 |
 | 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 / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / January 2007The 3:2 ratio needs to go, it's a throwback and a stupid waste
This ratio is just about worthless. In the first place, 4:3 ratio is more representative of professional prints in magazines or any other forum you wish to consider. The fact is a more square ratio is used far more often than a longer rectangle. The other thing is the sheer waste of the 3:2. Draw a circle representing your lens's image circle. Now, draw a rectangle in it at 3:2. Now draw a taller rectangle of 4:3 or thereabouts. Notice the total image loss with the 3:2. Now, ask yourself, how many medium format CCDs use a 3:2 rectangle? Answer: NONE. Even though it is for the same stupid reason as 35mm FF (that there were established medium format sizes) medium format users have not seen any need to adopt a shorter and only marginally wider format. The switch to a 4:3 or similar sensor would allow more pixels to be available for the image and a minimal loss of the horizontal angle of the image. Lenses have been producing round image circles sense they were invented and yet they are using a format that does not make as much use of it as possible. For traditionalist 35mm users, the camera companies can easily put a framing rectangle in the viewscreen to simulate the old 3:2 format and allow those who want it to compose using it. Just like the CF card, the 3:2's days should be numbered solely for practical, cost and evolutionary reasons. > This ratio is just about worthless. In the first place, 4:3 ratio is > more representative of professional prints in magazines or any other > forum you wish to consider. The fact is a more square ratio is used > far more often than a longer rectangle. The other thing is the sheer > waste of the 3:2. Draw a circle representing your lens's image circle. > Now, draw a rectangle in it at 3:2. Why would not to switch directly to the round format in utilize the lens in the most efficient way ? :-) >> This ratio is just about worthless. In the first place, 4:3 ratio is >> more representative of professional prints in magazines or any other [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Why would not to switch directly to the round format in utilize the lens > in the most efficient way ? :-) <guffaw!> >> Why would not to switch directly to the round format in utilize the >> lens in the most efficient way ? :-) > > <guffaw!> I agree! The massive light falloff of Canon's 16-35/2.8 will give it that "artsy" feel akin to looking down the "Time Tunnel" as shown in that famous 60s Sci-Fi show. Rita >>> Why would not to switch directly to the round format in utilize the >>> lens in the most efficient way ? :-) [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > "artsy" feel akin to looking down the "Time Tunnel" as shown in that famous > 60s Sci-Fi show. I thought that was what the Lensbaby was for. > > This ratio is just about worthless. In the first place, 4:3 ratio is > > more representative of professional prints in magazines or any other [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Why would not to switch directly to the round format in utilize the lens in > the most efficient way ? :-) I doubt the CCD mfgs would be amenable to producing round sensors at this point anyway. >> This ratio is just about worthless. In the first place, 4:3 ratio is >> more representative of professional prints in magazines or any other [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Why would not to switch directly to the round format in utilize the lens in > the most efficient way ? :-) RichA is the biggest a.shole on the internet. I know that covers a lot of territory, but it's true. He lives in his mother's basement with the occasional visit to her bedroom. : This ratio is just about worthless. In the first place, 4:3 ratio is : more representative of professional prints in magazines or any other [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] : Just like the CF card, the 3:2's days should be numbered solely for : practical, cost and evolutionary reasons. ---------------------- 3:2 is an important aspect ration for landscape Photography although I tend to mentally crop the top of all portrait orientation images taken with cameras using this ratio so I can comfortably make traditional (4:3) aspect prints. ( Now lets not go down the road of exact size with the purists, eh?)  SignatureWedding Photography anywhere between Coffs Harbour NSW and Rainbow Beach Qld. http://www.photosbydouglas.com Your digital photos enlarged and printed on Canvas http://canvas.photosbydouglas.com > 3:2 is an important aspect ration for landscape Photography I can't argue with the word "important" here - I'm sure it is to some, and that some great photographs have been taken in this format. But I can observe that it isn't particularly common in the grand scheme of things. People have been painting landscapes for *centuries*, and most artists have a fiar amount of choice in their canvas size (many stretch their own). Yet I'd wager the vast majority of landscapes are more square than 3:2. A good number are even more more elongated than 3:2, of course. But 3:2 itself isn't especially common - a sort of awkward no man's land. So I wouldn't say that the evidence suggests 3:2 is a ratio that many people would actually choose very often, given a decent range of options. --------------- Marc Sabatella marc@outsideshore.com Music, art, & educational materials Featuring "A Jazz Improvisation Primer" http://www.outsideshore.com/ >Yet I'd wager the vast majority of landscapes are more >square than 3:2. A good number are even more more elongated than 3:2, >of course. But 3:2 itself isn't especially common - a sort of awkward >no man's land. So I wouldn't say that the evidence suggests 3:2 is a >ratio that many people would actually choose very often, given a decent >range of options. However, given that you have to chose a fixed aspect ratio anyhow, 3:2 doesn't seem a bad choice. 1.4142:1 is a nice compromise between 3:2 and 4:3. But irrational numbers are too scary for people living in the US. SignatureThat was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make. -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency >> This ratio is just about worthless. In the first place, 4:3 ratio is >> more representative of professional prints in magazines or any other [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > 3:2 is an important aspect ration for landscape Photography No, it isn't. Panorama is far more important. > This ratio is just about worthless. Then why are TV and film going to wider formats? Greg Signature"All my time I spent in heaven Revelries of dance and wine Waking to the sound of laughter Up I'd rise and kiss the sky" - The Mekons > > This ratio is just about worthless. > > Then why are TV and film going to wider formats? > > Greg I once read a fascinating explanation of why movies tend to be in wide formats. When TV settled on 4:3, the movie houses wanted to be able to differentiate themselves from TV, and make it difficult for TV networks to broadcast their products. So, they deliberately went to a format which didn't fit well onto a 4:3 TV screen, to drive people into the theaters. It may or may not be true, but it's an interesting theory. 50+ years later, things have now come full circle. TVs (and computers) are going wide format to go after the movies, and the movie houses are looking at home viewing as a primary distribution market. >>> This ratio is just about worthless. >> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > going wide format to go after the movies, and the movie houses are looking > at home viewing as a primary distribution market. There is some truth to the story, but another factor was that the movie makers wanted a panoramic format for those westerns and epics. Also, you could simply double the width of standard 35mm movie film to 70mm. [..] > > I once read a fascinating explanation of why movies tend to be in wide > > formats. When TV settled on 4:3, the movie houses wanted to be able to [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > makers wanted a panoramic format for those westerns and epics. Also, you > could simply double the width of standard 35mm movie film to 70mm. Well, not exactly. The *goal* was to draw TV viewers back into the theaters, and the *method* was to come up with new film technologies to make the film experience more attractive. For instance, Cinerama, which had three film projectors showing three different chunks of the scene on three different screens. Not as easy a task to synchronize or shoot as anamorphic Cinemascope or Panavision, by any means. Filmmakers started making big epics and westerns because not only did they fill the big wide screen now available through the technology, but also because they demonstrated what Hollywood could do that TV couldn't: Put up a huge, lavish production. It's a bit like all the digital-special-effects action movies we have now. TV can't spend that kind of money. See also: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anamorphic_widescreen> >Filmmakers started making big epics and westerns because not only did >they fill the big wide screen now available through the technology, but >also because they demonstrated what Hollywood could do that TV couldn't: >Put up a huge, lavish production. It's a bit like all the >digital-special-effects action movies we have now. TV can't spend that >kind of money. Have you watched "24"? SignatureNew Jersey threw out a one-hundred-fifty-year-old law Thursday that prevents idiots from voting. It threw the presidential race into chaos. As if Hillary Clinton wasn't facing enough problems, William Shatner is now leading in New Jersey. > It's a bit like all the > digital-special-effects action movies we have now. TV can't spend that > kind of money. Have you watched Stargate Sg1? There are as many special effects in every TV episode than any film I have seen. > > It's a bit like all the > > digital-special-effects action movies we have now. TV can't spend that [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > There are as many special effects in every TV episode than any film I have > seen. <Teal'c> "Indeed" </Teal'c> SignatureYou need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for independence. -- Charles A. Beard > > It's a bit like all the > > digital-special-effects action movies we have now. TV can't spend that [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > There are as many special effects in every TV episode than any film I have > seen. Sure. TV's trying to pull viewers back. But you won't see 'Lord of the Rings' as a TV show.. You'll have to go to the movies for that. Note also that Stargate is available in widescreen. :-) >> > It's a bit like all the >> > digital-special-effects action movies we have now. TV can't spend that [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Note also that Stargate is available in widescreen. :-) That's because they want to sell it to us viewers in the UK where nearly all TVs and programs are 16:9. Even the portables are 16:9 these days. Its a good job they shoot HiDef too, the odd NTSC captures I have seen are appalling quality. Its been 10 years since I have be in the USA and I thought they might have fixed their TV by now. Anyway I see no reason to worry about sensor aspect ratios.. I never print the same ratio anyway. The last print was 1:8. >Sure. TV's trying to pull viewers back. But you won't see 'Lord of the >Rings' as a TV show.. You'll have to go to the movies for that. No, I've seen them on TNT... http://www.tvsquad.com/2006/12/07/tnt-will-air-entire-lord-of-the-rings-trilogy/ SignatureArnold Schwarzenegger was at the Golden Globes Monday to give away the award for Best Motion Picture Drama. He's no newcomer to the winner's circle himself. The Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas once voted him most lifelike over Al Gore. Slightly more than none. Horseman SW-612 Medium Format Camera Kit with Normal 90mm f/6.8 Grandagon Lens, Viewfinder and 6 x 9cm (120) Film Magazine Vintage MOSKVA-3 6 x 9 cm Russian camera *********************** Very Rare ! > Slightly more than none. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > *********************** > Very Rare ! Charles, Everything is going to wide format now. All computers, films, tv,mags, etc. I just wish my Digital Rebel XT would do the widescreen format. It does do nice expanded desktop images. I can give it that. Harry Flaxman Appplications Engineer (retired) > Slightly more than none. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > *********************** > Very Rare ! The Horseman will be rare now too, that the envirokooks in Europe have killed its production. >> Slightly more than none. >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > The Horseman will be rare now too, that the envirokooks in Europe have > killed its production. Nothing the environmentalist wackos do really surprises me, but what did they have against a camera? Was the factory making "endangered" snails too nervous to have sex or something? Neil >>> Slightly more than none. >>> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >they have against a camera? Was the factory making "endangered" snails too >nervous to have sex or something? I think the problem with a number of "traditional" cameras was that the (mandatory) switch to lead-free solder proved to be uneconomic. I find that a bit unconvincing myself, but not half as unconvincing as the rationale for imposing lead-free solder on highly valuable products in the first place. Hardly the kind of thing you would expect to end up in a landfill site, when you think about it. David SignatureDavid Littlewood >I think the problem with a number of "traditional" cameras was that the >(mandatory) switch to lead-free solder proved to be uneconomic. I find >that a bit unconvincing myself, but not half as unconvincing as the >rationale for imposing lead-free solder on highly valuable products in >the first place. Hardly the kind of thing you would expect to end up in >a landfill site, when you think about it. Landfill is only part of it. The manufacturing process is a major part of the problem. The fact that the manufacture is done in Japan is not especially relevant. The same company that made the X-Pan also made the Horseman stereo camera, the Konica Hexar RF and the Contax G1 and G2. All had lead soldered components, and all these bodies would therefore have had to be discontinued for that reason if they were still being made. All these cameras shared many design similarities and some components. >>>> Slightly more than none. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > first place. Hardly the kind of thing you would expect to end up in a > landfill site, when you think about it. Now that you mention it I do remember reading something like that, though I don't think it was in connection with any cameras. I don't remember what it was. Neil >This ratio is just about worthless. In the first place, 4:3 ratio is >more representative of professional prints in magazines or any other [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >yourself, how many medium format CCDs use a 3:2 rectangle? Answer: >NONE. Almost every word you write displays your ignorance of virtually every aspect of photography. 6x9: Fuji GW690; Fuji GSW690 (and various other earlier Fuji varieties); Plaubel 69W; several varieties of Mamiya Press; Various Zeiss Ikontas; several varieties of 6x9 roll film back for larger format cameras. 6x12 and yet wider formats: Linhof Technorama 6x12, ditto 6x17; Fuji G617; Widelux 1500. No doubt I have missed a few. Perhaps you could give us a break and STFU. David SignatureDavid Littlewood > >This ratio is just about worthless. In the first place, 4:3 ratio is > >more representative of professional prints in magazines or any other [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > No doubt I have missed a few. <http://www.zeroimage.com/web2003/ProductPage/135/Zero135_2003.htm> <http://www.zeroimage.com/web2003/ProductPage/612B/Zero612B_2006.htm> :-) > >This ratio is just about worthless. In the first place, 4:3 ratio is > >more representative of professional prints in magazines or any other [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Perhaps you could give us a break and STFU. That would be like asking the Pacific Ocean to not be wet. SignatureYou need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for independence. -- Charles A. Beard > This ratio is just about worthless. In the first place, 4:3 ratio is .. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_ratio SignatureJoseph Meehan Dia 's Muire duit > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_ratio 2500 years from now, archaeologists will be unearthing the MPEG-2 standard from some garbage dump, and one of the more impressionable among them will write a book about how pre-Hypernet savages worshipped slavishly 4:3, 16:9 and 2.21:1. Psychological studies will be conducted that show these ratios are built into the human genome, and other studies will be done to show that but for evil techno-dependencies blinding them, those future people could perceive an unfiltered reality at last! And it goes without saying that anyone at that time who questions the entire thesis as numerological claptrap will be sent to the re-education camps. > > This ratio is just about worthless. In the first place, 4:3 ratio is .. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Dia 's Muire duit Rich A is a well-known idiot lurking about this group and other photo groups. He never lets the facts get in the way of a good diatribe. I guess, Joseph, he's never heard of the golden ratio. He's good for a laugh, though. SignatureGator Bait > This ratio is just about worthless. In the first place, 4:3 ratio is > more representative of professional prints in magazines or any other [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > yourself, how many medium format CCDs use a 3:2 rectangle? Answer: > NONE. But there have been quite a few 3:2 medium format cameras. Many 120 cameras were made in the 6x9 format, and 2¼x3¼ press cameras enjoyed some popularity -- I had one myself about 50 years ago. > Even though it is for the same stupid reason as 35mm FF (that > there were established medium format sizes) medium format users have [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > framing rectangle in the viewscreen to simulate the old 3:2 format and > allow those who want it to compose using it. Indeed, there are compact cameras already that do that, more or less. > Just like the CF card, the 3:2's days should be numbered solely for > practical, cost and evolutionary reasons. The problem there is that there really isn't any one aspect ratio that everyone will agree on as best, and 3:2 is probably as good a compromise as any. Keep in mind that even wider formats than 3:2 have been becoming the regular thing in other kinds of visual stuff -- 16:9 is already the new standard for TV; most laptop monitors are now 5:8 and many desktop monitors are too. Since widescreen is increasingly popular in everything else, why want to make a photo format narrower than it is? Neil > This ratio is just about worthless. In the first place, 4:3 ratio is > more representative of professional prints in magazines or any other > forum you wish to consider. I see no reason not to have a square or even a round format. Then crop it to any aspect ratio you wish. >This ratio is just about worthless. In the first place, 4:3 ratio is >more representative of prof[blah] [blah] [blather] [waffle] [pontificate] ZzzZzzZZzZzz.... You're a f.cking idiot, Rich. If you knew anything about photography, you'd be taking or processing your photos instead of wasting your time & ours with your pointless wittering about utter trivia. Oh, & I'm very fond of 2:3, & compose for it by choice, but when the shot doesn't suit it, I simply crop to whatever ratio seems best, whether it's 4:3, 1:1, 3:1, etc, etc. >>This ratio is just about worthless. In the first place, 4:3 ratio is >>more representative of prof[blah] [blah] [blather] [waffle] [pontificate] [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > shot doesn't suit it, I simply crop to whatever ratio seems best, > whether it's 4:3, 1:1, 3:1, etc, etc. I love the 3:2 format. Always have. Great for landscapes because it approximates the rectangular vision of our eyes. Square format is difficult to exploit, because there is too much foreground and sky, which minimizes the impact of the subject. I care little about whether the aspect ratio matches some damned computer monitor. I don't shoot images for the benefit of monitors--I make prints from them. 3:2 is just fine by me. > I love the 3:2 format. Always have. Great for landscapes because it > approximates the rectangular vision of our eyes. > > Square format is difficult to exploit, because there is too much > foreground and sky, which minimizes the impact of the subject. I suspect the square format only started for the sake of TLRs, which are difficult to hold sideways. Square meant the photographer could print the shot in either a vertical or a horizontal format with equal ease (and equal wastage, of course). Neil >>> This ratio is just about worthless. In the first place, 4:3 ratio is >>> more representative of prof[blah] [blah] [blather] [waffle] [pontificate] [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Square format is difficult to exploit, because there is too much foreground > and sky, which minimizes the impact of the subject. The problem is that all rectangular formats are part of a square. Why be forced to crop all your pictures to 3:2 when you could have the whole square and then choose what you want to crop? The old APSC cameras used to offer a "panorama" format. You selected it and all the prints would be "panorama." But the way it did that was to simply crop the top and bottom off the picture. Better to save the whole picture, then choose what part you wanted in the panorama later. Forcing the sensor to be 3:2 is simply doing the same thing: forcing you to throw away the top and bottom of the picture and eliminating any chance of doing a different crop later. >>>> This ratio is just about worthless. In the first place, 4:3 ratio is >>>> more representative of prof[blah] [blah] [blather] [waffle] [pontificate] [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > forced to crop all your pictures to 3:2 when you could have the whole square > and then choose what you want to crop? Unless you take particular care, specially if the viewfinder doesn't have lines engraved on the screen, the tendency is to compose the picture to the VF shape, which can be a trap when you come to print. Many a photog has come to grief with square format when trying to print an 8x10 of a group of three people if the framing was too tight. Some 2¼ square cameras had lines etched on the screen in both orientations for an 8x10 shaped print, but not all, and they were easy to miss if the photog was under pressure, e.g. weddings. 4:3 and 3:2 are happily able to fit A4 paper with only small crops, and as it turns out, both need almost identical crops, 4:3 in the width, by about a centimeter, and 3:2 in the length by almost the same amount. I know some people crop their images to all sorts of shapes, but I think some standardization is necessary in a group of images. Different shapes and sizes don't look good when exhibited together. Colin D. SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >Forcing the sensor to be 3:2 is simply doing the same thing: forcing you to >throw away the top and bottom of the picture and eliminating any chance of >doing a different crop later. I don't know how it works in your world, but in my world a square that contains a 36x24mm rectangle (for example a 36x36mm square) has a larger diagonal than the 43mm you need for 36x24mm. Therefore, lenses have to be designed for the larger image size, which is more expensive. In the end, almost nobody prints square, so most of that extra glass is just wasted. SignatureThat was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make. -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency > The old APSC cameras used to offer a "panorama" format. You selected it and > all the prints would be "panorama." But the way it did that was to simply > crop the top and bottom off the picture. Better to save the whole picture, > then choose what part you wanted in the panorama later. I'm reasonably sure APS did indeed "save the whole picture"; the negative produced in all cases was identical. The selection of which format you used was just recorded and used by the printing lab to select different printing crops, but this could be over-ridden by the operator. >Forcing the sensor to be 3:2 is simply doing the same thing: forcing you to >throw away the top and bottom of the picture and eliminating any chance of >doing a different crop later. True, but in the case of digital sensors, there's a very good reason for it, which is that pixels cost money, so you want the sensor to be the most popular aspect-ratio. Actually 3:2 is more closely approximate to the Golden Mean 1.618:1 is 3.236:2 which we all know is more traditional (and I'm sure the Greek geometers used metal rulers not plastic ones). darkroommike > This ratio is just about worthless. In the first place, 4:3 ratio is > more representative of professional prints in magazines or any other [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Just like the CF card, the 3:2's days should be numbered solely for > practical, cost and evolutionary reasons. > Actually 3:2 is more closely approximate to the Golden Mean 1.618:1 is > 3.236:2 which we all know is more traditional (and I'm sure the Greek > geometers used metal rulers not plastic ones). Very true. The question is whether the golden ratio has any real asthetic value, or was just a mathematical oddity intriguing to people who liked to play with numbers. Neil >> Actually 3:2 is more closely approximate to the Golden Mean 1.618:1 is >> 3.236:2 which we all know is more traditional (and I'm sure the Greek [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >value, or was just a mathematical oddity intriguing to people who liked to >play with numbers. It's actually the other way around - artists first discovered that that particular ratio is the one that most people find most pleasing (reason unknown), & that basing your own work on it makes it more appealing. All the maths & math-related explanations for the phenomenon came later. > It's actually the other way around - artists first discovered that > that particular ratio is the one that most people find most pleasing > (reason unknown), & that basing your own work on it makes it more > appealing. This "golden ratio" bullshit was an artistic meme created by a god-loving freak in the 16th century and it just refuses to die. From the abstract of http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/9908036/: A statistical study on 565 works of art of different great painters was done and it was calculated the ratio of the 2 sides of a paintings. Assuming that all the painters under discussion enter in a statistics with equal weights it is shown that the average value obtained for the ratio of the sides is 1.34. This value, determined experimentally is significantly different from the value of the Golden Section F=1.618, which is a theoretical ratio, obtained from an abstract, mathematical theory, which supposedly ought to impress on a painting a supreme harmony. My advice is simple: when neo-mystical numerological gobblygook is at odds with observed physical reality, I recommend sh.t-canning the former and embracing the latter. >> It's actually the other way around - artists first discovered that >> that particular ratio is the one that most people find most pleasing [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >odds with observed physical reality, I recommend sh.t-canning the >former and embracing the latter. The text you quoted shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the Golden Section. It is not about the ratio between the long and short sides of a work of art. Rather, it is about how the work of art is divided into sections, for example sky and sea, or sky and land (bot not limited to these examples) and the proportion of one to the other. So the "statistical study" you quote looked at entirely the wrong ratio, which is probably why it was of so little relevance. A complete waste of time. Tony Polson babbles: > The text you quoted shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the > Golden Section. It is not about the ratio between the long and short > sides of a work of art. Rather, it is about how the work of art is > divided into sections, for example sky and sea, or sky and land (bot > not limited to these examples) and the proportion of one to the other. Indeed! How stupid could those authors have been! I mean, it's just freaking O B V I O U S that the "golden section" applies to everything _EXCEPT_ the edges of the art work itself. Student: So, this golden ratio is good, eh? Artist: Yes, look here at Alma-Tadema's "The Roses of Heliogabalus"... Student: Ah. Artist: And Dali's "The Sacrament of the Last Supper". Student: Interesting. So if I cropped my images to 1:1.618 .. Artist: You ignorant, blithering, fool! Where did you get that idea? Student: But you said .. Artist: You know nothing. Your presence here offends centuries of artists, you piss on Pacioli's grave, you desecrate the memory of Da Vinci. I am appalled. Yes indeed, clearly another case where these left-brained science freaks are proving the obvious ... ... or Tony Polson proves he is a numerological nitwit that can't deal with the truth. >... or Tony Polson proves he is a numerological nitwit that can't deal >with the truth. No, as we all know, that is Alan Browne. > On 19 Jan 2007 14:28:10 -0800, "eawckyegcy@yahoo.com" r Tony Polson proves he is a numerological nitwit that can't deal >>with the truth. > > No, as we all know, that is Alan Browne. Show us some of your photos Polson. Anything. With or without the Golden Ratio. (except the train photos, we're done laughing at those). Please show us the significant difference between 2/3 and GR in a photo. That's all I stated: there is no great difference between a point at 2/3 of a photo and a point at the GR. Here's a hint: http://www.aliasimages.com/Thirds.jpg Your cowardly attack as above reflect your character and prove absolutely nothing else. Again. Cheers, Alan PS: Your claimed and never shown cover from Paris Match is an acceptable alternate photo. Or any half-dozen photos from your pace of "50 rolls per average *week*". Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. > Indeed! How stupid could those authors have been! I mean, it's just > freaking O B V I O U S that the "golden section" applies to everything > _EXCEPT_ the edges of the art work itself. "Obvious", perhaps not. But quite well known in the art world, and has been since the time of ancient Greeks. I would have to say that anyone who purported to do any sort of scientific study by looking only at ratios of side of rectangular paintings officially counts as "not knowing what they are doing". --------------- Marc Sabatella marc@outsideshore.com Music, art, & educational materials Featuring "A Jazz Improvisation Primer" http://www.outsideshore.com/ >> Indeed! How stupid could those authors have been! I mean, it's just >> freaking O B V I O U S that the "golden section" applies to [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > "Obvious", perhaps not. But quite well known in the art world, and > has been since the time of ancient Greeks. Actually, it's not accurate say it does *not* aopply to the dimensions of rectangular paintings at all. Just that this is far down the list in terms of importance. Considering that the ancient Greeks weren't really even in the business of creating rectangular paintings but nonetheless were quite familiar with the properties of phi, this *should* actually be fairly obvious. --------------- Marc Sabatella marc@outsideshore.com Music, art, & educational materials Featuring "A Jazz Improvisation Primer" http://www.outsideshore.com/ > Actually, it's not accurate say it does *not* aopply to the dimensions > of rectangular paintings at all. Just that this is far down the list in > terms of importance. Considering that the ancient Greeks weren't really > even in the business of creating rectangular paintings but nonetheless > were quite familiar with the properties of phi, this *should* actually > be fairly obvious. Various people 2500 years ago were familiar with the number, just like they knew about the strange properties of the square root of 2 (not quite rational, is it?). That's basically all they did with it, despite the claims of people made later. It was only with the advent of a kook in the 16th century that the neo-mystical connections were, um, "argued", and this pernicious meme has stuck. (Pacioli and his tome on "Divine Proportions"). Note that it is extremely easy to dredge up various constants out of almost any image, artifact, etc. Consider the prototypical example: the entire cottage industry on the "Great Pyramid". > Various people 2500 years ago were familiar with the number, just like > they knew about the strange properties of the square root of 2 (not [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > neo-mystical connections were, um, "argued", and this pernicious meme > has stuck. (Pacioli and his tome on "Divine Proportions"). Actually, all evidence I've seen suggests the jury is still out on the degree to which the ratio was *consciously* used in the ways that are often suggested. I will grant that it seems just as likely that most simply eyeballed things and went with what looked right. But in that case, the fact that things ever worked out to this ratio more than an infinitessimal number of times is significant in itself. --------------- Marc Sabatella marc@outsideshore.com Music, art, & educational materials Featuring "A Jazz Improvisation Primer" http://www.outsideshore.com/ > "Obvious", perhaps not. But quite well known in the art world, and has > been since the time of ancient Greeks. I would have to say that anyone > who purported to do any sort of scientific study by looking only at > ratios of side of rectangular paintings officially counts as "not > knowing what they are doing". Google up "golden section", "golden ratio" and its various derivatives and you'll find the art-freaks babbling about how such rectangles are more pleasing to the eye, yadayada. Now, if this was in fact true, then we would expect to find such rectangles being used in, at the least, to frame "great art". Yet observation indicates this is not the case. Either the data is wrong or all these numerologists in disguise are pulling a fast one on you. Note that this wouldn't be the first time art or philosophy people have tried to prove their nonsense via mathematical techniques. > Google up "golden section", "golden ratio" and its various > derivatives... > and you'll find the art-freaks babbling about how such rectangles are > more pleasing to the eye, yadayada. Now, if this was in fact true, > then we would expect to find such rectangles being used in, at the > least, to frame "great art". I'm not sure why you'd expect that. Just because these rectangles have some pleasing properties does not necessarily mean that they make ideal dimensions for framed art. There could be both aesthetic reasons why this particular is not ideal *for this particular purpose* as well as practical reaosns relating to the subject matter why it is not commonly chosen for common subjects. But these would in no way invalidate the idea tht the rectangle does have pleasing properties in other contexts. > Either the data is wrong or all these numerologists in disguise are > pulling a fast one on you. I see no reason to believe either. --------------- Marc Sabatella marc@outsideshore.com Music, art, & educational materials Featuring "A Jazz Improvisation Primer" http://www.outsideshore.com/ >>> Actually 3:2 is more closely approximate to the Golden Mean 1.618:1 is >>> 3.236:2 which we all know is more traditional (and I'm sure the Greek [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > appealing. All the maths & math-related explanations for the > phenomenon came later. It is closer to 8X10 which is hard to deal with using 35mm film or digital SLR. In article <g5csh.31$o31.4@trndny04>, Rod <bf@verizon.net> writes >>>> Actually 3:2 is more closely approximate to the Golden Mean 1.618:1 >>>>is 3.236:2 which we all know is more traditional (and I'm sure the [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >It is closer to 8X10 which is hard to deal with using 35mm film or >digital SLR. 12x8 is closer, viz. :- 1.25 = 10 : 8 1.5 = 12 : 8 1.618 = 12 : 7.41 12.94 : 8 10 : 6.18 But it's what you do in the photograph that is more important. SignatureIan G8ILZ There are always two people in every picture: the photographer and the viewer. ~Ansel Adams >>> Actually 3:2 is more closely approximate to the Golden Mean 1.618:1 is >>> 3.236:2 which we all know is more traditional (and I'm sure the Greek [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > appealing. All the maths & math-related explanations for the > phenomenon came later. I doubt it. According to Wikipedia, "The golden ratio has fascinated intellectuals of diverse interests for at least 2,400 years." Examples are given in the article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_ratio Neil > This ratio is just about worthless. In the first place, 4:3 ratio is > more representative of professional prints in magazines or any other > forum you wish to consider. So buy a E-330 and be happy <snip> > Just like the CF card, the 3:2's days should be numbered solely for > practical, cost and evolutionary reasons. Solely? Looks like three to me. > <snip> > >> Just like the CF card, the 3:2's days should be numbered solely for >> practical, cost and evolutionary reasons. > > Solely? Looks like three to me. Hey, Rich- Have you kept track of your batting average on all things photographic? What is it? Signaturejohn mcwilliams Remember to pillage *before* you burn. > > <snip> > > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Remember to pillage *before* you burn. I believe, John, Rich A counts success in number of people who respond to his posts. It doesn't take a lot of intelligence to stir people up--just nerve. SignatureGator Bait |
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.