Aspects of Landscape
Sorry about the leave of absence – a case of Swine flu I think (or man flu more likely). Just before I was incapacitated by self pity, I spent an enjoyable weekend at a certain Mr Cornish’s (yeah I know, name dropping and everything, sorry..). During the weekend we talked about all sorts of photography stuff, as people do, and we came to discuss aspect ratio preferences. I mentioned that I had only really used my 4×5 camera in portrait orientation as I thought it wasn’t just aspect ratio that is important to ‘learn’ but also the orientation, after all it’s about learning to see in a certain way. It wasn’t the first time I’ve been called anal but I think it was meant in a nice way. Anyway we got to talking about what our favourite aspect ratios were and for what reasons. Now I’ve been looking at various pictures for some time trying to work out what other aspect ratios work and as much as I like 4×5 (OK, it’s verging on an obsession) but I don’t think it works particularly well in landscape mode. The other options are 3×2, 2×1 and 6×17 and 16×9
Interlude..
Well lets have a think about what can change compositionally as you move to a landscape orientation. As we move to a landscape orientation, we are both able to spread the transverse movement of the eye so wide, sweeping compositions become possible (as in this ode to Minor White here, this wonderful Lake District composition here this epic Glencoe-scape. Also, compositions that use an off-centre balance become possible (see here, here and here). Wider formats allow more ‘breathing space’ around the composition and allow shallower diagonals, see here. They also allow objects in the landscape to ‘gaze’ (as in the last Dunstaburgh example of Joe’s. Ultra wide is more difficult to categorise – In my (personal) opinion, most ultra wide landscape images tend to be medium landscape images with some extra included either side. There are exceptions though, like Mark Denton’s Durdle Door (see dt0043).
I’ll start with 3×2 with ‘yeah sort of’. I’m not sure if it’s overexposure to this aspect ratio but it always seems to be either too narrow or too wide (mostly too narrow in my mind). Obviously some compositions may work perfectly with this ratio but I don’t seem to see many..
Next in line is the obvious 5×4 landscape format. Now I see more satisfactory compositions in this format but that may be to do with more committed photographers putting up with 6×7 or large format cameras (for the record, 6×7 is nearly 4×5 in aspect ratio, although just slightly fatter 68×55 according to me horseman holder which makes it 4×4.95 or 5×4.04). However for me this is just a little ‘blunt’, squeezed, stunted – perhaps trying too hard to be square? Again, there are some spectacular compositions in 5×4 but they seem to be the exception rather than the rule.
Now we get to what I think is my favourite – 2×1. When I look at 2×1 compositions, things look more balanced and, in a good composition, I tend to look all around the frame. 2×1 breathes, it seems to allow for more creativity in graphical composition. Anyway, personal opinions again, it just seems right. 2×1 is also pretty close to 16:9, the ratio that was chosen as the most like the human gaze by widescreen TV manufacturers, based on enormous amounts of research.
Finally 6×17. Now I used to be impressed by 6×17 shots, taken in by the span and detail. However as time has progressed, the pictures that once blew me away now hold less interest; they don’t hold me eye anymore. This could be because of my warped aesthetic but from what I can tell, this reaction is fairly common (comments welcome please). 6×17 just seems too.. big! Most compositions seem to shout breadth over quality (cue tailoring catchetisms) and very rarely does a composition hold together across the whole frame. Some of the best 6×17 shots I have seen have been ones where the composition could almost be considered as two parts of a story combined together; One composition leading through to another. Mark Denton, Colin Prior and Jaspal Jandu seem to be the main proponents of 6×17 in the UK.
So, where does this lead me? Well as I was talking with Joe about this he suggested I could borrow one of his 6×12 backs and a bunch of 120 film that was nearing expiry. So I think it’s time to start playing with different aspect ratios, starting with 6×12 and possibly trying out the one format I haven’t talked about.. square. I have to say that this is the one format that seems to have a unique status. Square pictures really have to work compositionally; there graphical structure has to work otherwise they fall apart. This ‘challenge’ interests me and although it worried me that I’ll fail completely – I do want to try and I hope I can manage as good a job as our Dav does.
p.s. The picture to the right is from the first proper camera outing I made after I got into photography, August 2005. Obviously I had a fondness for 2×1 from the start 
Hi Tim,
Having just returned from a trip where I shot mostly digital, I have been spending the afternoon reviewing images and even processing a few. One thing that strikes me is how ill-suited the standard 3×2 35mm format is to landscape photography and how well 5×4 fits.
Like you, I think mainly in terms of portrait format. Most of the images I shot (both LF and digital) were upright, despite the irritations of shooting that way with a geared head and a DSLR but, and here is where we apparently differ, I tend to the view that the subject dictates the crop. I will crop to 5×4, 2×3, 1×2 (even 6×7 occasionally) according to what I think works the best. I’m also pragmatic enough to do this with images shot on 5×4.
Not everything fits neatly within the rectangle with which our chosen format forces us to see the world. Also, we may sometimes realise that decisions taken in the field did not work out quite as well as intended. For these reasons, cropping is a useful means to ‘fine-tune’ one’s original compositional ideas and I’m all for it.
Why deny yourself a powerful tool for realising your vision?
Hi Jools!
Yes, 3×2 certainly seems a strange ratio and I think we may be seeing a rebellion against it with some of the new 16:9 and 4:3 ratios being included on new digital cameras (these being very close to 2×1 and 5×4).
I am sort of with you up to a point – Athough I don’t like cropping, I realise that my imperfect vision gets things wrong in camera (and also sometimes just having prime lenses on the 5×4 can’t get you perfect results). However I do think it is benficial to have some form of ‘palette’ of aspect ratios to think about in the field. Just having portrait 5×4 for some time has certainly helped me see opportunities better and I hope that adding 6×12 and square won’t be too much to think about. However, having no idea what aspect ratios you may use would lead me to confusion – too many choices perhaps.
My reluctance to crop at arbitrary (semi) ratios is also a symptom of trying to learn a single aspect ratio – I’m sure I have some failed images that may work with a square crop but they’ll have to wait for rediscovery one day
Joe did call me ascetic so I don’t consider myself ‘normal’ in the slightest
I’m actually quite envious of those photographers who have one format and stick to it (they normally stick to one film stock too). Maybe this is the way you end up after years of trial and error?
I’m generally most comfortable with two formats – 4×5 and square. I normally crop a digital image down to 4×5 but that’s not always possible in which case I’ll stick with the uncomfortable format it provides.
4×5 – why I wonder – they have a certain something about them – an authority, I wonder if that’s because it’s a format whick is connected with large and medium format so is therefore a format that more advanced photographers tend to use, therefore it’s likely that you see more accomplished work in that format and thus relate it to being more professional output??
I certainly started out more portrait but more recently I’ve gone a lot more landscape, I think this is due to my move to a quieter photographic style. Portrait aspect ratios tend to be more dynamic, lending themselves to depth with more foreground detail, it’s much harder to do the whole JCB thing with landscape format compositions. It might be that I’m just trying to move away from the recent trend to create depth in photos, to do my own(ish) thing which leads me to shun the trend for landscape landscapes?
I find myself more and more drawn towards the square format though, there’s something so beautiful about it and I think it appeals to me as a graphic designer. I’m even considering going entirely Hasselblad (or Mamiya 6) and giving up large format. But that’s this week, next week I might turn 6×17!
Personally I see no reason an image has to fit any ‘standard’ aspect ratio. The reasons to do so are mainly commercial reasons – picture frame sizes, stock agencies, self imposed ideas, following other peoples conventions etc etc. From a purely aesthetic point of view I think it makes no difference what shape the image is as long as it works and it works well. Tristan
Hi Tristan,
I’m interested in how you compose pictures in the field? Do you work around the viewfinder aspect ratio and then if it doesn’t fit, think about possible crops or do you just find a subject and think about an aspect ratio for it as you are wandering around it?
Also, I agree that if a picture works well at whatever aspect ratio then it works well. However you seem to work to fairly regular ratios – predominantly 3×2 landscape, 4×5 landscape and portrait and 2×1 landscape (from my brief glance). Does this mean you let the viewfinder dictate the aspect ratio?
Oh – and thanks for commenting
Hi,
(It’s me again
)
Tim, I’m still wondering why you have this fixation with ‘learning an aspect ratio’? I’m with Tristan here. It’s simply not important unless you wish to use it as a ‘creative limitation’. Otherwise you risk missing good opportunities because you can’t make the subject fit your preconceived frame or you end up with a big pile of ‘rejects’ which would be perfectly acceptable with a little judicious cropping.
I can’t speak for anyone else, obviously, but in the field, I tend not to try and put a frame around potential compositions – or think in terms of aspect ratio – until I have a good feeling of what I want to include in my image. Once I’m looking through the viewfinder (or at the ground glass) I will fine tune the arrangement of the various elements with respect to the frame through which I’m looking, changing lenses, position or zooming as necessary. And if that’s not enough, I try to do my best with what I’ve got and make a mental note to crop the shot later.
As regards aspect ratio, I wonder if the preference for 5×4 upright over 3×2 doesn’t go deeper than a mere perception of being more ‘professional’? I’ve a feeling (and I guess I should do the research to back it up
) that the Old Masters preferred a 5×4 ratio (or similar) for portraits. This could be one reason why 5×4 just looks ‘right’ when presented in portrait format. It’s certainly my preferred mode of working.
Hi Tim
I’m working in a mixture of formats with a Nikon F4, D200, Hasselblad (I thought you were going to miss out on "squares" altogether when I was reading your blog , but you relented at the last minute), and the current love of my life, Ebony 5×4.
I’ve also found that I favour "upright" photography – nothing to do with social standing – just seems to be a natural fit. I had put it down to my start in portraiture a long time ago. But after one of your recent blogs, I took a look through the landscape stuff from the past two or three years and I definitely have a bias towards the up-and-down shots.
The exceptions are the shots from the Hasselblad. It doesn’t bother me at all to compose square shots – I think I’m even a bit disappointed if I have to crop when printing from a Hassel’ neg.
On the other hand, from 35mm or digital, I routinely expect to crop. When I don’t, the ratio doesn’t seem right – whether it’s portrait or landscape. There may also be a bit of "trying to maximise the use of the paper area" from these formats – since they’ve never matched paper sizes to neg’ formats – maybe there’s a subconcious thought that it’s ok to "waste" a bit of negative, but you’ve got to use all the paper area!
Certainly I find the most pleasing proportions to be 5×4. And I’m still drawn to vertical – I think it if it’s done right, it draws the eye through the landscape, rather than around it. It can leave the viewer wanting to see around the corner (I know what I mean..) – leaving a question to be answered. Rather than the wider horizontal format answering all the questions.
Leaving them wanting more can’t be a bad thing, can it?
Best regards
Eddie
No I don’t let the viewfinder dictate (at least I hope not) but I do typically try to work with whatever format I am using. However if I think an image can be strengthened by cropping then I will crop but I very rarely make a concrete decision about an exact crop to another format (if one is needed) until I have the image in front of me.
In my original post I was not saying I do not work to standard aspect ratios – I do because I sell regular print sizes. But if I have an image and the composition works perfectly with a non standard aspect ratio then I would not have any hesitation using it. I sometimes feel as though having to crop an image is made out to be a bad thing. I guess this is personal choice regarding the way you want to work. Coming from a newspaper background I know that cropping an image is one of an image editors most powerful tools and I personally see no reason to be reluctant about cropping an image to any shape as long as it enhances the image.
I also think that any perceived ‘authority’ that the 5×4 aspect ratio has is entirely in the minds of the photographer. No aspect ratio has any more authority that any other – for me it is the image itself that has the authority.
@Jools – If you don’t think about the ‘target’ aspect ratio when you are in the field, isn’t it extraordinarily unlikely that your chosen subject should fit 5×4 exactly? How come the majority of you pick of the year (as an example) are almost exactly 5×4. This either means you are compromising the aspect ratio that would be perfect for the subject, throwing away potential pictures that don’t fit 5×4 or making compositions that fit within the 5×4 frame explicitly.
I could understand your dismissal of aspect ratio if there were an almost random distribution of aspect ratios in your portfolio but it seems that most of the pictures fit the aspect ratios of the camera they were taken with. Does this mean your choice of aspect ratio is dictated by the camera?
@Eddie – I know what you mean
@Tristan – Cropping is indeed a useful thing and the editor tends to crop because he didn’t have a chance to do so in camera. As a photographer though, we are both producer and editor of our own work and it makes sense to get the crop right in camera. Obviously this either can’t be possible (the camera is the wrong aspect ratio or you don’t have just the right lens) or you later decide that you prefer a crop (i.e. you ed up or have changed your mind). I would personally prefer to work out my picture in the field if possible (after all, a different crop may require a slight change in perspective – something the editor has no control over).
Obviously everyone would like to get it perfect first time. However sometimes you have to compromise. Personally I rarely get chance to get out and take pictures and when I do it usually is in a hit and run fashion due to other commitments. Also using wide angles in near darkness can make composing perfectly rather challenging and sometimes impossible so often the image is visualised in my head and a best attempt is made at composing in camera. I’ll take this compromise when I have to which allows me room fine tune the image if needed but hopefully capture the atmosphere rather than spent too long fiddling under the dark cloth and missing the image. Maybe circumstances/working method is the real source of a different point of view of the subject.
Hello Tim et al,
Most of the formats at our disposal fall between square and 3×2. It’s a very narrow range and very different to 6×17. 5×4 falls smack bang in the middle of that range and so allows the photographer a good bit of flexibility. Isn’t that reason enough? 5×4 can work horizontal or vertical without being exagerated one way or the other.
I find the combination of 5×4 and 6×17 to work best for me. It gives me two very different styles. In landscape photography, 5×4 as the epitome of the 1:1-1:1.5 aspect ratio range is particularly well suited to shooting from foreground to background. Shooting vertical serves to make this easier. 6×17 OTOH obliges you to compose with a foreground at one side, so the shots develop from side to side – a very different way of thinking. Either that or the view feels truncated/cropped. I would venture to say that 6×17 has given fewer involving results because more photographers use fixed-plane 6×17 rather than an RFH on a view camera which allows swing and more control of the focal plane. Methinks that is changing.
My tuppence worth.
Best regards,
Charles
@Tristan – Different working practices are bound to produce different needs/wants and life is most definitly not perfect. When I was using a digital camera, I would crop more often as I thought of the picture as the ‘raw ingredients’ but when I started using film I though about it as the finished article. However, I want to try and let the subject matter decide it’s aspect ratio but limit myself to certain bounds (for my own personal education – creative limitation as Jules put it).
@Charles – Using movements with wider aspect ratio shots is something I’ve been thinking about also. I’ve thought about buying a 6×7 or 6×17 camera but I don’t think I want to work without the ‘option’ of movements again. I agree that the use of near far compositions with wider aspect ratios should be very interesting.
This either means you are compromising the aspect ratio that would be perfect for the subject, throwing away potential pictures that don’t fit 5×4 or making compositions that fit within the 5×4 frame explicitly.
I think you are looking at the end product and assuming that what you see has not already been cropped. ;^)
I often look at a tranny and realise that my original ideas need tweaking. Rather than cropping to arbitrary aspect ratios, I try to retain a measure of consistency by only using ‘photographic’ ratios (5×4, 2×3, etc.) and my preference is for cropping to 5×4 as I like the aesthetics of the ratio. If this doesn’t work, then I try other options.
