 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Film Photography / 35 mm / December 2006Good format ? Rule of Thirds.
I saw the thread about rule of thirds. Would this apply to formats as wel. In general I like the 2:3 format better than the 3:4 format. Should I adopt the 1:1.618 (Phi) format ? Ben Brugman Formats : 1 Square format (6x6 camera's) 1.25 Most TFT screen. (1024x1280) 1.333 3:4 tv and modern point and shoots. 1.5 35 mm format (2:3) 1.555 sub wide screen format (9:14) 1.618 Phi format (Phi/1) 1.777 wide screen tv (9:16) 2.618 phi format (Phi/phi) Maybe I should adopt the 1.618 format as general format. (Only landscape I should think). > Should I adopt the 1:1.618 (Phi) format ? Why? The format should fit the subject, not vice versa.  SignatureNicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio Darkroom Automation: F-Stop Timers, Enlarging Meters http://www.nolindan.com/da/index.htm n o lindan at ix dot netcom dot com > I saw the thread about rule of thirds. > > Would this apply to formats as well. I guess so. I mean if it's a pleasing ratio, why not use it for framing. I tend to crop while maintaining the strict ratio of the original just so they match in a set but I almost admire folks who crop each shot freely as the shot demands. I think I would go nuts doing that (never satisfied). It could be fun to have every shot framed different though. > In general I like the 2:3 format better than the 3:4 format. I agree and it might be nice to do an even wider 1:1.618 it is a noticeably wider format. > Should I adopt the 1:1.618 (Phi) format ? > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Maybe I should adopt the 1.618 format as general format. > (Only landscape I should think). > > I saw the thread about rule of thirds. > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > freely as the shot demands. I think I would go nuts doing that (never > satisfied). It could be fun to have every shot framed different though. I feel that this is the way to go to make the 'perfect' shape for each shot, ideally determined when it is exposed. But it gets incredibly costly on framing, and it turns out that while gallery sales, where the buyer actually looks at a framed print on the wall before buying, work like this, sales off the page are much easier if one sticks to a range of more or less standard sizes. And commercial work often gets cropped by the end user anyway, so that often has to get shot with some extra space around it. As always, the counsel of perfection can be applied in real life only some of the time... Peter >>>I saw the thread about rule of thirds. >>> >>>Would this apply to formats as well. >> >>I guess so. I mean if it's a pleasing ratio, why not use it for framing. You know, the golden section diagram with the spiraling series of squares only works in that format. You could take the ratio for positioning horizonally or vertically but those two don't work together really. So I wonder if it's even meaningful in a square frame, for example. >>I tend to crop while maintaining the strict ratio of the original just >>so they match in a set but I almost admire folks who crop each shot [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Peter > >>>I saw the thread about rule of thirds. > >>> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > together really. So I wonder if it's even meaningful in a square > frame, for example. It does work in a square, but square is 'the other' format where thirds also work well, as they do in the 2:3 ratio. Personally I find a 'linear' subject not as pleasing on the third as on the GS in a square, but a 'point' subject works very well on the intersection of the thirds. I'm sure you appreciate what a generalisation that is though - I compose for what looks good, not to a set of rules, though the 'rules' are useful to know. Peter > I saw the thread about rule of thirds. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Ben Brugman It's a matter of personal choice, IMO. 1:1.618 is not bad for landscapes, but it's too narrow for vertical shots. Read the thread above (What makes the "rule of thirds" work?) for extensive - and biased - discussion on thirds vs. Golden Section. After that, do what suits you. Colin D. SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.