Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2010/03/05

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] Picture size
From: mark at (Mark Rabiner)
Date: Fri, 05 Mar 2010 15:09:22 -0500

> Intereseting thread to me.
> 35mm frame size is 4x6 and multiples thereof: 8x12, 12x18, 14x21, 16x24.
> It's tough when you work hard to frame an image and then have to crop. I 
> tend
> to stick to the 4x6 format and cut my matts?and get frame sizes to match. 
> What
> am I missing? Are the other formats preferred by viewers? I 
> understand?some of
> them come from film sizes (8x10 and 16x20 = 4x5 sheets), but is it
> aesthetically preferable?
> Thanks,
> Bob
> ?Bob Adler
> Palo Alto, CA
An 11x14 gives you real even borders from a 2 over 3 35mm neg and 8x10 the
borders are  a bit fatter on the sides. In the end people have gotten used
to this and its not noticed. The borders are also fat on the sides of an
11x14 but only slightly. You always want your bottom to be a bit fat so the
image does not sink; an optical illusion. But also as you sign the print it
looks right.
The "ideal format" as marketing by some company making a 6x7 camera. Later
6x8 was considered even more ideal. But there is no "ideal" rectangle. I
like the golden one.
As of late I've been going through my digital body of work  working
backwards rating them from the present to my first digital roll in 2006.
I've been cropping the selected raws to 1280 x 800.
That's my Macbook pro screen size. Its not a popular wallpaper size. But its
mine and I like it. A bit skinner than a 2/3 but not quite as skinny as a
golden rectangle. What that says about me I don't know.

Mark William Rabiner

Replies: Reply from kcarney1 at (Ken Carney) ([Leica] Picture size)
In reply to: Message from rgacpa at (Bob Adler) ([Leica] Picture size)