"Golden ratio". Said by the ancient Greeks to be the most naturally pleasing four sided shape. The "golden ratio" is found everywhere in nature.
Regards, Bob.... -------------------------------------------------------------------- "Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy!" - Benjamin Franklin ----- Original Message ----- From: "frank theriault" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, December 27, 2002 1:39 PM Subject: Re: 6x6 - Waste of Space? (WAS: Re: Medium Format-Which one is best?) > Hi, Albano, > > Remember, maybe 6 months or a year ago, we had a long discussion on this > list about rectangular versus square prints? > > Some here suggested that somehow rectangular was more "natural" than > square, as our eye's field of vision is wider than is is vertical, hence > the prevalence of rectangular paintings (there were other reasons given, > but that one stuck in my mind). IIRC, it was somehow suggested that > therefore, horizontal rectangular prints are more pleasing to the eye > (or brain, or whatever). > > With the greatest of respect, I thought it was hogwash then, and I still > do. Of course, that theory doesn't explain why we might find "vertical" > (ie: so-called portrait) prints pleasing. > > I agree with you, Albano. Rectangular prints have no intrinsic or > aesthetic superiority over square ones. We've just been conditioned to > expect them. Shooting 6x6 is just another way of looking at things, > imho. > > regards, > frank > > > > Albano Garcia wrote: > > > Pal: > > You really have to have a square mind to say 6x6 is a > > waste. Square pictures can be very beautifull, why in > > da hell they must be rectangular? The rectangle is > > just a cultural convention, hence naturalized, but > > it's still a convention. > > Open your mind. > > Regards > > > > -- > "The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The > pessimist fears it is true." -J. Robert > Oppenheimer > > >
