Aspect Ratios

[Worker 11811]

Is there any consensus on what aspect ratios on final prints or digital files for display should be?

A 35mm negative is 24 X 36 mm for a 1:1.5 aspect ratio.
A regular 8 X 10 print has a 1:1.25 aspect ratio.
A regular 11 X 17 print has a 1:1.54 aspect ratio.
If you're going for digital output, aspect ratio can be anywhere on the map.

Regardless of your final print size, there's bound to be some cropping or shrinking and enlarging going on.

Personally, I don't like the look of an 8 X 10 print's AR. 8.5 X 11 (1:1.29 AR) isn't very pleasing, either. An 11 X 17 looks a little better to me.

Just for reference, I'll tell you I work in movie theaters. I am very used to looking at and judging images on movie screens which have a 1:1.85 or a 1:2.35 AR. I think those are the sizes which are most pleasing to the eye. As a compromise, I can easily accept a 16:9 (1:1.78) aspect ratio. That's what most video imagery is starting to standardize on these days.

Sorry to be tossing around all these numbers. I'm just starting to make up my mind to print photos again and I want to decide on what size/shape to print them in.

Do people really notice the shape of the image/frame? Do most artists and photographers expect to see pictures in certain sizes and shapes?

Or can I simply say, "It's MY picture and I'll make it whatever size I think is best." ?

 

[ann]

i am in the process of determing a specific paper size and then will print everything salon style on that size paper.

Well, really maybe two sizes, 11x17 and 13x19 with the majority being 11x17.

I test a lot of prints on 8.5x11, but too many years of traditional presentation leads me to use the above mentioned sizes.

with traditional prints , i tend to mount them either 14x18 or 16x20 with a window.

with inkjet prints i print whatever the size of the file ends up being and then when putting them in a frame i use interspacing so i don't need to cut a wide variety of windows.

Basically, it also comes down to the fact the image dicates the size of photo, i determine how it will look on the paper. (if that makes sense.)

 

[TSSPro]

I tend to be a traditionalist when it comes to aspect ratios. Most of my final output sizes are a 4:5. I tend to shoot with that in mind since I've always sold 8x10s, not 8x12s, and consumer frames dont often come in 8x12 sizes. (or atleast not often enough to become a request among clients)

4:5 can feel a little tight and boxy at times, but the only reason I think it became the norm ratio was because the print sizes were based off of popular sheet film sizes and their subsequent enlargements, the exception being 5x7.
Likewise, 8.5x11 and 17x22 sizes are offered because of standardized US Letter and tabloid sizes and possibly the fact that there is equipment designed to produce that size paper.

In the end, the image itself should dictate what the size and aspect ratio the print should be. Its a personal preference and an artistic decision based on the image. And with an abundance of everything from small sheet sizes to enormous rolls, there are no rules, but the ones that you assign your images.

 

[livemoa]

it is your image, print it how you want, how it looks best.

 

[Loris Medici]

Aspect ratio: Ditto, it's your decision and to me depends much on the image. I'm not against cropping and/unusual aspect ratios and I pretty dislike the purist approaches when they're used in pretentious ways. (Such as printing with oversize negative masks in order to show film perfs...)

Size: Depends on your purpose, the target audience and exhibition venue.

 

[donbga]

Or can I simply say, "It's MY picture and I'll make it whatever size I think is best." ?

There you go!

Don Bryant

 

[Worker 11811]

My plan is to make cyanotypes using digital intermediates printed from my inkjet printer. It maxes out at "Legal" size of 8.5 X 14. That limits me to 8.5 X 11 for transparency, I think.

I just wanted to know about what sizes people use most. I probably will crop and set aspect ratios the way I think looks best but I also don't want my prints to look too weird if displayed next to a bunch of others which are all the same.

Maybe I'll go for something in the area of a 1.667 AR. That would make a print of 10.20" X 6.14" (25.9 cm X 15.6 cm) That would just fit on a sheet of standard sized transparency media.
(You want to leave 1/4 inch at the end for the printer to grab onto.)

PS: I HATE filed-out negative carriers! I had a photography teacher who wanted to teach us to compose our photos in the camera instead of on the enlarger. If he thought you were blowing up and cropping too much he would make you use a filed-out negative carrier and print full-frame so he could see the edges of the film.

Some people think full-frame prints that show the sprocket holes are "artsy" but, to me, they are like punishment.

 

[Bruce Watson]

I don't particularly like any of the popular sizes. I actually don't understand how they showed up on the market. Most of them seem to be arbitrary -- like the ratios used in cinema which came from how many 35mm sprocket holes the camera/projector would pull down for each frame -- not an artistic statement, but a physical convenience. Thankfully I print with an inkjet printer so it's easy to use the aspect ratios that please me.

What I've found that works for me isn't new; indeed it's been used throughout our history from antiquity up to the present day. It his fairly highly respected, used by the famous and unknowns alike. It's been used around the world by all kinds of cultures. It shows up in nature in the most amazing places.

I'm talking about the golden ratio. I don't know why, but it seems really "correct" for photography. At least, for much of my photography.

Another aspect ratio I like a lot is 1: sqrt(5), or about 1:2.24, which is what I think of as an ideal panoramic ratio. I like it a lot better than 1:2, and a little better than 1:2.5. Turns out it's used a lot as the aspect ratio for many Japanese rock gardens. And of course, since it depends on sqrt(5) it's related to the golden ratio. Not surprising that humans might find it pleasing also.

I also shot a fair amount in 4:3, which fits nicely on my 5x4 film. Over the years I've tended away from 5:4; I don't know why.

 

[Worker 11811]

I've been experimenting on images I have taken recently and a few from the past. I have a lot of 35mm negatives that I shot myself. I have a box full of 4 X 5 negatives I got from my father when he died.

For the 35mm, I like a 1.6 aspect ratio. That gives a horizontal rectangle that is a little bit narrower than your HD TV screen, assuming you enlarge so it fits top to bottom. For the 4 X 5 I have decided on staying pretty much with the as-shot aspect ratio but that presumes that the image was shot in portrait orientation where the image is taller than it is wide. (I assume that's standard practice. No?)

For images in landscape orientation an example would be an image 1,000 pixels wide and 600 pixels tall. For portrait orientation I think I'm going to stick with 1200 pixels tall and 960 pixels wide.

 

[JohnRB]

Dear Worker,

Generally I don't crop, but when I do I keep the same aspect ratio as the negative - 35mm or 6x6. Also when I print I generally print to the same sizes: 24 x 36 cm for 35m and 30 X 30 cm for MF. This way I can recycle my frames and mattes. Also, I find that shuffling aspect ratios and sizes can be be distracting from the prints themselves at a show.

Yours,

John

 

[dmdctusa]

My standard format is 6in X 8in on a standard letter sheet. It works well when images are viewed at arms length. I discovered this format concept from an article on Clayton Jones website. I have always found the standard 35mm ration to be a bit long other for than for landscapes.

I just got a copy of the Steidl/Nation Gallery of art edition (2008) of Robert Franks' "The Americans", the image although not strictly 4x8 are in the ball park and the the impression is very good.

I like the standard letter page size as MCS make a very nice thin edge frame in this size which makes the 4x8 image area work very well.

David

 

[Loris Medici]

...
I find that shuffling aspect ratios and sizes can be be distracting from the prints themselves at a show.
...

Indeed, but if the sizes aren't too much different, having the same size for the frames and playing with the margins can give an illusion of uniform size, and is very practical by the installation point of view.

 

[Worker 11811]

I just set up my own darkroom last week and I have been practicing making prints again. At first, I was using full 8x10 sheets of paper but I decided to economize and cut the sheets in half. I have ended up with pieces of photo paper that are approx. 5x8.

That gives an AR of 1:1.6

For every day photos, I find that to be just about the right size. They are convenient to look at while holding in the hand and I can get twice as many prints out of a box of paper.

Until I have had some more practice and can produce more consistent results that make me happy with my work, I think I'll keep working with half-sheets.

I am hoping that I'll get to the point where I can display some photos fairly soon. While I, personally, like the wider aspect ratios (probably because of my movie house upbringing) I don't want to display photos that are too far outside of what people expect to see, aspect ratio-wise.

I want to make images that I like but I also don't want to make them be too "difficult" for others to look at, either. I'm looking for a compromise.

For now, 5x8 seems to work for me.
What do you think?

 

[Herb Cunningham]

I think the ratio is largely determined by the subject, not the size of media. My favorite for landscapse is 6x9, or 1:1.5, or 5x7, 1:1.4.

That said, 6x6 works very well for a lot of still lifes and other closeup formats.