Actually, some of our standards for photograph sizes came about because that was the size plate glass was commonly available in in the 19th Century, 8x10 in the US, 8-1/2x6-1/2 in England, etc. (why do the English have vertical sizes and the Americans horizontal sizes?) They were commonly cut into 1/2 plate and 1/4 plate sizes with gave us such things as 4x5 & 3-1/4x4-1/4. 35mm is 24x36 because the camera Barnack (sp?) made to test movie film had a lens that would cover more than the 18x24 movie frame so he doubled the size.
There was no obscure mystical formula used in any of this. Ciao, Graywolf http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bob Walkden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "P�l Jensen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, December 27, 2002 11:22 AM Subject: Re[2]: 6x6 - Waste of Space? (WAS: Re: Medium Format-Which one is best?) > Hi, > > Friday, December 27, 2002, 11:00:17 PM, you wrote: > > > The rectangular format has nothing to do with convention but with what the > > human mind find pleasing. That the way we are wired; lots of research has been > > done on this. If the square formate is so appealing, why isn't there any square > > photographic paper and when do you expect the square sensor digital camera? > > Perhaps the waste of a digital image sensor area will be too much of an excess to > > be viable? > > the proportions of page sizes arise from the size of the moulds used > in early paper production and are based on economic production rather > than on aesthetic principles. Bear in mind that most paper is used for > writing rather than graphics, so the aesthetic aspects take 2nd place. > The proportions of photographic paper are determined by the historical > proportions of ordinary paper. > > One possible reason why there may be more (non-square) rectangular > compositions than square ones is that there is only one square, and > there are infinitely many possible rectangles. There are very few > common rectangles used in visual designs. They include 1:1 (square), > 1:1.5 (35mm), 1:2 (tatami, double square), 1:1.618 (golden rectangle), > 1:1.414 (root 2, ISO paper sizes). Some controlled psychological > eperiments have apparently suggested that there is no preference for > the golden section over other proportions, and this appears to be > borne out by statistics gathered about the proportions used by > European painters historically. However, there is no doubt that it > often appears to be used accidentally in many cultural artefacts. This > could be because it is very easy to derive using just a couple of pegs > and some string (as is the root 2 rectangle). > > --- > > Bob > > "Our heads are round so that our thoughts can fly in any direction" > Francis Picabia >
