golden ratio

[Bruce Watson]

The golden ratio has long been known in nature, and long used in art and architecture the world over. I personally like it in photography as an aspect ratio for prints. There's something about it that's just beautiful, and... right.

Now there's new evidence that the golden ratio might be a fundamental principle -- at the quantum level (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100107143909.htm?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+sciencedaily+%28ScienceDaily%3A+Latest+Science+News%29). Thought there were people in this crowd who might find it interesting.

[Ken Lee]

"The first two notes show a perfect relationship with each other. Their frequencies (pitch) are in the ratio of 1.618…, which is the golden ratio famous from art and architecture."

What about the rest in the series. If it's a simple fibonacci series, the others should converge on the same ratio. Too bad they don't tell us more in the article.

Unless you're a professional skeptic, this stuff shouldn't be too surprising, since it's all just based on a simple arithmetic series, and ends up being the most convenient design.

[jim kitchen]

The Fibonacci series creates a different spiral, compared to the Golden Ratio Spiral, especially when you consider the absolute values in the Fibonacci sequence. The Fibonacci series creates a different spiral than the Golden Ratio Spiral too, even when you calculate the Fibonacci Ratios that eventually approach the Golden Ratio. If this sounds confusing, it is, since most folks simply think of the Golden Ratio as a fixed value, and periodically identify the Fibonacci series as the source of the Golden Ratio. The Fibonacci Series happens to be one source that appraches the Golden Ratio.

That said, the Golden Rectangle produces the Golden Ratio value quickly, whereas the Fibonacci sequence eventually approaches the Golden Ratio value when you travel deeper into the Fibonacci sequence, while using the require mathematical ratio calculations. The Golden Rectangle, which produces the Golden Ratio value, is very prominent in Architecture and Art, whereas the Fibonacci Sequence which approaches the Golden Ratio value, happens to be more prominently displayed and more commonly found in nature.

While studying Architecture, the Golden Ratio was prominently displayed, but many students could not feel or see this ratio in three dimensional space, because they continuously saw the value in two dimensions only. This ratio happens to be a natural fit for any viewer, since the Golden Rectangle produces a pleasing shape. If you truly want to use the Golden Ratio within your artistic images, and to use it beyond your simple physical print size boundary, then you should also consider placing the Golden Spiral within your image and place your subject matter within the spiral; accordingly, too.

For those of you that may be interested, I attached a PDF that demonstrates how you can physically create the Golden Rectangle and, or calculate the Golden Ratio. I also included a PDF that demonstrates the different spirals, and I also included the Golden Ratio Number to a few decimal places, which possibly does not terminate, but who knows... :)

jim k

[h2oman]

Thanks for the link, Bruce. (You probably knew who some of the interested parties would be - no surprise to see Ken jumping on this one!) It's always fun to see another place the Golden ratio springs up. Here's another one: My sister just sent me a clipping about a 20 year study of 166,000 Austrians. The average ratio of systolic to diastolic blood pressure was 1.6235 overall. For those who died during the study the average was 1.7459 and for those who survived the entire 20 years the average was 1.6180! I haven't seen the study itself, so I don't have any more details.

I have to (respectfully) take issue with you on one point Jim, the implication that the Fibonacci sequence lolligags around in getting to the Golden ratio. There is an explicit formula for the terms of the Fibonacci sequence that contains the Golden ratio. Let a_1, a_2, a_3, a_4, ... be the numbers in the Fibonacci sequence 1, 1, 2, 3, 4, ... (I'm using the underscore to indicate a subscript.)

Also, let A be the golden ratio (1 + sqrt(5))/2 and let B be its "conjugate" (1 - sqrt(5))/2

Then for n = 1, 2, 3, 4, ...

a_n = (A^n - B^n)/sqrt(5)

You may well be aware of this Jim. It can be derived by solving the difference equation initial value problem

a_(n+2) = a_(n+1) + a_n, a_1 = 1, a_2 = 1

Fun stuff, at least to the nerds amongst us! :)

[jim kitchen]

Dear h2oman,

Lolligag is a good term. I should have thought of that... :)

I cannot argue your point, since it is correct too, but if you look at another basic Golden Ratio calculation, which happens to be the premise for my "lallygagging" intent while migrating through the Fibonacci sequence, you will recognize that most non nerdy types are taught to take the preceding sequence number and divide this value into the following sequence number. The resultant values from each subsequent calculation produce a value that eventually bumps into the Golden Ratio (Phi), but not immediately as your equation suggests. Somewhere around the fortieth calculation you should see the Fibonacci sequence converge to the Golden Ratio, and it is considered to be accurate to fifteen decimal places.

If you want to try a totally different approach that can keep anyone's youngsters busy with a calculator, while sitting in the backseat of your SUV during a family trip, you could try the following:

1. enter "1" into the calculator

2. take the reciprocal of the displayed number, using the obvious (1/x button) and add "1"

3. repeat step two (2) until the display is constant...

Your approach was first determined by Euclid circa 300 BC, where he defined Phi using the quadratic equation Phi(squared) - Phi - 1 = 0, and where he defined Phi being positive, and greater than 1. His equation of Phi = 1/2*[1+sqrt(5)] = 1.618033988749 etc, etc, etc, happens to illustrate the Golden ratio very effectively.

You could also exact trigonometric formulas for Phi, such as:

Phi = 2 * cos (Pi/5)

You could also illustrate Phi as a nested radical, an infinite series, or even as an irrational number because it has a continued fraction.

Such an interesting number...

jim k

[Jack Dahlgren]

The resultant values from each subsequent calculation produce a value that eventually bumps into the Golden Ratio (Phi), but not immediately as your equation suggests. Somewhere around the fortieth calculation you should see the Fibonacci sequence converge to the Golden Ratio, and it is considered to be accurate to fifteen decimal places.


If it only takes 40 calculations to be accurate to fifteen decimal places then it gets "close enough" much earlier than that. I generally don't care about one part in a quadrillion and would usually give up after 5 or 6 significant figures.

[cjbroadbent]

(sqrt5+1)/2 ≈ 42

[percepts]

(sqrt5+1)/2 ≈ 42
+1 slartibartfast

[Ken Lee]

It's good to have a sense of humor, and to be skeptical whenever the hyperbole starts to arise. At the same time, it's good to keep an eye open for fundamental design principles. We don't want to throw out the baby with the bath water, as they say.

[jim kitchen]

Gentlemen,

I think your calculators need early retirement... :)

Jack, I would have quit after the second inverse.

jim k

[cjbroadbent]

...it's good to keep an eye open for fundamental design principles.... .
I was dead serious. Phi is probably a question, the question, not an answer.
As for the answer, "Adams described his choice as "A completely ordinary number, a number not just divisible by two but also six and seven. In fact it's the sort of number that you could, without any fear, introduce to your parents. (wikiP)"

[Ken Lee]

I like the old Chinese philosophers, like Lao Tse.

Man follows Earth
Earth follows Heaven
Heaven follows the Tao
The Tao follows what is Natural

[Jack Dahlgren]

It's good to have a sense of humor, and to be skeptical whenever the hyperbole starts to arise. At the same time, it's good to keep an eye open for fundamental design principles. We don't want to throw out the baby with the bath water, as they say.

I think what is interesting about it is that it arises from fundamental processes, not that fundamental processes are driven by it.

As for a design principle, it is useful, but certainly not the only sort of ratio out there. Japanese architecture follows its own set of rules and when I first went to Thailand I was struck by what I considered oddly proportioned buildings. Perhaps derived from a different set of natural forms...

I guess I'm saying that while there is some physical foundation to design, the interpretation of that into what is "beautiful" is refracted through the prism of environment and human culture.

[CG]

I'd counter that just one ratio of sides to height is limiting and monotonous. Take a look at Willem De Kooning's large paintings. Quite a few have something like a 6 to 7 aspect ratio or 7 to 8. More of a near square. To my eye, very elegant. Seen in the abstract, by contrast a golden ratio rectangle looks brickish and ordinary. But it's all just taste, and ignores the fact that we usually are relating some sort of subject matter to the rectangular edge. I'd say the subject and it's interpretation should dictate the rectangle, not any given ratio.

[Ken Lee]

"I think what is interesting about it is that it arises from fundamental processes, not that fundamental processes are driven by it."

That's an excellent point, but perhaps it's a bit of a chicken-and-egg conundrum.

[Bruce Watson]

I'd counter that just one ratio of sides to height is limiting and monotonous.

Some would say that the form of haiku is likewise limiting and monotonous. But what amazing things the Japanese (and others) have done with it over the centuries.

When it comes to expression, sometimes limits = freedom.

[jim kitchen]

Dear CG,

You are perfectly correct in your view, regarding what you believe to be better for your images or what you like to view, specifically the dimensions that fit your image... :)

I prefer to use the Golden Ratio in two dimensions and three dimensions, compared to arbitrarily choosing a ratio that suits the image, since I find this ratio very pleasing to my eye, and to any structure I may envision. That said, we are all different when we think outside the box, and we all have different artistic tastes, but when we compare each other at the DNA level, the Golden Ratio seems to be buried in the sugars. Go figure...

jim k

[Drew Wiley]

Please remember, it was the Greeks who successfully used this, not the Geeks. But
the aspect ratio of 35mm film, 6x9, or 5x7 comes closer than our usual 4x5 or 8x10,
which I shoot for practicality, even though I find the more stretched-out ratio more
visually appealing. I've often thought, if I could have only one camera, it should be
a 5X7. Strangely, however, I almost never substantially crop my shots. What I shoot
with the 8x10 looks 8x10. I'm comfortable composing with whatever groundglass or
viewfinder happens to be in front of me.

[Heroique]

Drew’s observation (just above) raises a curious question that our photographic philosophers and film mathematicians may be able to address better than I can:

Why no “golden rectangle” film sizes? (i.e., formed by the golden ratio.)

And, why do we see so few “golden rectangle”-sized crops on this forum?

After all, “The Golden Rectangle produces a pleasing shape,” Jim Kitchen says. And he means both the image boundary & the compositional matter itself. (For an example of the rectangle’s dimensions, see the first image in his post #3 – it’s the larger rectangle formed by the two smaller ones.)

For example, 3x5 or 5x8 film would have sides that “come closer” to the golden ratio than more familiar film sizes do – even closer than the 2:3 ratio of small format.

And does anyone here – on a regular basis – crop in the darkroom, or size in Photoshop, to approximate the “golden rectangle”? Have they ever created “golden rectangle”-sized images and placed them inside larger frames w/ “standard” dimensions?

-----
Numbers for quick reference:

Golden ratio = 1.618 (rounded)

Ratios of “missing” film sizes:
5:3 = 1.67 (rounded)
8:5 = 1.6

Ratios of “common” film sizes:
3:2 & 9:6 = 1.5
7:6 = 1.17 (rounded)
5:4 & 10:8 = 1.25
7:5 = 1.4
14:11 = 1.27 (rounded)

[jim kitchen]

Dear Heroique,

I know I do, and I do post images that conform to the Golden Rectangle... :)

I create a Golden Rectangle image from any 8X10 full negative image that I may be uncomfortable with, such as an image that has an extreme boring featureless sky, or I will tighten any image for clarity and balance. I have Golden Ratio dimensions that I use to crop my 8X10 images, and when I frame an image, the framing dimensions mimic the mounted image's dimensions.

jim k


Such as these...


Free Range, Base of Armstrong Mountain, Alberta, Canada, 1985
http://largeformatgroupimages.jimkitchen.ca/images/85102702.jpg

Natural Bridge, Kicking Horse River, Yoho National Park, British Columbia, Canada, 1986
http://largeformatgroupimages.jimkitchen.ca/images/86082407.jpg

[ThePhilosopher]

I want Golden Spiral and Rectangle lines on my ground glass - I wonder how much that would cost to have made ;).

[Heroique]

Jim: What golden examples! Yes, you were one of "the few" I had in mind.

Philosopher: I have a diamond you can borrow for etching. I'll let you know when I'm done.

;)

[Ken Lee]

"But the aspect ratio of 35mm film, 6x9, or 5x7 comes closer than our usual 4x5 or 8x10..."

8x10 can be seen as two adjacent 5x8 rectangles - 5x8 being rather close to the Golden Ratio. 5 and 8 are members of the Fibonacci series. 4x5 fits the same pattern.

In his book The Power of Limits (http://www.amazon.com/Power-Limits-Gyorgy-Doczi/dp/0877731934), Gyorgy Dosczi shows at least two examples of classical architecture, based on this scheme. I'm away from my copy, but I seem to recall one being a huge triumphal arch, the other a Temple.

[jim kitchen]

Dear Ken,

You are absolutely correct, since you discussed this previously in another thread... :)

For your files, I created a Golden Rectangle that contains a Golden Ratio Spiral mask, which is saved as a tiff file, and I created a PDF identifying how I made this Golden Rectangle with the internal Golden Ratio Spiral. The tiff file has a second layer to allow you to drag the spiral into another image, which you must size accordingly. Flip the image freely if you require a different orientation, and then do what you want with it.

I will leave this Golden Ratio Spiral image on my site for a while, but I will remove it to keep my bandwidth at a minimum.

Have fun,

jim k


http://largeformatgroupimages.jimkitchen.ca/images/GoldenRatioSpiral_LargeFormatGroup.tif

[Heroique]

(We really should add a quick dose of irony to help balance our “nature-by-equation” ideas… ;) )

Below is a cactus I posted to an earlier thread about macro shots.

As you can see, it’s “in the know” about Fibonacci.

The beautiful spirals, of course, aren’t perfect – they’re “a little off.”

And indeed, that’s the caption I always read when a plant – or other organic matter, like a chambered nautilus shell – is shown for illustration: “It’s not quite perfect,” or “It doesn’t really conform,” or “It’s a little off.”

As for this cactus, I find these judgments all too lenient. This is an adult plant. By now, it should know its Pythagorean concepts; it should be unfolding like a mathematical calculation.

We should expect no less from nature.

[Jim Galli]

If I decide to sell the 7X11 Eastman I'll re-ignite this thread a week before. :D

[Ken Lee]

Brilliant !

By the way: Next time they drop in, ask those Little Green Men about Fibonacci and all that. It would be great to hear their perspective. ;)

[Richard K.]

If I decide to sell the 7X11 Eastman I'll re-ignite this thread a week before. :D

The gods will smote you if you try to sell any Golden Ratio format camera...:p
I'd rather remain smitten than smote, that's why I'll keep my 7x11...:D

[Drew Wiley]

When I was a kid, my aunt - who was famous as both an art teacher and painter at
the time - gave me an interesting book which described how the golden mean was
actually observed in many aspects in nature, including spirals and whorls, as the basis
for the Greek ideal concept of proportion, and how this has affected composition ever since the Renaissance. The whole idea fascinated me, but somehow never gelled with the way I personally compose things. As I previously mentioned, I like the look of a narrower rectangle, but when it comes to printing things, I pretty much duplicate what I already carefully composed on the groundglass, which is either 8x10 or 4x5. If I crop, it's generally only because there was a scratch or something out of focus near the margin of the negative.

[Ken Lee]

"I'd rather remain smitten than smote"

That sounds like either the start - or the end - of a superb limerick !

[Ken Lee]

Every ratio has a feeling to it. This is analogous to musical harmonies, which are nothing but ratios experienced through the ears.

The auditory canal is arranged in a logorithmic spiral, based in Phi, an irrational number. The European musical scale is rational (based on whole-number ratios) and thus needs to be "tempered" in order to sound right to our ear in the different scales and octaves - because our inner instrument is based on that darned irrational number.

The Greeks had a system of 12 musical scales, each with its own name and feeling.

You might say that we photographers have our system of different ratios: 2:3, 4:5, 6:7, etc. Each of them has its own feeling too, whether we are aware of it or not.

Just as some composers are musically aware enough to write a piece in a certain scale or key, ("Symphony in B Minor" etc.) some graphic artists and photographers are aware enough to consider the basic tone set by ratio in which they "compose" their image.

You might even say that the shape of image you use, is the "key" to what follows.

[Drew Wiley]

I think you're onto something, Ken. I've often contemplated how our sense of rhythm
is really instinctive. Musicians in every culture merely find some way of pulling it out. And we photographers do it by responding to visual patterns and rhythms, and all kinds of things in nature. We are basically mirrors - by somehow combining what is inside us as part of nature ourselves, with how we perceive the complement outside of us. I have thought about this for years, even though I am utterly disgusted with all those silly "artists' statements" philosophizing about this or that on gallery walls.

[Oren Grad]

This seems like a good place to mention the long-running Most Pleasing Rectangle Web Poll (http://www.jimloy.com/poll/poll.htm).

After you've taken the two polls, have a look at the results. There are a few surprises.

[Joe Smigiel]

...For your files, I created a Golden Rectangle that contains a Golden Ratio Spiral mask, which is saved as a tiff file, and I created a PDF identifying how I made this Golden Rectangle with the internal Golden Ratio Spiral...



http://largeformatgroupimages.jimkitchen.ca/images/GoldenRatioSpiral_LargeFormatGroup.tif

There's also this Golden Mean "composition adjuster" webpage (http://photoinf.com/Golden_Mean/photo-adjuster.html) that automatically creates the Golden Spirals, Rectangles, and Triangles on images you upload.

I put my all-time favorite personal photograph into it and got the results shown in the attachment. I found the results interesting but, it's a nude so if you don't care for such images, please don't enlarge the thumbnail.

[Ken Lee]

Thanks for posting that series. It shows quite nicely how we don't really need a "composition adjuster": we already have one built-in, which function whether we are aware of it or not.

Not only are we hard-coded to seek those ratios, we are ourselves, formed in accordance with them.

[Michael Jones]

There's also this Golden Mean "composition adjuster" webpage (http://photoinf.com/Golden_Mean/photo-adjuster.html) that automatically creates the Golden Spirals, Rectangles, and Triangles on images you upload.



I just tried this site with several of my favorite Edward Weston photographs. Sadly, they all failed...

I can only agree with Weston's Daybook comments that there are no rules about compositon that must be followed; only the resulting image is important.

Mike

[Renato Tonelli]

What would the 'golden ratio' dimensions be when using a 4x5 and 5x7 negative?

I think some on this forum routinely crop to the golden ratio.

[percepts]

"Nature is relationships in space. Geometry defines relationships in space. Art creates relationships in space." - M. Boles and R. Newman

If they are right then you are reducing photography to a geometric exercise. Some of you are going to find that hard to take.

[jim kitchen]

Dear Renato,

Using the "5" as the long dimension, then you take the number "5" and divide it by the Golden Ratio, where we shall use 1.6180339887, and you get 3.09, or 3.1 rounded to one decimal place, and since there happens to be only one significant digit, then the best answer is "3."

Therefore 3 X 5...

Using the "7" as the long dimension, then you take the number "7" and divide it by the Golden Ratio, where we shall use 1.6180339887, and you get 4.33, or 4.3 rounded to one decimal place, and since there happens to be only one significant digit, then the best answer is "4," but I would make the last measurement 4 and one quarter inches.

Therefore 4.25 X 7…

Using the "8" as the long dimension, then you take the number "8" and divide it by the Golden Ratio, where we shall use 1.6180339887, and you get 4.94, or 4.9 rounded to one decimal place, and since there happens to be only one significant digit, then the best answer is "5."

Therefore 5 X 8…

I hope this helps,

jim k

[percepts]

get your spirographs out and draw some pretty pictures on your GG and go out and find some subjects that appear to fit the patterns. Its like waiting for the monkeys to re-write shakespeare so the theory goes, sooner or later it must happen.
i.e. there is an inevitability according to matehmatical probability. But just because mathematical proabability says it must happen doesn't mean it will. You can only theorise about it. You can't make it happen. Or to put it another way. It's pseudo intellectual bullshit that you have bought into.

[Ken Lee]

I just tried this site with several of my favorite Edward Weston photographs. Sadly, they all failed...

I would love to see some of those. I consider myself an open-minded student, certainly no expert.

I don't think that anyone is suggesting that only one ratio or relationship is harmonious. There are many kinds of compositional harmony, just as there are in Music Theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_theory) and Color Theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_theory), and just as there are genres in literature. Not every successful photo will be based on only one crude visual pattern. There are many patterns, and art we appreciate will often involve the congruence of many patterns, in a masterful way.

Identifying them, naming them, doesn't detract from them, nor does it reduce the Visual Arts or Music to a trivial exercise. On the contrary, it helps enhance the language through which communication is made possible. Shakespeare wrote many tragedies and comedies, and his talent wasn't diminished by the existence of literary genres going back millennia.

Whether we are aware of it or not, we all have the same basic physiology, and many of the choices we make "spontaneously", are influenced by it. If we didn't share the same physiology, rich and deep communication might not be possible. Because we do, we often admire the same things as beautiful.


http://www.kenleegallery.com/images/forum/WestonG.jpg

[imagedowser]

".....the 12x20 is the closest currently available format to the Golden Mean....historically, the 5x8 is even closer..." Kerry Thalmann, VC mag May/ June '04, Letters to the Editor.

[Renato Tonelli]

Thank you Jim - excellent explanation.

[Ken Lee]

Here's an early pictorial photograph by Edward Weston, entitled "Grey Attic", from when he lived in Glendale California.

http://www.kenleegallery.com/images/forum/attic1.jpg

I chose it because there are no obvious placements along "golden" divisions of the frame.

http://www.kenleegallery.com/images/forum/attic2.jpg

With further analysis, one can see that the composition is centered around a Golden Rectangle.

[Steve Gledhill]

Here's an early pictorial photograph by Edward Weston, entitled "Grey Attic", from when he lived in Glendale California.

http://www.kenleegallery.com/images/forum/attic1.jpg

I chose it because there are no obvious placements along "golden" divisions of the frame.

http://www.kenleegallery.com/images/forum/attic2.jpg

With further analysis, one can see that the composition is centered around a Golden Rectangle.

I'm enjoying this thread but must disagree with your "further analysis" Ken. This image is superb in every respect - but to say it's "centred around a golden rectangle" is fanciful. You could draw any rectangle anywhere within the image and make that claim. Your rectangle is linked at its left, top and right to components of the image but you've chosen the bottom of the rectangle arbitrarily just to make it a golden rectangle. Raise or lower the bottom of the rectangle and it's no longer golden - but it's still a rectangle! And the picture stays as good as ever.

Or perhaps you're pulling our collective legs?

[Ken Lee]

Oops - I'm not trying to pull anyone's legs.

I'm probably just wrong !

Funny, it looked clear to me last night. Oh well...

[Steve Gledhill]

Oops - I'm not trying to pull anyone's legs.

I'm probably just wrong !

Funny, it looked clear to me last night. Oh well...

Ahhhhh ... the clear light of day.

By the way - noticing you're on your 2995th post - I'm looking forward to your 3000th :) - no pressure.

[Michael Jones]

I just tried this site with several of my favorite Edward Weston photographs. Sadly, they all failed...

I would love to see some of those

Ken:.

I tried to uplaod a screen shot of my quick test and could not figure out how to do it (which explains why my digital images pale in comparison to my "wet" ones...). I tested Weston's "Eggplant" and the spirals and rectangles are completly off. Hardly scientific on my part, but still interesting.

I will try others just for fun, but the key here, as you point out, is to keep your mind open to possibilities.

Mike

[Ken Lee]

Yes. I hope none of us every become fanatical about anything, and I'm sorry if I have been leaning in that direction.

As they say: "Where there's a chip on the shoulder, there must be wood up above".

[Ken Lee]

"By the way - noticing you're on your 2995th post - I'm looking forward to your 3000th - no pressure".

Excellent ! I've got something planned.

(Oops, there goes another !)

[Donald Miller]

I think that this thread is interesting. I have often wondered why over the course of photographic history that more of the "conventional" formats have not been divided along the aspect in the way that the 20X24 was divided into the 12X20 format.

Had that occurred we might today have my favorite format (10X16) along with the 12X20 and 7X17. All of the foregoing more closely approach the golden rectangle than the so called conventional formats.

On the Weston photograph (noted above)...I don't think that everything neatly falls into the golden mean or aspect ratio in order to attain an effective image. However I think that it is important to note that Weston's image does fit into the classification of asymetrical balance very nicely. Asymetrical balance is a very effective form of balance in images and has been used in paintings long before photography was ever envisioned.

Donald Miller

[Thebes]

I'm curious, what do people think about shooting with, say, a 6x10, or even a 5x8 versus shooting a more common size and cropping? Is it worth cutting 2 inches off of an 8x10 to save a bit of weight in the field? Is it worth the high cost (low availability) of 5x8 holders when one could shoot 6x10 crops at just twice the film cost and without the cutting labor? Even 7x11 is just 25% larger than 6x10 crops from an 8x10.

The only major advantages I can see are, perhaps, a bit less weight for the format size and the ability to show the film edges properly in a contact print.

[Ken Lee]

There is just something, about shooting with a camera, the way it was made to shoot.

It may sound silly, but I've confirmed this with others.

When I use my 6x6 folding camera, the whole world become square.

We like to think "I use the equipment", but the equipment influences us too, in a sense.

[Renato Tonelli]

There is something to what Ken says. My training is in cinematography and when you shoot a film there is no as cropping (it would be too expensive); when I shoot with any camera, I compose for whatever aspect ratio I am working with. I thought I did this because of my cinematography background but it also has to do with what Ken mentions on the above post: the equipment 'influences' the way some of us shoot.

[Bruce Watson]

I'm curious, what do people think about shooting with, say, a 6x10, or even a 5x8 versus shooting a more common size and cropping? Is it worth cutting 2 inches off of an 8x10 to save a bit of weight in the field? Is it worth the high cost (low availability) of 5x8 holders when one could shoot 6x10 crops at just twice the film cost and without the cutting labor? Even 7x11 is just 25% larger than 6x10 crops from an 8x10.

The only major advantages I can see are, perhaps, a bit less weight for the format size and the ability to show the film edges properly in a contact print.

Since there are so few cameras out there built with the golden ratio in mind, you do face the choices: 1) cut your film to fit (eg. 8x5), or 2) use a "standard" film size camera and crop.

Either method works. But it's easier to feel your composition (as opposed to thinking about it, counting squares on the ground glass, etc.) if you are looking at a ground glass that's already in the aspect ratio you intend to use. This is true whether that ratio is square, pano, golden, whatever.

A compromise position (if there is such a thing) might be to mark off your ground glass (grease pencil, tape, etc.) so you get a visual reference for your favorite ratio as an aid to composition. Because as Ken indicates, it's easier to compose to fit the ground glass than it is to force yourself to see in another ratio other than that presented by the ground glass.

Me? I still use a 5x4 camera, but I find myself composing in 5x3 (crop to golden ratio) and even 5x2 (crop to 1:2.24 (that is, sqrt(5)) panorama) as much as 5x4 these days. This of course cuts into my film area which I don't like. But I haven't yet been able to convince myself to move up to 7x5...

[Ken Lee]

In an ideal world, I would devise a camera to take 10x10 inch square film - and have an adjustable mask, so that I could choose the aspect ratio for each photo.

In the absence of a vast personal fortune, I opt to use blue painters tape on the ground glass. :)

[Robert Hughes]

In the absence of a vast personal fortune, I opt to use blue painters tape on the ground glass. :)
But... I shoot only b&w! What should I do? :confused:

[Bruce Watson]

But... I shoot only b&w! What should I do? :confused:

Gray Gaffer's tape (http://www.calumetphoto.com/item/ta7010/)?

[Thebes]

There is just something, about shooting with a camera, the way it was made to shoot.

It may sound silly, but I've confirmed this with others.

When I use my 6x6 folding camera, the whole world become square.

We like to think "I use the equipment", but the equipment influences us too, in a sense.


I don't think it sounds silly at all. I've never been able to use a square camera with cropping in mind. I am just wondering how it works out in practice, choosing an obscure format. I suppose I can see the benefit of forcing the default choice to be what one wants through choice of equipment. With a 6x10 one might walk away from a shot and find another that fits well, whereas with a 8x10 the composition might have worked and the user might never have found the "better" photo.



Either method works. But it's easier to feel your composition (as opposed to thinking about it, counting squares on the ground glass, etc.) if you are looking at a ground glass that's already in the aspect ratio you intend to use. This is true whether that ratio is square, pano, golden, whatever.

A compromise position (if there is such a thing) might be to mark off your ground glass (grease pencil, tape, etc.) so you get a visual reference for your favorite ratio as an aid to composition. Because as Ken indicates, it's easier to compose to fit the ground glass than it is to force yourself to see in another ratio other than that presented by the ground glass.

Me? I still use a 5x4 camera, but I find myself composing in 5x3 (crop to golden ratio) and even 5x2 (crop to 1:2.24 (that is, sqrt(5)) panorama) as much as 5x4 these days. This of course cuts into my film area which I don't like. But I haven't yet been able to convince myself to move up to 7x5...


I've been using 6x7 and 6x12 rfh's with reasonable ease, but only felt the compositions after I marked the ground glass. I could estimate them well enough, but it hadn't been working for me. After marking for them its I get to see what's outside the frame, and I find that helpful in the way a framelined viewfinder can be helpful vs a full-framed one. I wonder if I might try marking it for 3x5 too. I see the world less square than my 4x5 does and I have this in mind regarding my next camera. A few marks to my gg would let me try out the golden ratio without any expense. Cropping to 2x5... I love my recently purchased 6x12 horseman back and there are so many roll films, mostly available in small quantities and at a price cheaper than cropping 4x5... otoh I got the back cheap, and even then if film choice was limited to 4x5 films I would have just cropped them rather than give into my GAS.
-

Many new laptops are 16:10 which approximates the golden ratio, and that is kind of interesting. For generations TVs had been 4:3 but recently they've went quite wide at 1.77:1. I wonder how this will effect the next generation's aesthetics and the market for various formats.

[cjbroadbent]

Apropos cinematography and adjustable masks. My old Cameflex (standard equipment for 35mm not so long ago) has a series of different aspect-ratio masks which slide in flush with the film gate. Shooting commercials for tv and movie theatres required switching masks. Movie people have always been aspect-ratio freaks ever since the 'postage stamp' format was junked in the 1950's.

[Bruce Watson]

Apropos cinematography and adjustable masks. My old Cameflex (standard equipment for 35mm not so long ago) has a series of different aspect-ratio masks which slide in flush with the film gate. Shooting commercials for tv and movie theatres required switching masks. Movie people have always been aspect-ratio freaks ever since the 'postage stamp' format was junked in the 1950's.

I found this discussion on cinematography pull down (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_pulldown) interesting. I don't know how factual or relevant it is, but it does give some clues where the 4:3 ratio of old TVs came from, which I found interesting. This is the "postage stamp" format?

I've been paying a good bit of attention to the aspect ratio of movies lately. I don't know why. But I've been impressed by the lack of variance (which could just be my own lack of variance in picking movies to watch, not movies in general, IDK). Nearly all movies made in the last few decades seem to be 2:39:1, with a few at 2:35:1 and fewer still at 2.4:1. What are the reasons for these small variances in aspect ratio?

I can't remember the last movie I saw in Super-35 (1.58:1), which is very close to the golden ratio (1.58:1).

Then again, I just got a copy of 2001 A Space Odyssey on BD, and it's in its original 2.2:1 aspect ratio (non-anamorphic 70 mm) which is very close to my favorite panorama aspect ratio of sqrt(5):1.

[cjbroadbent]

The aspect-ratio confusion is here (http://wapedia.mobi/en/Aspect_ratio_(image)?t=4.). It's one of the things that drove me to photography.

[Ken Lee]

The article states this, which makes me smile:

"For LCD and Plasma displays, however, the cost is more related to the area, so producing wider and shorter screens with the same advertised diagonal is more profitable".

[Lachlan 717]

Old thread, I know; however, I've been wondering whether the GR in its numeric form (1:1.61803399) can translate onto the ground glass of any camera?

To try to explain this, I have been thinking about adding some thin black tape to the GG of my 7x17, in a similar fashion to the electronic grid lines many DSLRs now have.

But, rather than the (DSLR) ratio based on "rule of thirds", I was wondering whether I can divide the width of the GG by 2.6180339, multiply the result by 1.6180339 and place a vertical line there. (And do the same from all sides of the GG). This will leave two rectangles at 1:1.61803399.

In other words, does stretching/compressing the rectangle to fit a given format still give the same aesthetic fulfilment as the traditional model?

[Mark Sawyer]

In other words, does stretching/compressing the rectangle to fit a given format still give the same aesthetic fulfilment as the traditional model?

The thing is, just like heavy concentrations of mass distort space, so concentrations of darker tones distort the compositional grid of a confined image. That throws all the arbitrary physical measurements out of sync. You just have to have your own sense of proportion (no small thing), be aware of it, and use it towards your own ends. If you use them as a formula, the Golden Ratio or Fibonacci Series are just another Rule of Thirds.

Yeah, I had a couple of pre-post cocktails... :)