Selling All 8x10 Gear & It Feels Good!

[Bernice Loui]

Crop to desired image aspect ratio is always an alternative. IMO, more important than image aspect ratio is being able to adjust the image composition to a given aspect ratio or being able to crop to a desired image aspect ratio.

This is more a matter of composition skills than image aspect ratio than aspect ratio alone. Second aspect to this, does the fixed aspect ratio become the image driving factor or the the image goals in mind or vision become the image goal's driving factor?

Bit of history:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...n-proportions/


Bernice

[Tin Can]

I posted recently the history of Painting sizes'

As usual, I do whatever I want

art rules?

[abruzzi]

to get the standard "flat" 1.85:1 cinema aspect ratio, you'd cut down 5x7 to 3.78x7. To get there from 8x10, you'd crop down to 5.4x10, which is noticably larger, but neither would seem ideal for contact printing. The cinemascope ratio, would crop even more, but for me, contact printing an image with that aspect ratio would kind of defeat the purpose (for me) of shooting in a more panoramic format, just due to the size of the final image. Maybe shooting an 11x14 and contact printing 7.6x14 might be worth while. My reason for liking the aspect of 5x7 is not pano, but simply that square is visually unstable to me, 4x5 and 8x10 are less so, but having a long edge and a short edge that are obviously different grounds the image in my eyes. The 1.5:1 of 35mm and 6x9 are close to ideal, and 5x7 is the still-generally-available sheet size that is closest to that ratio.

Of course we can always crop when printing, but when viewing the image under the cloth, I prefer to see what is closest to what I want the final image to me. When I dipped my toe in 8x10, coming from 4x5, a large part of it was the availability of film. But I've faced up the fact that I don't really like shooting color for the most part, and I don't really need 30 different B&W emulsions, just two or three. So at least so far, I've actually been quite happy with my initial experements with 5x7 (incidentally, I've also been experementing with 6x9 view cameras, and have found that quite satisfying as well, and I really want a Technikardan 23 to go with my Technikardan 45, but haven't found one yet at a price I want to pay, I also need to find a solution for using more standard 6x9 roll holders.)

[Steve Sherman]

This is more a matter of composition skills than image aspect ratio than aspect ratio alone. Second aspect to this, does the fixed aspect ratio become the image driving factor or the the image goals in mind or vision become the image goal's driving factor? Bernice[/QUOTE]

The great part of getting to an advanced level of competency, as most are here on this form, we each get to choose the challenges and pieces of the puzzle that are most important in our images. In that spirit, there are no right or wrong answers, only wisdom and style philosophies.

[r.e.]

Crop to desired image aspect ratio is always an alternative. IMO, more important than image aspect ratio is being able to adjust the image composition to a given aspect ratio or being able to crop to a desired image aspect ratio.

This is more a matter of composition skills than image aspect ratio than aspect ratio alone. Second aspect to this, does the fixed aspect ratio become the image driving factor or the the image goals in mind or vision become the image goal's driving factor?

Bit of history:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...n-proportions/

I think that most photographers who shoot film compose for the native aspect ratio of their camera. Who hasn't read posts suggesting that real men don't crop Digital cameras have opened up the option of more than one in-camera aspect ratio. However, I suspect that the alternative aspect ratios of these cameras (16:9, 4:3 and 1:1) are mostly used by people who are making photographs for incorporation in video, sharing on social media platforms or presentation on 16:9 computer screens.

As a still photographer, @Tin Can notes in post#42 that he can use whatever aspect ratio he wants. People who make films/videos don't have that luxury if they want others to see their work. This means that they need to make a conscious decision about aspect ratio every time that they make a film. Vittorio Storaro (Apocalypse Now, etc.) has been a strong proponent of 2:1 as a new norm. However, as you suggest the choice can be affected by content as well as presentation requirements. The most famous example is probably Steven Spielberg's Jurassic Park. He shot it at 1.85:1 rather than 2:39:1 because 2.39:1 dinosaurs would've looked like midgets instead of terrifying creatures towering over humans. It's a good reminder that height in images matters.

I've found that making videos has made me more conscious of the relationship between aspect ratio and content. My Blackmagic Cinema Camera forces me to address the issue every time that I pick it up. For me, the threads on the forum that display panoramic images have been a good lesson about when widescreen works and when it doesn't. I've certainly become more open to manipulating aspect ratio in still photographs, which is why I made the spreadsheet in post #40 and started the thread Masking a Ground Glass for Cinema Aspect Ratios.

I enjoyed your link to David Pogue's 2018 Scientific American article, and followed the link to his longer piece on the emerging phenomenon of vertical smartphone video. I know Pogue best as a former NY Times technology writer and author of very popular books on MacOS. Interesting comments about the history of aspect ratios, especially what he says about 16:9. On the question of vertical video, lots of people shared his view, but four years later it's clear that they've lost the war