You will have noticed (I hope!) that my compositions tend towards being a slice out of a broader scene, rather than a self-contained subject-with-background type of shot – a case in point being ‘Swaledale Abstract’ – and would probably work with different aspect ratios (I know this is the case with ‘Lac du Val’ as I have experimented with different ratios). As I mentioned previously, I don’t consider aspect ratio until I impose one on the scene by looking through the camera and even then I treat this as a first-cut composition. If it works first time (as it does sometimes) then great. Otherwise, out come the virtual scissors.
Oh, and of the fourteen images in that gallery, a good half (if memory serves) were cropped after the fact.
@Jools – I understand where you are coming from I think. Generally you will use the camera’s aspect ratio as a first attempt and only crop if this doesn’t work for you. How often do you take a shot in 5×4 and end up cropping to a different ratio (or even cropping a landscape out of a portrait shot or vice versa)?
Tim
Lots of comments on this one – good subject!
Re’ fitting the aspect ratio to the format you’re working in :
If I’m using 35mm slide stock, I’ll try to compose to use the full area of the slide. Mainly because I hate seeing a projected slide with that little bit of silver paper (or whatever they use) cropping out bits that should have been seen before the button was pressed.
If I’m using 35mm and intending to print (whether colour or BW), I’ll think about the paper format and how the subject will best fit and still look right as a composition.
For digital projection, I hate the way a digital projector "cuts off" the top and bottom of a vertical image (yes, I know nothing actually gets chucked out, the image is just smaller, but it’s annoying – they’re built for business presentations of PowerPoint, not photography…). So if it’s for A/V, I’m thinking about how I can minimise the visual disruption between horizontal and vertical – even to the point of composing cropped horizontal images.
6×6 for printing, again whether colour or BW, I try to find a composition using the whole format. I don’t think I consider whether it’s horizontal or vertical.
6×6 slides, on the other hand – if I’m intending to project them – I may well consider 6×4.5. But less inclined to vertical shots, for some reason.
In 5×4 I’m definitely considering whether hori’ or vert’ suits best (even with my bias towards vertical). I’m also consciously trying to compose using the whole frame – cropping something that fits the paper formats just doesn’t seem right (and there’s no chance to project 5×4 slides!).
So, after giving this some thought, I think the format you have to hand and the end product (print / slide / a/v etc) may well drive a different approach even if it’s not a conscious decision.
Of all the formats I use / have used, the one I think I’m least likely to give conscious thought to aspect ratio is digital. Looking through some of my digital files, they’re the ones that seem most likely to end up with odd shaped crops – including landscape from vertical and vice versa. Is it because I feel like I’m snap-shooting with digital and therefore paying less attention to composition – being careless? Film’s a finite resource when you’re on location – every shot counts, so try to make something from each one. Digital, on the other hand, costs nothing for 4 or 5 (or 10) attempts. But if that’s the case, why abandon it before it’s "right"? I’ll need to think about that one…
Best regards
Eddie
Hi Everyone
I would agree with Julian, that ideally the subject matter should dictate the crop. However, with 5×4 I find portrait orientation much more natural for me – if I find myself struggling to find a composition I normally revert to an upright format. If I’m looking to create an image in a particular format for commercial reasons I also find 6×17 to be an easier format than 5×4 or 3×2 landscape, why, I really don’t know(sorry I know that’s no help!). Tim, I’ll be interested to hear the results of your experiments with 6×12, I’ve only tried it wth a 90mm lens and so far I find 6×17 easier, but that may just be due to more experience with 6×17.
Best wishes
Richard
Dare I poke my head above this particular parapet? Especially amongst so many other contributors who know their stuff far better than I?
I am speaking as someone who uses 3:2 because I using a Canon 1dsmk2. I tend to find I present my images in whatever final size I feel fis the subject.
I find the close-up, intimate landscapes seem to work well at this size, and I present all of my panoramas (either stitched images or cropped from 3:2 shots) at 17×6 because I love this format – I find my sweeps across the frame and the size is impressive enough to capture a sweeping landscape (I do struggle with the vertical panoramas at this size though.).
I am drawn to the 5×4 format – there is something compact and solid about it. It somehow looks accomplished – but as Dav says, and I feel there is much in his comment, this may be because it is the more accomplished photographers who use this format.
I am also drawn to square images and often crop my 3:2 images to this size. The image does have to be compositionally strong but I find it results in a punchy and solid image – that seems to suit fine art and mono images well.
I am not good at theories about the ‘why’s’ of all this – I just tend to know what I like when I see it. I often try several crops in post production to see what works best, but often in the field I compose with a particular format in mind.
After reading this thread I am determined to try some work with 5 x 4 in mind and see if this works for me.
Excellent topic! As a long-time 35mm user, I find composing to this format relatively easy (he said arrogantly, assuming his images are thought to be at least OK if not good…) and rarely feel that the 3:2 ratio is wrong for the subject.
About 2 years ago I started mucking about with a Rolleicord 6×6 and enjoyed that immensely; some subjects do work very well in square format. But I was frustrated at the fixed lens. No possibility for wide angle compositions and very restrictive in getting a strong foreground. That led me to the Mamiya 645 I have now and that seems to fit the bill. Why? Firstly I really appreciate the large viewfinder and find that makes the composing far easier than with the 35mm. Secondly, the 4:3 ratio seems to work very well for me. What’s interesting is that I find myself using the portrait orientation more and more – perhaps because it does give a better front-to-back dynamic to the image which suits both intimate and broader view landscapes. I find it interesting that this format has had only one mention here so far.
In common with others, in most cases I think that I compose my subject to suit the format and try to fill the frame – being a miserly sort I hate to “waste” film However, on occasion I do recognise that I will need to crop the final image (more so the 35m than the 645). The reason for cropping is usually related to physical limitations of the location – I can’t get close enough to the subject or the width: height ratio gives me too much of one or t’other dimension.
Finally, having had an LX3 for a few months now, I find that most of my shooting is at the 4:3 ratio, I experiment with the 16:9 occasionally but rarely use 3:2 – the latter may be because I usually have the 35mm camera with me in any case and prefer to use that rather than the digicam.
So in conclusion: I tend to chose and compose the subject to suit the format and only crop if I have to. And how do I choose the format? Well, for “considered” photography I use the 645 as it does slow me down and gives me time to think. For happier snaps, or when the subject requires a very wide or long focal length (e.g 20mm or above 105mm in 35mm film terms) or, the need to work fast, then the 35mm comes to the fore.
I too do like the 5×4 format but I agree that its perceived better quality, “authority” etc is at least in part due to the more advanced photographers using the size and that their techniques automatically lead to better images. In other words it’s the thinking behind the image rather than the ratio.
A short anecdote: I witnessed two accomplished LF photographers (both known to several people here) discussing how to frame a particular scene, the problem being that it was too far away to do what ‘tog A wanted to capture. ‘tog B said “you could always crop” – to which ‘tog A replied with a smile – “that goes against the grain”. And ‘tog A gave up on the idea though what he had in mind would have produced a fine image, though not to the 5×4 ratio. It’s his artistic choice. And so should it be with whatever format we decide to use.
Sorry to ramble on!
@Eddie – Interesting that you think this way about digital. I had a feeling very similarly and I think it’s true, you can take so many pictures with digital that you end up trying to rescue bits of them using crops. I’m not sure I like this approach to photography (although like Tristan says, it’s what a newspaper editor would do with a contact sheet). Regarding shooting for end product, it seems that you are targetting an end product whilst you are shooting (e.g. you wouldn’t shoot portrait if you were going to project digitally) is this particularly if you are shooting for an assigment?
@Richard – I am a bit worried that I don’t have a wide enough lens for some of the types of shot I’m after but I do have an 80mm which should allow me to take what is effectively a cropped 5×4 transparency with a 110 lens – if that makes sense. I’m still unsure whether 6×17 is just too much, a lot of the compositions I’ve seen tend to be very cramped at the top and bottom.
@Doug – Joe and I were playing with a wide stitch pano with my 5D mk2 and he/we took a shot across the Yorkshire Moors that works really well in 6×17.. For Joe’s version he climbed on top of his car Ansel Adams style and took a 5 shot landscape orientation panorama (about 6×30!).
It’s in this sort of view where I think the sides of the pictures are sort of redundant but they provide the peripheral vision to make things just a little more realistic. When I crop it to 6×12 it just doesn’t have that ‘wide open space’ (cue Mansun) look that lets your eye wander.
@Adam – Ramble away Adam, after all there seem to be as many opinions as aspect ratios.. errm.. OK possibly more. I can imagine whose grain didn’t fit as well
He wood say that though.. (groan)
Hi Tim
I think 6×12 with your 80mm would be good, I often find 90mm a bit too cramped, you could get that liitle bit of extra at the bottom and top. I do prefer 90mm on 6×17 though.
I also found that with 6×17 I didn’t want movements as the foreground interest would never be very close to the camera(and always near one side). With a wide lens on 6×12 it’s more like composing on 5×4 and I usually have close foreground which needs tilt. I agree that some 6×17 compositions can be cramped at the bottom and top, this can occur when 6×17 is the only camera in the bag so elements have to be forced into the frame(I know of a couple 6×17 devotees who will probably disagree as they feel it suits natural vision best), but when it works I find it extremely comfortable and uncluttered to view.
After reading your blog I re-examined some of my 6×17 images. I noticed that the successful ones would always have obvious diagonals to give depth, but interestingly, in most cases these would run from bottom corner to opposite top corner(or to the end of the horizon on the opposite side) with the same pattern being mirrored on both sides, almost forming a symmetrical X shape – sorry if this doesn’t make sense, I need to draw it!
I’ve also sold way more 6×17 as big prints but I think this may be aesthetically irrelevant as it’s just a shape that fits most gaps on living room walls!
Look forward to hearing more on this subject.
Best wishes
Richard
@Richard – I do think that 6×17 users try to get whatever they see into the 6×17 aspect ratio where sometimes some things just don’t fit properly. Trying to bag all of the icon locations with a 6×17 will lead to some squished looking compositions.
I think I know what you mean by the X – like looking down a wide glacial valley (sort of like the picture at the bottom of this blog post).
I’ll try to summarise all of the comments in a couple of days..
Personally although I find 3×2 format workable for stuff like general family photos, travel and action, for landscapes I do prefer something a bit squarer. But I also think its interesting how the orientation plays a part – I find my perception of formats varies with the orientation.
As you mention in the blog post Tim our field of vision takes a wide horizontal sweep, so to me 3×2 looks more pleasing as a horizontal than a vertical. For verticals I favour something in the 645 or 6×7 (i.e. roughly 4×5 shape, and like you my favoured default orientation is vertical), and find it fine for horizontals too. It was quite a revelation to me when I moved up to a Mamiya 645 setup just how much easier to compose verticals it was without having to rely on cropping or feeling squeezed in or having too much sky in shot. Certainly when I look back at my 35mm slides or digital landscapes I find the horizontals look less forced, even though I tended to shoot more verticals anyway……
In terms of panoramic formats there’s one that is often overlooked, and that is 2×5" – i.e. a half sheet of 4×5 (2 shots on one sheet). This sits in a convenient niche as being wider and skinnier than the quite chubby 6×12 but without being as long as 6×17. Sort of like a 6×14 equivalent. I’ve found it easy to compose for, and of course doesn’t require any additional gear for the field camera user other than an old darkslide cut in half.
@Dave – funny you should say that, when I was cropping the Yorkshire moors picture, something in between 6×17 and 6×12 seemed to work very well… Has anyone figured out a way to take two shots on a single darkslide (having never used darkslides, I don’t know how easy it would be to make a mask)
@Tim – basically with normal film holders you need a spare dark slide, cut away one half except for the handle. So when you’re taking a shot, you compose on one half of the glass, insert holder, pull out the normal darkslide, insert your half slide so that it covers up the other half of the sheet, take your shot, and make a note of which half you’ve exposed on the holder. You can then shoot on the other half in the same way for another shot. I’m not sure how this would work for Quickload users though.
Pros: Lightweight, little extra gear needed. Almost zero startup cost. Half the film and dev cost of 4×5. Good film flatness.
Cons: More faff than a 6×12 holder. More expensive per shot, cost of 6×12 back not withstanding. The usual dust issues of sheet film.
@Dave – Just what I needed to know. I might have to play with this sometime..
@Tim – I think one of my "problems" with digital is that I have difficulty seeing / visualising an end product, as such.
With film, I have negative stock – which I know I’ll make prints from – or transparencies, which I’ll generally use for projection.
If I know there’s a print somewhere along the line, I do tend to consider the likely size, presentation and orientation of the end product. I don’t think there’s much doubt in my mind that the composition is affected by that – even if it’s not a conscious decision at the time. And it may be altered when I see the result at the time of making the print – hence the feeling of disappointment in cropping from the Hassel’ square neg!
Similarly, if I’m shooting slides, I know in a normal projector an image will have the same area on screen whether it’s vertical or horizontal. To avoid visual disruptions during transitions between images I try to use the full area of the format.
Now, if there’s one thing that digital is made for, it’s audio-visual – no dual projector set-up, no problems with slide registration, all those electronic dissolves and fades etc – great (in theory). However, it’s spoilt, for me, by the fact that it goes through that awful "dwarf slide" thing when a vertical composition appears – the ratios are maintained, but the vertical height is limited by the shortest dimension on a projector primarily aimed at horizontal format images.
That seems to put limits in my way – with my bias towards vertical images, knowing that if I project they’ll lose a bit of that impact a viewer gets from the sheer size of an image. So I start to look at horizontal formats when I’m composing an image that, in my mind, should be vertical. End result is a mish-mash – and generally a rescue mission by unplanned cropping.
Additionally, with digital, I don’t seem to start with the intention to print. With film, if I want to share the image, I have to print – therefore the intention to print is implicit at the time of shooting. However, with digital, it may viewed on pc, via projection, e-mailed as low-res, printed hi-res, etc. I can’t seem to generate the same "connected" feel from start point to end.
None of this is the fault of digital photography per se – it’s definitely "my problem". But I do, like most, take a lot more shots with a digital camera in my hand than I would with film – I think that comes from a feeling of "if I take ten, I might get one". The "problem" maybe, is that the ten / twenty / whatever digital shots are taken in a lot less time than I would spend on one with film. I need to spend more time thinking with a digital camera in my hand!
There! Problem solved – this therapy is great- thank you Dr Tim
Best Regards
Eddie
Eddie said: But I do, like most, take a lot more shots with a digital camera in my hand than I would with film – I think that comes from a feeling of "if I take ten, I might get one". The "problem" maybe, is that the ten / twenty / whatever digital shots are taken in a lot less time than I would spend on one with film. I need to spend more time thinking with a digital camera in my hand!
And therein lies the main psychological block to thoughtful photography taking with a digital camera. It is only when I started using a large format camera that I also started using a more ‘considered’ approach to my digital camera.
Those extra minutes spent on each exposure pay dividends and if you ‘leave’ composition that you know won’t work, you have more time to find better photographs and work on them harder.
thank you Dr Tim
What are psychiatry rates?
I’m totally feeling you here. I recently bought a Kiev 88 "Hasselbladski" and it’s really hard work for me, getting out of the habit of thinking in 3:2.
Also, part of the reason I’m commenting is because this is the first time I’ve run into your site (via Ken Rockwell, of course) and I’m greatly enjoying the articles you’ve written here, and your awesome photographs. Sorry to comment on an old entry like this but I wanted to give you my thanks, anonymously and in some way that wouldn’t take up your time by emailing you.