Gripe: The Misery of 3:2 35mm Aspect Ratio

[bjorke]

12"x18" + 2" border: 16x22 not 16x20
21"x14" + 1.5" border = 24x17" not 24x20
9x6"+ 0.5" border = 10x7 not 10x8
12x8 + 1" border = 14x10 not 14x11
12x8 + 4" border = 20x16 okay that's a size but 2/3rd of it is matte

I'm just perpetually surprised that given 35mm-aspect's centrality in image making since at least the 1930's, there's not a decent standardized way to frame it other the custom framing as if NOBODY EVER DID THIS BEFORE :/

(frame makers' profit margins beat image margins, I guess)

 

[MattKing]

I think we just went through a similar extended discussion - in relation to the 3:2 aspect ratio and how poorly the standard darkroom paper sizes work with it.
FWIW, 9" x 13.5" prints on 11"x14" paper look good in a 14" x 17" frame, and don't look bad in a 16"x20" frame. Bottom weighting is your friend with images that are horizontal.

 

[koraks]

There's this recent thread about more or less the same problem - although it focuses on paper instead of framing: https://www.photrio.com/forum/threa...tio-in-dimensions-like-of-a-35mm-film.197841/

It's one of those 'why' questions that just won't produce a satisfying answer!

 

[bernard_L]

Why would 3:2 be the most aesthetically desirable ratio? It was born from very practical reasons: using two frames of 35mm cine film for miniature cameras (notable Leica, but some other ones before).

Maybe we'll hear the users of 4x5, or 67, or 645 film formats voice similar, but opposite complaints.

 

[bjorke]

Whatever the reason for 3:2. it's a long-standing standard, and one that has not been served by the very companies that have promoted it for nearly a century (hi there Kodak, Agfa, & co). This tells me that it made economic sense for them, which almost certainly means they have been deliberately creating wasteful products because, well sure, the margins are better.

Still leaves me griping about how hard it is to be happy about framing 3:2 prints. I've become less of a fan of frameless, too.

 

[koraks]

which almost certainly means they have been deliberately creating wasteful products

Unsubstantiated conjecture.

 

[Don_ih]

Seems to me, the pros used to have the market cornered on any prints larger than 4x6, and they would use medium or large formats, which tended to not be 3:2. The vast majority of 35mm shots only ever saw 3.5x5" or 4x6" paper.

 

[snusmumriken]

I think the misery applies to off-the-shelf frames generally. Ever tried getting a frame to fit a 'standard' poster size without the need to trim it?

 

[guangong]

Other camera frame sizes have been used in the past (Nikon, Robot, etc) but there must have been a reason that they failed in the market. Nikon quickly adopted the general standard. As for frames, the sides can be bought separately and glass cut to any size. Unless one belongs to the print only full negative frame cult, I don’t understand the problem.

 

[Chan Tran]

I don't much like the 3:2 aspect ratio but I do try to use the entire frame when I can because the 35mm frame is too small for cropping.

 

[faberryman]

Unless one belongs to the print only full negative frame cult, I don’t understand the problem.

As opposed to the crop to fit the paper size cult?

And it is not really a problem for the print only full negative frame cult.

And why a cult? People do things different ways.

 

[bernard_L]

I don't much like the 3:2 aspect ratio but I do try to use the entire frame when I can because the 35mm frame is too small for cropping.

C'mon. Suppose you print 3:2 onto 5x7" (a nice format for an album, and also on the wall for people with a moderate ego).
So we are facing 1.5 long side cropped to 1.4 (7/5). That is 0.05 at each end of the long side. In proportion, that is 0.05/1.5, a little more than 3%. In terme of optical SLR wiewfinders, that is less than the difference between the coverage of a typical pro versus enthusiast camera.

 

[bjorke]

Unsubstantiated conjecture.

Agreed, there's no smoking gun. So perhaps a different conjecture:

For most of "the 35mm years," that format was used to print 3.5x5 and 4x6 ("big") prints. Only rarely for large prints.

Meanwhile, larger printing was dominated by "professional" formats like 6x6, 6x7, or sheet film. Think school portraits and wedding line-ups, that sort of thing.

Magazine and ad work never crops to the camera, it's always up to the picture editor unless you're Hank Carter.

So larger print sizes are not the legacy of wasting 35mm film or 11x14 paper, but a legacy of those antique formats, and now we're stuck with 'em (unless all of your work goes straight to the internet anyway)

 

[koraks]

but a legacy of those antique formats

Yes, I think that's really all there is to it, in the end. Combined, perhaps, with the notion that there's no 'one size fits all' - or perhaps, no 'on ratio fits all'.

Apologies for the curt formulation of my previous post, btw.

 

[MattKing]

Switch to 4:3 or 6x8 - it fits those antique formats better
Bring back 110 film!

 

[faberryman]

C'mon. Suppose you print 3:2 onto 5x7" (a nice format for an album, and also on the wall for people with a moderate ego).

5x7s requires a pretty big album. 4x6s are bad enough.

How big can you print before you are deemed to have a big ego?

 

[Cholentpot]

Switch to 4:3 or 6x8 - it fits those antique formats better
Bring back 110 film!

One of the most active threads on this website is dedicated to 110. We're keeping it alive.

 

[Sirius Glass]

In addition to the points raised about the problems of the 3:2 format, I just find it often too wide. I would rather have 24mm x 30mm, 24mm x 28mm or 24mm x 24mm formats available.

 

[Chan Tran]

In addition to the points raised about the problems of the 3:2 format, I just find it often too wide. I would rather have 24mm x 30mm, 24mm x 28mm or 24mm x 24mm formats available.

I think Nikon originally with their Nikon I had the frame size of 24x32mm

 

[bjorke]

Focusing screen + Sharpie....

 

[Cholentpot]

Focusing screen + Sharpie....

Half-Frame. Works for me.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Half-Frame. Works for me.

I have a Tessina and the half frame has the same problem but as 2:3 instead of 3:2.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I think Nikon originally with their Nikon I had the frame size of 24x32mm

I agree that would have been better, but a poor choice of a standard had been set by Barnak had being lazy and multiplying by a factor of two from the movie industry standard.

 

[Cholentpot]

I have a Tessina and the half frame has the same problem but as 2:3 instead of 3:2.

But you get more so you just add up 2:3 + 2:3 and you get 4:6!

 

[Sirius Glass]

But you get more so you just add up 2:3 + 2:3 and you get 4:6!

At a lower resolution. Even with replenished XTOL the grain is too big with Tri-X to be useful.