is being thrust upon us by monitors and TV's.

Vertical shots just don't look good on electronics (merely because they get shrunk to fit so they become "tiny" in comparison). So if verticals were rare before... I am sure they are even more rare today.

There used to be monitors made mainly for desktop publishing (remember that?) that swiveled to vertical orientation or horizontal, as desired, along with video drivers that adjusted to suit. I haven't seen even a photo of one in years. Seems like a good idea for some things, like editing vertically formatted images.

markbarendt · Feb 16, 2012

Bill Burk said:
I feel like the horizontal wide format is being thrust upon us by monitors and TV's.

Vertical shots just don't look good on electronics (merely because they get shrunk to fit so they become "tiny" in comparison). So if verticals were rare before... I am sure they are even more rare today.

Well that used to be true, in the post PC world though a 1/4 turn of the wrist fixes the problem and vertical is the natural orientation of many devices.

markbarendt · Feb 16, 2012

keithwms said:
I wonder what people think of my pet theory that rectangles seem to correspond to dynamic compositions (implied movement and/or imbalance, sense of passing time) whereas squares tend to convey static scenes... often literally timeless and balanced compositions. Clive?

There is truly a different sence between them, I think it is one of the reasons Holga shots are so fun and when using my RB the ground glass lines define a nice square that I find many compositions just "fall" into.

Thomas Bertilsson · Feb 16, 2012

cliveh said:
Thomas, doesn't that mean you are letting the paper size dictate the composition?

No. The paper SHAPE dictates the framing when I shoot. All my rectangular prints are in the 3:4 format. 6x8, 9x12, and 13.5x18.

Or I cut 20x24 paper in half for 12x20 paper, and print 10x18 slightly panoramic.

Unless I print square, of course.

To me it helps to have a standard, but sometimes I crop differently, if I feel the picture calls for it.

cliveh · Feb 16, 2012

keithwms said:
I wonder what people think of my pet theory that rectangles seem to correspond to dynamic compositions (implied movement and/or imbalance, sense of passing time) whereas squares tend to convey static scenes... often literally timeless and balanced compositions. Clive?

Keith, Im not sure I would agree with that, as you have probably seen more images in rectangles than squares and the ones with action by percentage of views would be in rectangles. Some of Doisneaus are quite dynamic in square format.

zsas · Feb 16, 2012

keithwms said:
I wonder what people think of my pet theory that rectangles seem to correspond to dynamic compositions (implied movement and/or imbalance, sense of passing time) whereas squares tend to convey static scenes... often literally timeless and balanced compositions. Clive?

Maybe there is some truth to that due to people having a more rectangular filed of view ourselves? Maybe there is some sort of subconscious bias/connection to rectangle aspect ratio that wd support your theory?

It would be interesting to ask a few 100 folks on the street their preference and why, maybe Keith's theory wd have some substantiated opinions? I think the question to photographers like us might be biased as we might gravitate to the gear we have or say I like them all depending on subject? Would be more interesting to me to ask a room full of folks who don't know aspect ratios like us....

I think the question is great Clive! Nice post, good food for thought.

Bill Burk · Feb 16, 2012

markbarendt said:
Well that used to be true, in the post PC world though a 1/4 turn of the wrist fixes the problem and vertical is the natural orientation of many devices.

I forgot about that. Heard on the news that 1 1/2 devices per person on earth are being projected.

keithwms · Feb 16, 2012

Perhaps we should commission some round images and see what happens...

zsas · Feb 16, 2012

Looks like someone beat us to it a hundred or so years ago

http://www.etsy.com/listing/67284640/early-kodak-round-photo-of-california

keithwms · Feb 16, 2012

Oh I know it's been done, but I think you will find that round and oval images fell out of favor around the time roll film was rolled out...

cjbecker · Feb 16, 2012

First my favorite formats are 4x5 and square. For all my personal work I crop in camera with no exceptions. But for a professional shoot, most people will not order squares and when I am shooting I am shooting for a square. So to fix this problem I am adding a 6x7. It will show the customer the cropping that I had in my head.

Film Formats

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency