tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36004759.post3425343170455233352..comments2008-05-18T13:53:09.805+02:00Andreashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15992874945092411553noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36004759.post-12272359373043017182008-05-18T13:53:00.000+02:002008-05-18T13:53:00.000+02:002008-05-18T13:53:00.000+02:00We mostly produce for a medium. Panoramic images are fine for walls, and even then they need much wall. 3x2 is not a golden rectangle, but it is definitely more pleasing to my eye than 4x3.<BR/><BR/>I have a 3x2 viewfinder (and a good one), and by using it to compose, I primarily compose for that format. Doing otherwise, i.e. composing for, say, square, always needs some extra effort. I can do that, but it does not feel as natural, is another level of indirection, and therefore I don't do it.<BR/><BR/>On the other hand, accepting the proportions of a given frame is simply one of the many restrictions that we accept as given. See, it's a restriction, yes, but it is one thing less to care about. At times this can free creative energies. Ultimately I am with Ted: It's a good idea to reflect about these things.advmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15992874945092411553noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36004759.post-39081827458200767442008-05-17T13:39:00.000+02:002008-05-17T13:39:00.000+02:002008-05-17T13:39:00.000+02:00It depends...<BR/><BR/>Sorry, couldn't resist :-)<BR/><BR/>But honestly, I guess there is some truth in it. I don't believe that a "perfect proportion" exists, at least when it comes to photography. It's the scene that dictates the crop. Unfortunately, in my mind, we don't explore that enough - and the web is a severely limited place for such an endeavour, as the dimensions of our monitors already put a fence around any exploration. Ever tried to post a truly panoramic picture? They always become meagre shades of themselves...Thomashttp://www.nobodys-domain.denoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36004759.post-43290526183734922532008-05-15T14:13:00.000+02:002008-05-15T14:13:00.000+02:002008-05-15T14:13:00.000+02:00Okay... you have opened up a PRIMAL question... what is the aesthetically perfect set of dimensions? Why do we shudder when we see circular framing? Why do we accept that some German engineers early in the last century created in the 35m format the "perfect" framing? <BR/><BR/>Certainly the dimensions of the CRT tube are perhaps the worst compromise between length and width ever presented to artists. And perhaps the Cinemascopic dimensions may approach a very satisfying option. <BR/><BR/>BTW... when we discuss idealized dimensions why do we first debate horizontals, then simply apply the results of that debate to verticals? Are they equally satisfied by a one-size-fits-all dimensionality? <BR/><BR/>I think it was Paul Strand who wrote something like, "Reality exists to be cropped." Well, those are my words... but his thoughts. And Cartier-Bresson who argued that any cropping from the 35mm format was apostasy. <BR/><BR/>They were both great... one had to be wrong. <BR/><BR/>Nope, won't buy it to hear, "It depends". What is the ideal Length to width? Oh sure we can deviate from that combination once discovered as the situation demands, but still, is there one combination over all others which best appeals to the human eye? <BR/><BR/>And wuddahell izzit?<BR/><BR/>TedTed Byrnehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07869579042505598957noreply@blogger.com