- Joined
- Oct 26, 2015
- Messages
- 6,655
- Format
- 35mm
I'm putting Tri-X through a Minolta 16 II and pushing it a stop.
I laugh at the tiny half-frame grain.
Gripe: The Misery of 3:2 35mm Aspect Ratio
-
H
- Thread starter bjorke
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale 3.25x4.25 adox CHS 100 II
- Started by Gram Nylén
-
For Sale Fuji fp3000b & Fp100c fridgestored
- Started by belichten
-
For Sale Beautiful Tenba Messenger Bag
- Started by chuckroast
Forum statistics
I'm putting Tri-X through a Minolta 16 II and pushing it a stop.
I laugh at the tiny half-frame grain.
HF is much closer to 3:4 than 2:3.
According to an article on the Nikon Japan website the reasons for using the 24x32mm frame size were:
- 1.The 3:4 proportion seemed to have better proportions than the "Leica" format (2:3).
- 2.It could take 40 frames and was more economical than the "Leica" format of 36 frames.
- 3.The standard of the slide projector provided by the Japanese Ministry of Education was 24 x 32 mm.
And the reason for changing to the 24x36mm frame size because they wanted to sell the camera in the USA and they couldn't because:
"There was one big dilemna with the camera. The picture size of the "Nikon" format (24 x 32 mm) did not correspond to the automatic color slide cutting machines that were used in the U.S.A.
Those machines operated with the Leica format (24 x 36 mm), and if film from the "Nikon" format was used, the pictures would be incorrectly cut.
Because of this problem, GHQ did not permit export of the Nikon I, and CPO hesitated to place the order.
To solve the dilemna, the camera's frame size had to be changed immediately to a 24 x 36 mm size."
They can keep it 18x24mm for the half frame. Doesn't have to go down to 16x24 like the digital.
But then that would not be half-frame (half the width of the imaginary "standard" 32x24mm frame).
Is there a new half frame camera made recently right? Well but they are rare. But any way if I have the 24x32mm camera I can't shoot slides anyway as they can't mount them.
Well this is very old hat, but FWIW...
Whatever inspired the original choice of frame size, it has been argued (eg by HCB, no less) that it is the most aesthetically desirable because 3/2 is an approximation of the Golden Ratio, which was said to underpin a lot of fine art (questionable) and natural growth forms (true), and that this facilitated pleasing composition. 39x24 would have been much closer to the GR, but if 36x24 is already too lengthy...
No comment from Xpan users yet?
I don't understand what or why you just wrote that...
I was merely stating that in the parallel fantasy world, where small format is 32x24mm, half format would be 16x24mm (in reality that would be closer to 15x24) which would make it "wrong".
(is it clear enough already that I like 4:3 format?)
No comment from Xpan users yet?
As an XPan user, I say that 65x24 format is "wrong", too. Widelux/Horizon cameras got it right for panoramic format. And that's a fact, no IMHO...
I don't understand what or why you just wrote that...
I was merely stating that in the parallel fantasy world, where small format is 32x24mm, half format would be 16x24mm (in reality that would be closer to 15x24) which would make it "wrong".
(is it clear enough already that I like 4:3 format?)
As an XPan user, I say that 65x24 format is "wrong", too. Widelux/Horizon cameras got it right for panoramic format. And that's a fact, no IMHO...
not a big fan of 2:3 anyway. I find the 4x5,5x7 or golden ratio much better; in the end, I decide on the final framing in the darkroom while printing and don't let the negative format dictate the ratio.
Pretty close to 35mm
www.omnicalculator.com
Golden Rectangle Calculator
Golden rectangle calculator determines the missing side and area of a golden rectangle.
www.omnicalculator.com
So it’s a problem with framing the finished print?
Pretty close to 35mm
Golden Rectangle Calculator
Golden rectangle calculator determines the missing side and area of a golden rectangle.
This is not a game of horse shoes. Close is not good enough.
Does you always print to the golden ratio?
If the aspect ratio for 35mm were the golden ratio, the film size would be 24x38.8. I thought people were saying they would prefer something shorter than 36?
Last edited:
I just want to point out that even if everybody used the same negative format (say, 3 x 2) and didn't crop, adding an even margin all round (which could be 1/4", or 3", or more), or allowing for the strip covered by the frame moulding, will change that proportion of width to height.
So it's actually impossible to 'design' a paper size or a frame size that will suit even the majority of 35mm users, let alone those who crop to other proportions, use multiple negative formats, etc.
When I bought some off-the-shelf frames recently, it was the outside measurement that was standardised (e.g. to 10"x8", A2, A3, etc), and since the moulding width varied between manufacturers, the dimensions and proportions of the visible area were variable amounts smaller than the nominal size.
So it's actually impossible to 'design' a paper size or a frame size that will suit even the majority of 35mm users, let alone those who crop to other proportions, use multiple negative formats, etc.
When I bought some off-the-shelf frames recently, it was the outside measurement that was standardised (e.g. to 10"x8", A2, A3, etc), and since the moulding width varied between manufacturers, the dimensions and proportions of the visible area were variable amounts smaller than the nominal size.
MattKing
Moderator
I recommend to everyone that they consider cutting their own mats!
No, I print to fit the photograph on the paper, not to any rule written by the Greeks thousand of years ago. I do not ever recall anyone at any time stating that ancient Greeks were involved with photograph. If you have references stating otherwise, please post them.
...a process that involves quite a lot of wastage! But yes.
Buy the frame, and cut the mat to fit both the frame and the photo.
or
Cut the mat to suit the photo, and have the frame made to fit the mat.
Matt, I want to thank you for your reference the other day to Frame Destination. I have a small show coming up at the end of next month (drawings, not photography) and had been pricing the framing, mats, etc. I’ve made my own frames and cut plenty of mats over the years but was looking for a simpler solution (for me) and Frame Destination was it. I placed an order for 6 custom metal frames with plain mats, glass, and hangers last Thursday and received them yesterday. They are perfect and just what I wanted. And, the price was right. Thanks.
MattKing
Moderator
Glad it worked out - they were great when they participated here too.
I have a mat cutter - it takes up a lot of space.
MattKing
Moderator
I have An Altos cutter that is limited to working with 16x20 sheets, and is reasonably compact. It ends up being a good, practical compromise for my uses. It works well. They are no longer made, but there are Logan mat cutters that are similar.
One from this line, and of the same size:
I have friends with bigger cutters, that offer useful additional features, but cost a lot more.
Mine is a bit bigger - but I rarely even make enlargements as big as 11/14. I have cut mats for a few 8x10s and 11x14s - it's handy to have it because you can use a frame you like. I always buy used frames (and rarely make one).
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |