You are currently browsing comments. If you would like to return to the full story, you can read the full entry here: “More on aspect ratios”.
This journal discusses photography in all its guises with an emphasis on the art of making photographs.
You are currently browsing comments. If you would like to return to the full story, you can read the full entry here: “More on aspect ratios”.
Posted in Paintings
Television and movies show action where people move across the screen, hence the need for a wide format. Paintings and still photographs do not have the requirement for movement, hence a squarer format. Although 16:9 might be suitable for landscape, try using it in portrait and you’re three quarters the way to a Sergeant portrait, the format of which I believe was only popular in the late 19th/early 20th century.
Your insight makes a lot of sense.
My personal idea is that the most universal ratio could be between 4:3 and 3:2 … the square root of 2
If you look at the “standard” european paper formats (called A4, A3, etc.), they have the very interesting “universal” benefit that each one is obtained bu cutting in 2 (or binding together 2) the next/previous size while keeping the same ratio. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A4_paper for details.
Since professional photos are mostly read in art books, and since developping your own art book is now accessible to most photographers through internet (typically with “standard” A4 ratios in Europe for example), I see a real interest to compose or crop my photos to this 1.414 ratio.
This way, I can then compose the pages of my book with either one full photo, two similar photos side by side, three photos (one big, two small) or any number and combination of photos while keeping a good balance and avoiding odd-looking lost space.
Anyway, as digital is all about flexibility, I hope upcoming cameras or software will suggest this ratio as just another option. We’ll see what the future will bring !
Regards, Alex
(please excuse my foreign english)