Using our links helps support this site—click on any book cover thumbnail for all your Amazon purchases Visual textbook of how photographs function and why they matter. Using Photoshop to create digital nega- tives for silver and alternative process printing Michael Kenna's latest, "Hokkaido" Carolyn Wright's legal guide for photographers John Sexton's latest monograph Bruce's last book is excellent for printmakers Award-winning tome showing the aftermath of Katrina The "most powerful colorspace" by Dan Margulis Eloquent and easy-to-read "essays in defense of traditional values" Large-format color from today's China Quirky and fun book about toy cameras Best book on the subject by our own Ctein Beautiful sampling of Steve McCurry's portraits, including the famous "Afghan girl." Superb reproduction quality. Anthology of the best of Robert Capa Matched pair of highly readable histories. Buy now— these may not remain in print much longer Most important technical book for DSLR owners David Hurn and Bill Jay's best-seller How to deal with artists' process issues Best small Sampler of Avedon. A unique example of book- making as well. "Color photography has found its Mozart" —J.S. Third Edition now unfortunately out of print. Missed your chance?
I think this is a very interesting topic that is closely related to each person's subconscious tastes. I remember reading on calligraphy that there is significant personality difference between those who draw tall characters in their handwriting, and those who write in more even proportioned, squarish or roundish characters. I think there's a psychological correlation, for example with how comfortable we feel with our frame proportions. Some people love the new 4:3 shape sensors, while nothing made me happier than knowing that there are native 16:9 format digital cameras like the Panasonic LX1. I see two things when I think 16:9, a flat horizontal panoramic, or a vertical shot that makes me think of japanese ink drawings of mountains with little trees hanging over vertical cliffs. Both of those are extremely exciting to me, while I know a lot of people would feel these possibilities too extreme. May be how thin is our preferred rectangle proportions define us (yeah, it sounds quite silly, I know). As for the people who shoot squares... wow, that's for geniuses.
There are several good books and sites which detail the ubiquity of the Golden Mean in the natural world, in animal and plant anatomy, as well as astronomy, genetics, etc. See goldennumber.net.
The golden ratio appears in the art - not only as single rectangles - but as sets of rectangles - within more complex designs. The 8x10 format, for example, is composed of 2 golden rectangles (5x8) side by side.
The ratio also appears as logorithmic spirals, such as denotes the shape of the ear and the inner ear. Because of the logorithmic - rather than geometric - shape of this spiral, there is a need for "correction" to the musical scale: hence the "well-tempered" scale, familiar to students of music theory.
Once you have a look at a good paper on why Phi is used by plants for Phylotaxis, and why it is the most irrational of the irrational numbers, it begins to dawn on you that any human preference for it is likely a simple reflection of our own anatomy.
I have to agree with you on that one. I prefer to shoot in a vertical format. So I naturally am drawn to squarer / squatter formats. For example my 2 & 1/4 square Bronica, the Bronica RF 6x4.5 or the 4 x 5 inches of my view camera. I am forever cropping my 35mm work. At least the sensor on my digital point and shoot isn't too long (similar to the 4 3rds system).
Composition in a square can be so beautiful. Composition in a panoramic format is currently done to death. Who ever said that the image should dictate the format hit the nail right on the head.
4 Comments:
I think this is a very interesting topic that is closely related to each person's subconscious tastes. I remember reading on calligraphy that there is significant personality difference between those who draw tall characters in their handwriting, and those who write in more even proportioned, squarish or roundish characters. I think there's a psychological correlation, for example with how comfortable we feel with our frame proportions. Some people love the new 4:3 shape sensors, while nothing made me happier than knowing that there are native 16:9 format digital cameras like the Panasonic LX1.
I see two things when I think 16:9, a flat horizontal panoramic, or a vertical shot that makes me think of japanese ink drawings of mountains with little trees hanging over vertical cliffs. Both of those are extremely exciting to me, while I know a lot of people would feel these possibilities too extreme.
May be how thin is our preferred rectangle proportions define us (yeah, it sounds quite silly, I know).
As for the people who shoot squares... wow, that's for geniuses.
Nope, but it's OK for photographs and paintings. LOL
There are several good books and sites which detail the ubiquity of the Golden Mean in the natural world, in animal and plant anatomy, as well as astronomy, genetics, etc. See goldennumber.net.
The golden ratio appears in the art - not only as single rectangles - but as sets of rectangles - within more complex designs. The 8x10 format, for example, is composed of 2 golden rectangles (5x8) side by side.
The ratio also appears as logorithmic spirals, such as denotes the shape of the ear and the inner ear. Because of the logorithmic - rather than geometric - shape of this spiral, there is a need for "correction" to the musical scale: hence the "well-tempered" scale, familiar to students of music theory.
Once you have a look at a good paper on why Phi is used by plants for Phylotaxis, and why it is the most irrational of the irrational numbers, it begins to dawn on you that any human preference for it is likely a simple reflection of our own anatomy.
I have to agree with you on that one. I prefer to shoot in a vertical format. So I naturally am drawn to squarer / squatter formats. For example my 2 & 1/4 square Bronica, the Bronica RF 6x4.5 or the 4 x 5 inches of my view camera. I am forever cropping my 35mm work. At least the sensor on my digital point and shoot isn't too long (similar to the 4 3rds system).
Composition in a square can be so beautiful. Composition in a panoramic format is currently done to death. Who ever said that the image should dictate the format hit the nail right on the head.
Len
Post a Comment
<< Home