leicapixie
Well-known
I have always loved the dimensions and view of the true 35mm format.
I hate the square and the formats that are close or exact to the old paper formats. Boxy and boring. 35mm Format is ideal.
The feel is dynamic esp. in the horizontal view.
Perhaps a tad to narrow in vertical..
Each his own! I love the double frame!
I hate the square and the formats that are close or exact to the old paper formats. Boxy and boring. 35mm Format is ideal.
The feel is dynamic esp. in the horizontal view.
Perhaps a tad to narrow in vertical..
Each his own! I love the double frame!
mh2000
Well-known
Yeah, when I was primarily shooting 35mm and mixed my early digital images, I always cropped to 3:2...
Found my first self-published b&w photography book on Google Books now (and some bootleg site for free download!):
https://books.google.com/books?id=Z...ark hahn beautiful pointless universe&f=false
I can shoot either format as long as I'm consistent and then I shoot for the format.
Regarding the original question, one of my Canon Elph P&S's (or was it a Sony?) had a feature where you could set a display frame to 3:2 and it would gray out the top and bottom of the display so you could visualize the 3:2 crop while still shooting a full 4:3 frame. I wish that other camera makers would have adapted this! Especially M43 where you have to have many serious shooters wanting to match crops... anyway, since all I have shot is M43 for years now, it's not an issue for me.
mh2000
Well-known
well... me too seeing I grew up on film and 35mm was kind of the "optimum" for film at the time in terms of quality and equipment portability. Had I been born earlier, I'm sure I would have been fine working with the available plate cameras etc. etc.
At this point, I'm kind of interested in getting a Panasonic M43 body for the multi aspect ratio sensor... from playing with my phone, I'd like to be able to shoot 4:3 and 16:9 (which seems more useful than 3:2 when you want that more sweeping view!)... I guess what I'm saying is that there will never be a perfect *compromise* and 35mm was a compromise all the way around and also the system most of us learned to work with.
Regarding print size and aspect ratios, I never really liked 8x10's, but 11x14" was quite nice for a standard print size! It's still my go-to for making prints because it sits really nicely in a cheap museum rag pre-cut mat inside a bargain black 16x20" frame!
Bob Michaels
nobody special
I must be blissfully ignorant because almost none of these replies make any sense to me.
I determine the aspect ratio of my photos, not the camera. It is with the easel in the wet darkroom and using the cropping tool in LR or PS. It does not seem like rocket science to me.
I determine the aspect ratio of my photos, not the camera. It is with the easel in the wet darkroom and using the cropping tool in LR or PS. It does not seem like rocket science to me.
mh2000
Well-known
That's cool! When I started out in b&w film photography, I would crop my prints to any random aspect ratio I thought suited them! Just did it on the paper cutter and then hot mounted them centered on a piece of mat board... now I stick with on aspect ratio and just work with that... just makes it easier for me... but nothing wrong with going the other way!
Best!
