On Thu, 2 Aug 2001 19:58:13 +0900, you wrote:
>The 8 by 10 format is
>popular, because it looks better to most people. It's some kind of classic
>rectangle shape I think...
> Mind you I like custom formats that are far from the normal 8 by 10
>ratio. Close to square or long panoramic prints really stand out. They just
>cost more in custom frames and mats.
Interesting topic, but OT, so I'll keep it short. Have you tried a
"Golden Rectangle" or its near twin the "Double 3-4-5 tirangle? Both
give a side proportion of about 1.6. Longer than 8x12 (would give
7.4x12) and is considered a "classic" rectangle vis-a-vis the
Fibonacci series, Phi, Golden Section et al. See Palladio's
architecture, etc, and a million other works of art.
I've always wanted to experiment with non-rectangular mattes, and
probably will some day. I think the challenge would be to not look
contrived. But hell, my eyes, or my "perceptions," sure don't see
rectangularly. That's why I think composition should often palpably
suggest something beyond the frame.
Ken Durling
Website http://home.earthlink.net/~kdurling/
Alternate e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
