It’s not hip to be square, man.
Well, someone had to say it.
I would hope so ! from what a friend who grew up with someone whose dad was some big wig photographer at NG said ... they took 1000s of photos / 1 accepted.. that's a lot of rolls ! personally I think they should have hired "Naruto" to work for them too, probably would have gotten more keepers, and they would have gotten more memes, I mean that dude broke the internet!At one time National Geographic had their own Kodachrome lab, and it was apparently the highest volume still film only Kodachrome lab in the world.
I don't bother trimming off the excess either. Mostly my prints are stored in the Ilford boxes that the paper came in, and I use the non-image part of the paper to hold them. It makes my day to open a box of prints and leaf through the memories.Nowadays I don't give a crap for it. If I waste paper, it is not a biggie. Printing stage is not the place to save pennies .. And usually the cutout is good material for tests. Usually I don't even cut the rest out.
Yep, and that someone wasn't me... I had been thinking about it since the thread started, lol.It’s not hip to be square, man.
Well, someone had to say it.
I tend to print everything square, even 35mm. It all goes together that way.The other way around is much harder.
It's neither good nor bad. It's square.
Plato might disagree.
Square is primitive. Keep it in the middle, with object taking most of the frame and you are golden.
Square is Magical. Keep it in the middle, with object taking most of the frame and you are golden
Are there any formats that yield something other than two triangles when bisected diagonally?Square is two-dimensional. Bisect it diagonally and you get two triangles. It's good for origami.
Are there any formats that yield something other than two triangles when bisected diagonally?
Square is two-dimensional. Bisect it diagonally and you get two triangles. It's good for origami.
Fascinating truthiness, oracle of film. The other very truthful part of your comment was that square format is two dimensional. Are there any formats that are three, four, or five dimensional?The elusive circular format, not really in use for over a hundred years, gives you semicircles when you bisect it.
All the true things I say are, by their very nature, not false.
828 is lost in the mists of time.....Fascinating truthiness, oracle of film. The other very truthful part of your comment was that square format is two dimensional. Are there any formats that are three, four, or five dimensional?
The Greeks, not the geeks, got it right. The Golden Mean is always rectangular
Are there any formats that are three, four, or five dimensional?
Are there any formats that are three, four, or five dimensional?
All photos and film have 4-dimensions, existing in a 3-dimensional physical space and in time. I want quantum photography.yes there are 3 dimensional with time and sound, and you don't even have to be in an altered state of mind, just one open to the power of suggestion
Yes, but what I appreciate is that observing something can change its properties. This is what happens when the brain (if present) interprets a photograph.I thought quantum mechanics was all about never really knowing where anything is, and just statistically predicting it. I'd rather have an image stay put in a rectangular frame on a wall, so I can actually view it.
I thought that they, whoever they are, standardized on 8x10 because in the olden days pros shot 8x10 and 4x5, and after pros stopped shooting 8x10 and 4x5, they, whoever they are, didn't change the standard, and so now nothing fits 8x10 without cropping, except maybe 6x7 which I learned today is really 56x67-68. Who knows why they picked 5x7 and 11x14 as standards. Nothing fits them, except 5x7 and 11x14 film I guess.
I found out the standard was screwed up about fifty years ago when I was shooting 35mm, and I had to crop my photos to fit the darkroom multi-easel, pre-cut mats, and pre-made frames, and that seemed really stupid. I was working in student darkrooms and one of the first darkroom accessories I actually bought for myself was an 8x10 "full frame" Speed EZ-EL. I had to cut my own mats. Then for a while I mostly shot slides so I didn't have to crop, except that the projection screens were square and so your slides ended up being letterboxed. When I wanted a print from a slide, I printed them myself full frame on Cibachrome. Now I just print full frame in whatever aspect ratio the film or digital format is and cut my own mats and use those metal frames which you can make any size you want.
Next time I go to the doctor I'll look through a bunch of magazines. I bet I won't find a single ad that is in a 8x10 aspect ratio. I never did any professional advertising photography, but always thought that the advertisers told the photographer what size they wanted, or photographers just left room all the way around the image so the advertisers could crop it any way they wanted. Of course, all that may be my imagination.
No problem for square, because your are almost guaranteed to trim of some paper if you shoot square.
Trim to the composition. Life is not that hard.
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?