"by a wide margin" - nice.
So, did A4 originate from the era of typed business letters in the office or was a different size used? Maybe that's why.
... it remains curious to me that the commonest size and format (by a wide margin) in the world today is A4 vertical.
Professionals who shot square format cameras like the Hasselblad and Rolleiflex didn't expect images to be printed square. Most were used in magazines or for portraits and model portfolios. Even wedding shots tended to be cropped slightly. Oblong camera formats on 120 film entered the professional ranks later, though there had long been such sizes in amateur cameras. Square was more of an "art" format than a pro specification. The use of masks was common.But square is the perfect format
Theorising is cheap so here goes. Because our eyes are placed side by side and not above one another the native format for a picture is wider than high. And the proportions are vaguely similar to our horizontal field of view versus our vertical field of view: 210 degrees horizontal versus 150 degrees vertical or a ratio of 1:1.4.
Given all of that it remains curious to me that the commonest size and format (by a wide margin) in the world today is A4 vertical.
But square is the perfect format. That is what Hasselblad advertised for years. Besides how many painters over the centuries used the 2:3 format of 35mm?
Many of us shot 120 long before we saw a Hass ad. I shot a Rollei for my college yearbook because a) it was available and b) it was easily cropped. (cropping became uncool a few years later).
What do you do if the best image isn't square? Personally, I've never found anything sacrosanct about printing full frame. If I'm out with my Rollei, and come across a scene which I know will work best as a horizontal, I shoot it with the intent to print it horizontal. I do try to use the entire negative area of one dimension of the film, though.I crop before I fire the shutter.
What do you do if the best image isn't square? Personally, I've never found anything sacrosanct about printing full frame. If I'm out with my Rollei, and come across a scene which I know will work best as a horizontal, I shoot it with the intent to print it horizontal. I do try to use the entire negative area of one dimension of the film, though.
What do you do if the best image isn't square? Personally, I've never found anything sacrosanct about printing full frame. If I'm out with my Rollei, and come across a scene which I know will work best as a horizontal, I shoot it with the intent to print it horizontal. I do try to use the entire negative area of one dimension of the film, though.
Then I crop appropriately, but that rarely happens because I compose so that I do not have to crop during printing.
Then I crop appropriately, but that rarely happens because I compose so that I do not have to crop during printing.
What if you want to play with your shot later? Is that forbidden ?
Not sure why it's necessary to attack KR. He's actually as much a photographer as many other folks here. I guess he's an easy target.t doesn't matter what Kenny will use film or digital. He is not photographer, never was, never will be, Rockwell is giftless in photography as art. He is gear reviewer with sometimes moronic conclusions in writing, but useful as gear review source Google finds first.
asselblad advertrised it that way to get people to buy their cameras, it has nothing to do with how perfect the format is or isn't
the only painters who i know of who painted in a square canvas were theo von doesburgh and piet mondrain .. because of
their believe in theosophy and how they translated the religion into their purity language .. plenty of painters paint in non square formats
portraits were done in non square formats on canvas &c ...
thank goodness. too many people with some weird orodoxy where they refuse to do simple stuffThen I crop appropriately, but that rarely happens because I compose so that I do not have to crop during printing.
YIKES !!Don't forget Joseph Albers.
EVERYONE is a targetNot sure why it's necessary to attack KR. He's actually as much a photographer as many other folks here. I guess he's an easy target.
yes, this ...Photos are rectangular because that is easiest, cheapest, and least wasteful shape to mass produce.
Not sure why it's necessary to attack KR. He's actually as much a photographer as many other folks here. I guess he's an easy target.
hi ..I thought "Photography" required a camera. I did not realize it went passed that.....
thank goodness. too many people with some weird orodoxy where they refuse to do simple stuff
for no reason other than they don't do it// i mean i see if there is a dietary restriction imposed by
a religious group or physician but cropping ? when someone says that i just wonder ... "straight print"
is another ... i mean every prints gotta be burned or dodged perfect negatives don't exist.
...
Burning and dodging are pretty much out of the question (although physically possible) if you are using a film negative and doing carbon or platinum printing. Using digital negatives for those processes is an entirely different matter. I want to print larger than 8x10 and so use digital negatives for carbon and platinum printing, and never hesitate to tweak such negatives in LR/PS, both to better reflect my original vision and to compensate for certain quirks in the process.. At one portfolio review, my work was criticized as therefore being inauthentic. So be it. It is the resulting image that is important to me.Ninety-nine percent of the time I print without burning, dodging or cropping...showing or not showing the film rebate, depending on the image and photographic process I am using to make the print. Why? Because I greatly enjoy the challange and learning experience of creating images that do not need those three actions (burning, dodging or cropping) in order to acheive the best image/print possible. This approach meshes with the way I approach and understanding the light on the landscape. I hesitate to call my images straight because there is nothing 'straight' about the way I approach making an image or the work I do to make the materials I make my prints out of. My negatives are not perfect -- but then neither is any print that has been (or not been) burned, dodged or cropped. But it is worth trying..
It wasn't intended as a critique; it was intended as an explanation of how and why I print the way I do, which is different than your method.That was pretty harsh critique! Most of the people taking my workshops are using digital negatives these days.
Ninety-nine percent of the time I print without burning, dodging or cropping...showing or not showing the film rebate, depending on the image and photographic process I am using to make the print. Why? Because I greatly enjoy the challange and learning experience of creating images that do not need those three actions (burning, dodging or cropping) in order to acheive the best image/print possible. This approach meshes with the way I approach and understand the light on the landscape. I hesitate to call my images straight because there is nothing 'straight' about the way I approach making an image or the work I do to make the materials I make my prints out of.
My negatives are not perfect -- but then neither is any print that has been (or not been) burned, dodged or cropped. But it is worth trying..
An example. Redwood and Vine Maples, 8x10 carbon print (no burning, dodging or cropping)
I was referring to your portfolio review!It wasn't intended as a critique; it was intended as an explanation of how and why I print the way I do, which is different than your method.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?