rkm
Well-known
Following on from the "do you crop" thread, I'm interested in examples of composition that you feel just work better in a given aspect ratio, regardless of the format the image was shot on. Please post examples if possible, even before and after examples (if cropping was required) if you can.
Thanks.
Thanks.
redisburning
Well-known
the strongest argument I've seen for wide-format (> 2 to 1) photography is the Kobayashi movie Harakiri. watching movies like that make me wish I had an xpan.
I think square really suits a composition with just a subject and little else. it's just very effective at evoking feelings of loneliness.
I think square really suits a composition with just a subject and little else. it's just very effective at evoking feelings of loneliness.
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
OK, Here's one. This is cropped from the 3:2 aspect ratio of my D700. It's a Mural Wall in Ridgway, Colorado. I used my 25mm Zeiss ZF on the D700.
Although I enjoy widescreen/wide aspect ratio a lot, I feel it's possible to carry it too far. Height is an important part of a picture, IMO, because I need some foreground to create a depth illusion. In this case, the wide aspect ratio--about like that of Panavision--works well with this long, low building. More often, I find my shots often work well when cropped to the 16:9 ratio.
I wanted to add the title and artist's credit from the lower right corner of the mural:
Although I enjoy widescreen/wide aspect ratio a lot, I feel it's possible to carry it too far. Height is an important part of a picture, IMO, because I need some foreground to create a depth illusion. In this case, the wide aspect ratio--about like that of Panavision--works well with this long, low building. More often, I find my shots often work well when cropped to the 16:9 ratio.
I wanted to add the title and artist's credit from the lower right corner of the mural:
Attachments
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
I am a huge fan of the square format.
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
I have an XPAN. I find it a bit too extreme in aspect ratio for the way I compose for reasons I explained above.
lynnb
Veteran
I'd just jumped off a bus and saw this woman walking up the stairs. A quick grab shot, but as I framed it I knew what aspect ratio and crop would work best. Cropped to 16:9 in LR. Original on the left, final version on right:
lynnb
Veteran
here's another example. After looking at the original capture, it just seemed to be a natural for the square:
by lynnb on Flickr
by lynnb on Flickr
I.G.I.
Member
Sorry for the off topic question, but how do you scan such negatives? Is large format scanner a must; or there is a trick with the 35mm film scanners? I always found the panoramic format (and the Xpan by extension) intriguing, challenging, and mentally and aesthetically stimulating.
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
The Nikon LS-8000 can scan them with the optional glass rotating neg carrier. It comes with a mask for that size film image.
tstermitz
Well-known
I know square is a traditional format that many love, but I haven't worked with it much if at all. After working in 4x3 format for a while (Pentax 645N), I've gone back to appreciating the 2x3 aspect ratio. And, I find myself fighting the Xpan GAS...
Here is a very interesting article about David Darling, a photographer who works frequently with a media-format, panorama camera. The "Garbage Bag Cowboy" and the "Mountain Mist" are just brilliant.
With the panoramic canvass, I notice how perspective and leading lines become really powerful. I think it wis important to shoot with a panoramic viewfinder or intent, rather than crop to it.
Here is a very interesting article about David Darling, a photographer who works frequently with a media-format, panorama camera. The "Garbage Bag Cowboy" and the "Mountain Mist" are just brilliant.
With the panoramic canvass, I notice how perspective and leading lines become really powerful. I think it wis important to shoot with a panoramic viewfinder or intent, rather than crop to it.
kxl
Social Documentary
While 3x2 will always be a staple, lately I have been enamored with the 16:9
Roger Hicks
Veteran
The original question seems to me to be backwards. You start out with the format, and compose the picture to suit it. I've shot pictures I like, composed to the edges, with everything from 6x6cm to 6x18cm.
Cheers,
R.
Cheers,
R.
I.G.I.
Member
That's a very important point(!), but I was afraid to bring it up for not to stir a controversy (I know, very stupid reasoning....) The format force you to compose and fill the the frame with points of interest. Cropping severely after the fact is not the same as the elements that you might have originally included may not be there
I.G.I.
Member
Thanks for reply. So, is the LS-8000 the only 35 mm ticket to panorama_scan_land?
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
Well, the picture I posted was shot direct to digital with my D700. I project XPAN transparencies in my Hasselblad projector. If I needed to scan one, I would use my Epson 2450. It's an old scanner, not as good as their current model, but it will do the job.
daveleo
what?
Shot on APS-C sensor, cropped to 8X10.
doolittle
Well-known
Epson V700 allows you to scan it in one.
I guess with certain 35mm scanners you could scan it in two halves and stitch back together.
rkm
Well-known
Regardless of how you feel about cropping, the question was relating to types of composition that you feel work well for a given aspect ratio. Why do you choose one format's aspect ratio over another format for a given image?
c.poulton
Well-known
That's exactly how I work - and I find that I compose quite differently depending upon the format used - 35mm or 120, or 645....
rkm
Well-known
So, what makes you decide to pickup a 120 camera? Do you have a preference of using 120 for portraits, for instance? Do you have a repertoire of compositional ideas that you draw upon for portraits using 120, for instance?