[Leica] Picture size

[kcarney1 at cox.net (Ken Carney)]

On 3/5/2010 2:09 PM, Mark Rabiner wrote:
>> 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
>> http://www.rgaphoto.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>      
> 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.
>
> [Rabs]
> Mark William Rabiner
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>
>    
At one seminar, the instructor ( a really fine photographer) said that 
the 35mm format was more involving, because there was more room for the 
"energy to flow" in the wider aspect.  4x5 was conversely an awkward 
size, and square was the worst of all because it gave the visual 
impression of the image being pinched in from all corners.  I made a 
mental note but as usual forgot about it.  I do have a neat T-square 
from Light Impressions that positions the image for matting with more 
space on the bottom.  The ratio is then the same for all print sizes.

Ken Carney
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma