What's the fuss over 3:2 aspect ratio?
DMac
experts got me thinking. I use all three of the popular aspect ratios
now being used with digital cameras. I put together an short article on
the subject if anyone is interested.
http://www.brisbaneweddingphotographers.com/gallery/Aspect-ratio.htm
Doug.
eNo
Don't know about the earlier thread, but 3:2 corresponds to the most
popular 4x6 print size (4:6 = 2:3 = 3:2).
Matt Ion
The whole debate is patently ridiculous. Shoot a little wider and crop
it to whatever f'ing dimensions suit the application. Big freakin' deal.
NO rectangular sensor is the perfect shape - the optimum sensor shape is
circular, to match the actual light pattern projected by the lens.
Anything else is a waste of optics.
Alfred Molon
> NO rectangular sensor is the perfect shape - the optimum sensor shape is
> circular, to match the actual light pattern projected by the lens.
> Anything else is a waste of optics.
Exactly - and 4:3 is closer to circular than 3:2.
--
Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 50X0, 8080, E3X0, E4X0, E5X0 and E3 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site
jaf
sna...@mailinator.com
> Don't know about the earlier thread, but 3:2 corresponds to the most
> popular 4x6 print size (4:6 = 2:3 = 3:2).
Peter Irwin
>
> Don't know about the earlier thread, but 3:2 corresponds to the most
> popular 4x6 print size (4:6 = 2:3 = 3:2).
That's just a by-product of the popularity of 35mm film cameras.
When 126 instamatics were popular (and before that 12 on 120, 620 or
127) there were a lot of square prints. I think square format was
actually a rather good choice for snapshots.
The popularity of 24x36mm on 35mm film had very little to do with
any popular preference for a 3:2 aspect ratio.
Peter.
--
pir...@ktb.net
Matt Ion
> In article <gvio5n$9lm$1...@news.eternal-september.org>, Matt Ion says...
>
>> NO rectangular sensor is the perfect shape - the optimum sensor shape is
>> circular, to match the actual light pattern projected by the lens.
>> Anything else is a waste of optics.
>
> Exactly - and 4:3 is closer to circular than 3:2.
1:1 is closer still, so why not just go all the way?
Like I said, the whole argument is ridiculous.
sligoNo...@hotmail.com
<alfred...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>In article <gvio5n$9lm$1...@news.eternal-september.org>, Matt Ion says...
>
>> NO rectangular sensor is the perfect shape - the optimum sensor shape is
>> circular, to match the actual light pattern projected by the lens.
>> Anything else is a waste of optics.
>
>Exactly - and 4:3 is closer to circular than 3:2.
Not really. Few people would choose a circle or a square
image to a rectangle. That is evidenced from your comments.
Over history the golden rectangle (1.6180339887 ratio) has
generally been chosen as the most esthetically pleasing.
From a practical view, we use rectangles of an image not a
circle. We rotate the camera to obtain a vertical subject so while we
are using a rectangular image out of a circle, it is not the circle
that is important.
Wally
> Over history the golden rectangle (1.6180339887 ratio) has
>generally been chosen as the most esthetically pleasing.
Number worship.
Just like the rule of thirds.
Wally
Bruce
>
>Don't know about the earlier thread, but 3:2 corresponds to the most
On the contrary, the 4x6 print size followed the 35mm film format, not
the other way around.
George Kerby
On 5/27/09 12:05 AM, in article
05f4b0d1-f924-4169...@y34g2000prb.googlegroups.com, "eNo"
<grande...@gmail.com> wrote:
Afew years back it was 3 1/2 x 5 = 5 x 7. Remember?
Alan Browne
> On Wed, 27 May 2009 12:38:18 +0200, Alfred Molon
> <alfred...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> In article<gvio5n$9lm$1...@news.eternal-september.org>, Matt Ion says...
>>
>>> NO rectangular sensor is the perfect shape - the optimum sensor shape is
>>> circular, to match the actual light pattern projected by the lens.
>>> Anything else is a waste of optics.
>> Exactly - and 4:3 is closer to circular than 3:2.
>
> Not really. Few people would choose a circle or a square
> image to a rectangle. That is evidenced from your comments.
>
> Over history the golden rectangle (1.6180339887 ratio) has
> generally been chosen as the most esthetically pleasing.
Which is fairly close to 3:2 (1.5) if that's of any consequence.
In the end the presentation aspect ratio should be pleasing with respect
to the subject(s) in the composition.
--
-- 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.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.
jeffc
has more to it than was seen at
the time of shooting. When cropped to remove the unforeseen parts of
the image, the 2:3 ratio often
is well suited to a 3.5 x 5 or a 5x7 (as opposed to a 4x6 or 5 x 7.5)
but aspect ratio in the 'print' should be determined
by the desired composition -- not some arbitrary numerical
relationship. Unlike painters, we do not have the convenience
of altering perspective and content to suit a predetermined
'frame' (with the exception of view cameras and Photoshop warp and
transform with their inherent distortions).
Those who argue for a specific format fail to recognize the value of
having the entire projected image of the lens
available after the exposure is made.
Those who argue for a round or square format fail to recognize the
need of some people to fit 3D reality into a 2D
window determined by a camera manufacturer or paper supplier. The
often taught concepts of the image being seen
either as a mirror or a window reinforces the need of some for a
'frame to fill' which more often than not is an arbitrary decision
e.g. 3:4, 2:3, 4:5, 6x4.5, 6x6, 6x7, 6x8 (Fuji680), 6x9, 6x12, 6x17
and the Cirkut Camera variable length... not to mention all those old
Kodak roll film formats. The solution for me was the Sinar Roll film
back which allowed mid-roll
changes ranging from 6x4.5 to 6x12 -- but ultimately what I was doing
was deciding (in the field) what portion of the
projected image I would be using in the final print. With due respect
to Weston's previsualization, there were times when
having just a little more of what fell outside the frame would have
been helpful.
As has been said, the final crop and presentation format should be
part of the aesthetic decisions made by
the 'artist' in best revealing whatever it was that compelled him/her
to release the shutter at the specific time and
with the lens pointed in a specific direction.
Photography is a method of recording a two dimensional version of
three dimensional reality at a specific moment using a mechanical
(electronic)/optical system. The art is in where you point the device
and when you release the shutter.
Alan Browne
You funny.
James Goode
The aspect ratio should really be determined by the subject. Modern
DSLRs allow cropping to small portions of the original image. Maybe we
should have a focusing screen with popular aspect ratios marked as a
guide?
Crippled DSLRs
wrote:
No thanks. I just design and load-up new ones as I need them, or combine
them depending on needs. Here's just a few of the three dozen or so that I
keep on my memory card, ready to use at a moment's notice.
http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/Grids
As someone else stated, the subject determines the cropping ratio--it must.
I don't think there's one print I've ever made during my lifetime that
accurately fits any of the "standard" aspect ratios. Only the lazy, the
snapshooters, and the incompetent photographers and artists would abide by
someone else's idea of how to crop their compositions. I use those
alignment/cropping grids as quick guidelines only, so as not to
inadvertently clip something needed later. This too is why I despise any
viewfinder that isn't 100%. They're nearly useless. I make every pixel
count, as any seasoned photographer should. Frame/mat-makers and
paper-suppliers don't determine my compositions for me. I tell them what
size frames that they have to make for me, while I keep a sharp and
accurate paper-trimmer handy.
"There are none so lost as those who follow."
That simple saying is deeply true in all walks and beliefs in life. This
includes letting someone else dictate your compositions for you because
you're too mentally lame or lack any creativity of your own.
Keep on arguing about "standard" aspect ratios. It lets everyone know which
of you are the blas� snapshooters or the tomes of sheep-following
pretend-photographer trolls online.
DMac
All of that by-passes the convenience of being able to buy a $5 frame in
standard aspect ratio or needing to shell out $50 plus for a custom made
frame to fit an aspect ratio you invent.
Apart from the framing issue there is also the Album issue. A very well
made, flush fit, standard aspect ratio wedding album costs about $100. A
custom made one and the prices start at about $350... Provided you use
standard aspect ratio images. Custom sizes and it's pay by the hour to
make it.
I agree in many of the things you say and assume you are not in the
situation where the convenience or cost of framing your prints is an
issue. It is for me, particularly when I construct albums and coffee
table books.
Your grids would be very helpful to those who have no cost restraints
and don't mind paying for custom size finishing. Actually getting a Pro
lab to print odd shaped prints could be something else again.
My all time favourite camera is a square aspect ratio, Mamiya C330. It
allowed me to compose a shot with my own version of your grids which I
drew on the viewing glass.
Sadly Digital cameras all conform to aspect ratios determined long ago
to be "perfect portrait" or the biggest you can fit on a 35mm film and
still have a reasonable cost lens. Maybe one day... Hmmm.
tony cooper
wrote:
>All of that by-passes the convenience of being able to buy a $5 frame in
>standard aspect ratio or needing to shell out $50 plus for a custom made
>frame to fit an aspect ratio you invent.
Has the custom of matting photographs not yet made its way to
Australia?
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
DMac
Oh it certainly has Tony. I happen to just installed a nice little matt
cutter that lets me cut any shape I feel like, straight from the
computer. http://www.gunnar-europe.com/index.php?id=13.
Now if you can make an 8x10 print fit in a 8x12 (A4) frame with a custom
cut matt, and not look like it's out of place, you'll get my attention
immediately. I've trashed quite a few sheets of matt material trying to
achieve the impossible.
If however you worked in my studio, you'd discover it's not until you
get to very, large 16x24 and larger print size that a matt can be longer
or wider to accommodate a standard size frame and you can get away
with it... *IF* the odd measurement happens to be in the vertical
dimension. If it's in the horizontal dimension, you need to start larger
again before it doesn't look out of place.
Try as I might, I've never been able to make a 16x24 (landscape) print
look right in a frame designed for 4:3 aspect ratio, no matter how large
the matt is.
I might change my mind next month when the PMA is held in conjunction
with the framing industry show in Sydney. I'm told picture framing
suppliers can perform miracles in hard times. Like supplying ISO
standard size frames to suit 3:2 aspect ratio in a country committed to
metric measurements 30 years ago... We'll see!
Atheist Chaplain
news:gvnof6$6it$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> tony cooper wrote:
>> On Fri, 29 May 2009 11:28:19 +1000, DMac <d-...@d-mac.info.delete>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> All of that by-passes the convenience of being able to buy a $5 frame in
>>> standard aspect ratio or needing to shell out $50 plus for a custom made
>>> frame to fit an aspect ratio you invent.
>>
>> Has the custom of matting photographs not yet made its way to
>> Australia?
>>
>>
>
> Oh it certainly has Tony. I happen to just installed a nice little matt
> cutter that lets me cut any shape I feel like, straight from the computer.
> http://www.gunnar-europe.com/index.php?id=13.
<bullshit snipped>
So how is that ABN going Douggie, made enough to qualify for GST status yet
:-)
--
[This comment is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Church of
Scientology International]
"I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your
Christ." Gandhi
DMac
> "DMac" <d-...@d-mac.info.delete> wrote in message
> news:gvnof6$6it$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> tony cooper wrote:
>>> On Fri, 29 May 2009 11:28:19 +1000, DMac <d-...@d-mac.info.delete>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> All of that by-passes the convenience of being able to buy a $5
>>>> frame in standard aspect ratio or needing to shell out $50 plus for
>>>> a custom made frame to fit an aspect ratio you invent.
>>>
>>> Has the custom of matting photographs not yet made its way to
>>> Australia?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Oh it certainly has Tony. I happen to just installed a nice little
>> matt cutter that lets me cut any shape I feel like, straight from the
>> computer. http://www.gunnar-europe.com/index.php?id=13.
>
>
> <bullshit snipped>
>
> So how is that ABN going Douggie, made enough to qualify for GST status
> yet :-)
>
Give me time, I'm working on it. Getting over the insertion of steel
rods in my back and the subsequent spinal fusion is slowing me down a
little. Check again in July, will you?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJJDr-PCIj0
tony cooper
wrote:
>tony cooper wrote:
>> On Fri, 29 May 2009 11:28:19 +1000, DMac <d-...@d-mac.info.delete>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> All of that by-passes the convenience of being able to buy a $5 frame in
>>> standard aspect ratio or needing to shell out $50 plus for a custom made
>>> frame to fit an aspect ratio you invent.
>>
>> Has the custom of matting photographs not yet made its way to
>> Australia?
>>
>>
>
>Oh it certainly has Tony. I happen to just installed a nice little matt
>cutter that lets me cut any shape I feel like, straight from the
>computer. http://www.gunnar-europe.com/index.php?id=13.
>
>Now if you can make an 8x10 print fit in a 8x12 (A4) frame with a custom
>cut matt, and not look like it's out of place, you'll get my attention
>immediately. I've trashed quite a few sheets of matt material trying to
>achieve the impossible.
Well, see, we do it a bit differently in the US. If we have an 8 x10
print that we want matted, we buy a standard frame larger than 8 x 12.
Like a 9 x 12 or a 10 x 13. American ingenuity, you know.
Perhaps the rules are different in Oz, and only 8 x 12s are available
at Wallaby-Mart or wherever it is you shop.
DRS
news:7u4u15h17avctll8i...@4ax.com
> I make every pixel count, as any seasoned photographer should.
For some reason this strikes me as enormously funny.
Savageduck
It was meant to be funny, the author was none other than our old pal
the P&S troll.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Atheist Chaplain
so all that time when you were telling us that you had a successful business
was just another of your big fat lies.
Glad to see your admitting it finally Douggie, after all the first step in
curing your pathological inability to tell the truth is first admitting you
have a problem :-)
OH and by the way, if you do apply for GST status and the ATO still deem you
to be nothing more than a hobby, they will just remove it from your ABN,
after all they don't need to waste man hours chasing up useless BAS reports.
Atheist Chaplain
By the way Douggie, It's good to see you finally got a spine, now I suppose
you can let me know what the event number is of that complaint you have
apparently made about me to the Australian Federal Police, after all, I
honestly want to help them with their enquiries :-)
DMac
Actually A4 size frames are everywhere. They fit home made certificates.
and cost under $2.00 when bought in boxes of 10. All Australian dollar
value here.
It's the proper picture frames in ISO sizes that are not made for the US
market we have trouble getting. 4:3 Aspect ratio frames are cheap as
chips. I can't buy the glass as cheaply as I can the frames so I buy
those frames to stay competitive. 20"x30" frames for $11.97.
A case (50 sheets) of 2mm glass is the only way I get glass at wholesale
prices and by the time I allow for wastage and the odd breakage it costs
me close enough to $14.00 for that size glass. The cheap frames come
with backing board too. Some even have half way decent matts in them.
Wallaby-mart in in New York City mate. My wife is the only member of
this family who shops at 'marts'. We have to order all our goods and
weekly supplies for delivery to the ferry terminal or pick them up in a
neighbour's power boat when at home. We only have a small convenience
store here.
http://www.tangalooma.com/info/resort_information/facilities/resort_shop/default.asp
Oddly I live up the hill, just behind it! If you like paying 90% over
mainland prices for what you buy, I suppose it's convenient. Duh. That's
why it a convenience store I guess!
Peter
>
<snip>
> As someone else stated, the subject determines the cropping ratio--it
> must.
> I don't think there's one print I've ever made during my lifetime that
> accurately fits any of the "standard" aspect ratios. Only the lazy, the
> snapshooters, and the incompetent photographers and artists would abide by
> someone else's idea of how to crop their compositions. I use those
> alignment/cropping grids as quick guidelines only, so as not to
> inadvertently clip something needed later. This too is why I despise any
> viewfinder that isn't 100%. They're nearly useless. I make every pixel
> count, as any seasoned photographer should. Frame/mat-makers and
> paper-suppliers don't determine my compositions for me. I tell them what
> size frames that they have to make for me, while I keep a sharp and
> accurate paper-trimmer handy.
>
> "There are none so lost as those who follow."
>
> That simple saying is deeply true in all walks and beliefs in life. This
> includes letting someone else dictate your compositions for you because
> you're too mentally lame or lack any creativity of your own.
>
> Keep on arguing about "standard" aspect ratios. It lets everyone know
> which
> of you are the blas� snapshooters or the tomes of sheep-following
> pretend-photographer trolls online.
>
Well stated. I keep the grid on my screen only as a guide. The "rule of
thirds" may be and should be violated whenever the subject says so.
--
Peter
Peter
news:gvnof6$6it$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> I might change my mind next month when the PMA is held in conjunction with
> the framing industry show in Sydney. I'm told picture framing suppliers
> can perform miracles in hard times. Like supplying ISO standard size
> frames to suit 3:2 aspect ratio in a country committed to metric
> measurements 30 years ago... We'll see!
Have you considered purchasing frames in section pairs?
http://www.dickblick.com/products/nielsen-metal-frame-sections-silver-style-93/
Yes, I know they are not metric sizes, but you can trim the mat and maintain
your desired aspect ratios.
--
Peter
Alan Browne
>
> Well stated. I keep the grid on my screen only as a guide. The "rule of
> thirds" may be and should be violated whenever the subject says so.
Actually he stated it so poorly as to make one consider calling the
insane asylum to pick him up.
The rule of thirds can be restated as the "rule of avoid centering
unless that is a strong composition in itself." or
The "tool of thirds" (Freeman Patterson) to help one consider
composition when shooting.
The real purpose of a grid (to me) is not so much for composing the
subject within the frame as to set up verticals and horizontals in the
image. Coupled to a geared head, it's a very nice tool for that.
Alan Browne
What kind of seasoning do you reckon? Steak spices? Col. Sanders
secret herbs and spices? Certainly cooked to be sure.
Of course he doesn't realize that the camera makes every pixel "count"
(photons that is).
I'd strike "enormously funny" and use "pathetic". YMMV.
Peter Chant
> NO rectangular sensor is the perfect shape - the optimum sensor shape is
> circular, to match the actual light pattern projected by the lens.
> Anything else is a waste of optics.
I prefer triangular myself...
;-)
DMac
Plenty of framing suppliers have what they call a "chomp service" where
you buy the frames pre-cut so you only have to under pin them, cut some
backing board and glass the make whatever you wish to suit to print.
It's these sort of frames that cost an arm and a leg compared to the
cheap stuff dumped in Australia when the Asian makers over produce for
the US market.
Chris Malcolm
> "Crippled DSLRs" <cds...@noaddress.com> wrote in message
> news:7u4u15h17avctll8i...@4ax.com...
>> As someone else stated, the subject determines the cropping ratio--it
>> must.
>> I don't think there's one print I've ever made during my lifetime that
>> accurately fits any of the "standard" aspect ratios. Only the lazy, the
>> snapshooters, and the incompetent photographers and artists would abide by
>> someone else's idea of how to crop their compositions. I use those
>> alignment/cropping grids as quick guidelines only, so as not to
>> inadvertently clip something needed later. This too is why I despise any
>> viewfinder that isn't 100%. They're nearly useless. I make every pixel
>> count, as any seasoned photographer should. Frame/mat-makers and
>> paper-suppliers don't determine my compositions for me. I tell them what
>> size frames that they have to make for me, while I keep a sharp and
>> accurate paper-trimmer handy.
>>
>> "There are none so lost as those who follow."
>>
>> That simple saying is deeply true in all walks and beliefs in life. This
>> includes letting someone else dictate your compositions for you because
>> you're too mentally lame or lack any creativity of your own.
>>
>> Keep on arguing about "standard" aspect ratios. It lets everyone know
>> which
>> of you are the blase snapshooters or the tomes of sheep-following
>> pretend-photographer trolls online.
> Well stated. I keep the grid on my screen only as a guide. The "rule of
> thirds" may be and should be violated whenever the subject says so.
There's no point to a rule which is broken whenever it's useful to do
so.
--
Chris Malcolm
Peter Irwin
>
> There's no point to a rule which is broken whenever it's useful to do
> so.
Sure there is. "Don't sacrifice a rook to take a bishop unless you
can see a good reason for doing so." Rules of that sort tell you
that doing something is usually a mistake, but that there are some
possible occasions where it is a good idea to go against the general
rule.
There are times when placing your main subject dead centre will work.
It doesn't happen very often.
Peter.
--
pir...@ktb.net
DRS
news:ZcSdnU0et9Q_sr3X...@giganews.com
> On 29-05-09 02:30, DRS wrote:
>> "Crippled DSLRs"<cds...@noaddress.com> wrote in message
>> news:7u4u15h17avctll8i...@4ax.com
>>
>>> I make every pixel count, as any seasoned photographer should.
>>
>> For some reason this strikes me as enormously funny.
>
> What kind of seasoning do you reckon? Steak spices? Col. Sanders
> secret herbs and spices? Certainly cooked to be sure.
>
> Of course he doesn't realize that the camera makes every pixel "count"
> (photons that is).
>
> I'd strike "enormously funny" and use "pathetic". YMMV.
When I read it I had a mental image of the coach exhorting his team of
photographers to "get out there and make every pixel count!"
The absurd can be amusing.
DMac
I have yet to see a picture composed to the rule of thirds that would
look better (as in more pleasing) were it composed differently. Even
16:3 aspect ratio.
Jeff R.
> I have yet to see a picture composed to the rule of thirds that would
> look better (as in more pleasing) were it composed differently. Even
> 16:3 aspect ratio.
DMac's example of composition:
http://www.mendosus.com/photography/composition.jpg
'nuff said.
--
Jeff R.
Chris Malcolm
In the painting portrait galleries I've visited it happens a lot. At a
guess from memory I'd say it happens more often than putting the main
subject on a third, although less often than simply being off centre.
--
Chris Malcolm
Chris Malcolm
There have been quite a number of painters and art critics who thought
the golden section was a definite improvement on thirds.
--
Chris Malcolm
Peter
> On 29-05-09 07:44, Peter wrote:
>
>>
>> Well stated. I keep the grid on my screen only as a guide. The "rule of
>> thirds" may be and should be violated whenever the subject says so.
>
> Actually he stated it so poorly as to make one consider calling the insane
> asylum to pick him up.
>
You certainly are entitled to your opinion. We obviously don't agree.
> The rule of thirds can be restated as the "rule of avoid centering unless
> that is a strong composition in itself." or
Simply remove the word "rule" in favor of avoid static compositions.
>
> The "tool of thirds" (Freeman Patterson) to help one consider composition
> when shooting.
The artist should take and evaluate Freeman, as everything else, and apply
it to his own work.
>
> The real purpose of a grid (to me) is not so much for composing the
> subject within the frame as to set up verticals and horizontals in the
> image. Coupled to a geared head, it's a very nice tool for that.
>
Last time I looked ensuring those portions that are intended to be vertical
and horizontal are what they are intended to be, is a subset of composition.
--
Peter
Peter
news:78birhF...@mid.individual.net...
Which is why I used quotes.
--
Peter
Peter
To my way of thinking the golden section is a client who commissions a
project. :-)
--
Peter
Alan Browne
"Get a pixel for the Gipper!"
Bob Larter
> On Fri, 29 May 2009 11:28:19 +1000, DMac <d-...@d-mac.info.delete>
> wrote:
>
>> All of that by-passes the convenience of being able to buy a $5 frame in
>> standard aspect ratio or needing to shell out $50 plus for a custom made
>> frame to fit an aspect ratio you invent.
>
> Has the custom of matting photographs not yet made its way to
> Australia?
Hey, don't project D-Mac onto the rest of us in Oz! He's a whole subject
of his own.
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Larter
Oh dear.
frank
I would have asked for a different tree if I wanted a hair transplant,
but hey, mebbee down under they have restrictions on the type of rug
you can plant....they've banned spray paint??
frank
wrote:
pixel dust. pretty expensive but you can just get ordinary dust if you
want....
Alan Browne
> On May 29, 1:55 pm, Alan Browne<alan.bro...@Freelunchvideotron.ca>
> wrote:
>> On 29-05-09 02:30, DRS wrote:
>>
>>> "Crippled DSLRs"<cds...@noaddress.com> wrote in message
>>> news:7u4u15h17avctll8i...@4ax.com
>>>> I make every pixel count, as any seasoned photographer should.
>>> For some reason this strikes me as enormously funny.
>> What kind of seasoning do you reckon? Steak spices? Col. Sanders
>> secret herbs and spices? Certainly cooked to be sure.
>>
>> Of course he doesn't realize that the camera makes every pixel "count"
>> (photons that is).
>>
>> I'd strike "enormously funny" and use "pathetic". YMMV.
>>
>> --
>> -- r.p.e.35mm user resource:http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
>> -- r.p.d.slr-systems:http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
>> -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
>> -- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.
>
> pixel dust. pretty expensive but you can just get ordinary dust if you
> want....
As usual the high quality product is much better than the freely
available product. Kinda like Mac OS X v. Linux and PS v. Gimp.
Frank, think you can get a news reader that properly removes the
signature of the prior posters message? eg: PROPER newsreaders remove
everything after a "--".
Alan Browne
Using any grid to restrain someone in composition (placement of subject
items in the frame according to preset lines) is something to be adhered
to as little as possible. Formulaic composition is a trap.
Another very useful purpose of gridlines is when shooting tilt/shift
lenses to get the tilts and shifts set up properly.
Robert Coe
wrote:
: On Wed, 27 May 2009 13:05:45 +1000, DMac wrote:
:
: > An earlier thread about 3:2 Aspect ratio being jumped on by supposed
: > experts got me thinking. I use all three of the popular aspect ratios
: > now being used with digital cameras. I put together an short article
: > on the subject if anyone is interested.
: > http://www.brisbaneweddingphotographers.com/gallery/Aspect-ratio.htm
: >
: > Doug.
:
: The aspect ratio should really be determined by the subject. Modern
: DSLRs allow cropping to small portions of the original image. Maybe
: we should have a focusing screen with popular aspect ratios marked as
: a guide?
I think some of the Katzeyes have that. In any case, if you buy a ruled
Katzeye, they'll let you design your own pattern.
Bob