frame sizes vs golden ratio vs rule of thirds vs craziness

[jann1033]

ok i have an aspect ratio of 3:2, supposed to be the same as the golden ratio so technically if i figure on a rough estimation of rule of thirds grid and put subject on intersection yadayad yad, i should be ok BUT standard frame size of 8 x10 would be 4:5 ratio right?( if i remember those pesky ratios) and my actual straight from camera photo is someplace around 14x8-9 i think so how do i compose for rule of thirds and allow for a crop to get an 8x10/8.5x11?. right now i am cropping way more off than i want to sometimes even if i am roughly composing for rule of thirds( or worse yet having to cut just a tip of something off which is really maddening).is there anyway to do it except guessing? ( i know some cameras have focus points at intersections but mine doesn't) figuring math will be involved but i'll pretend i remember it and write it down instead. i know rot is a guideline and doesn't have to be dead on but mostly i want to be close enough that i don't lose something i want and a guess doesn't always do it

 

[seashoreCM]

Can you get one of those stick on peel off camera lcd panel protectors and draw your own framing grid on it, optimized for 8x10 (5:4) or whatever aspect ratio you will crop to?

IMHO it is better to stray from the rule of thirds instead of, say, cutting the spire off of Cinderella Castle.

Digital camera hints: http://www.cockam.com/digicam.htm

 

[jann1033]

Can you get one of those stick on peel off camera lcd panel protectors and draw your own framing grid on it, optimized for 8x10 (5:4) or whatever aspect ratio you will crop to?

IMHO it is better to stray from the rule of thirds instead of, say, cutting the spire off of Cinderella Castle.

Digital camera hints: http://www.cockam.com/digicam.htm

i agree and i'm just talking about being in the vicinity of rot, . it seems to be more of a problem for me in portrait rather than landscape, maybe cause it's easier to cut off the sides and not have it noticeably "chopped". occasionally i want to do more of a landscape type photo ( ie lighthouse) in portrait and that is when i seem to end up either cropping the "interest" in the front or the tip of something in the back, ie sunrise skies basically 90% not there if i want the rock in front
good idea about the grid, i have a delkin sun shade i never use because it annoys me but i could maybe do the grid on and only use till i get used to where i have to be.

 

[Groucho]

I really like the way "The Photographer's Eye" deals with this topic... there is mention of Golden Sections and the briefest passing mention of putting things in thirds (and never uses the term "rule of" which makes my skin crawl!)...

Basically, the way the book explains, is that an object in the center is very safe, predictable, potentially not very exciting. The closer an object gets to the edge of the frame, the more dynamic and unstable it becomes. There is no perfect place, each object has to "justify" its location. Certain objects can be moved farther off-center, some remain closer to the center... many fall roughly in thirds, some work better in Golden Sections.

But the content of the book show that exactly where you put the focal object in the frame is only one very, very tiny part of the whole composition decision. I highly recommend the book to you - I suspect that you'd really be a good candidate for reading the book and learning some different ways to look at composition.

 

[jann1033]

I really like the way "The Photographer's Eye" deals with this topic... there is mention of Golden Sections and the briefest passing mention of putting things in thirds (and never uses the term "rule of" which makes my skin crawl!)...

Basically, the way the book explains, is that an object in the center is very safe, predictable, potentially not very exciting. The closer an object gets to the edge of the frame, the more dynamic and unstable it becomes. There is no perfect place, each object has to "justify" its location. Certain objects can be moved farther off-center, some remain closer to the center... many fall roughly in thirds, some work better in Golden Sections.

But the content of the book show that exactly where you put the focal object in the frame is only one very, very tiny part of the whole composition decision. I highly recommend the book to you - I suspect that you'd really be a good candidate for reading the book and learning some different ways to look at composition.

actually i understand the composition aspect, it's the fact that i can't fit the intended composition into a standard sized frame, ie i'm having to crop off parts i want to keep in the composition. ( 6:4 photo vs 5:4 frame) i can allow extra cropping room but that limits the overall shot since i have to leave enough non desirable space to crop out.

 

[Groucho]

The book covers aspect ratios and their suitability for various croppings, too.

 

[jann1033]

the easiest size for me would be 8x12 but i can't find mats or frames easily for that size. however what i originally asked was if anyone knew of a formula to get a 3:2 camera's view to match common frame sizes( hence the suggestion to add a screen with it penciled in.) so i could compose the photo more accurately without having to crop as much. guessing it doesn't exist since no one seems to know of one since the only articles i could find say "guess" "leave more room for cropping" etc which is what i have been doing. time and again i've heard the admonition to "get the edges of the photo how you want them then the middle will take care of it's self" ,not an easy feat when you don't know where the edge will be in the final print. so evidently i just have to keep guessing. at least from some of the articles i read, i'm not the only one suffering from with this annoyance and most mentioned portrait orientation as being worse than landscape which is what i have also found.

i think the reason i didn't have this problem with film was because i didn't know what was being cropped off the photo when i sent it in to be developed. now thanks to digital and more hands on post processing i see what is being cropped off and i really want it back.

 

[Steve's Girl]

the easiest size for me would be 8x12 but i can't find mats or frames easily for that size. however what i originally asked was if anyone knew of a formula to get a 3:2 camera's view to match common frame sizes( hence the suggestion to add a screen with it penciled in.) so i could compose the photo more accurately without having to crop as much. guessing it doesn't exist since no one seems to know of one since the only articles i could find say "guess" "leave more room for cropping" etc which is what i have been doing. time and again i've heard the admonition to "get the edges of the photo how you want them then the middle will take care of it's self" ,not an easy feat when you don't know where the edge will be in the final print. so evidently i just have to keep guessing. at least from some of the articles i read, i'm not the only one suffering from with this annoyance and most mentioned portrait orientation as being worse than landscape which is what i have also found.

i think the reason i didn't have this problem with film was because i didn't know what was being cropped off the photo when i sent it in to be developed. now thanks to digital and more hands on post processing i see what is being cropped off and i really want it back.

Jann -

I have used 8X12 prints. I buy a 14X18 frame and have a mat cut so the opening is 8X12. It leaves a 3 inch mat around the whole photo. 14X18 frames are pretty easy to find at Michael, Hobby Lobby, etc.

I've started to use the 8X12 size more and really like it for certain photos that look chopped off when you crop to an 8X10.

 

[jann1033]

Jann -

I have used 8X12 prints. I buy a 14X18 frame and have a mat cut so the opening is 8X12. It leaves a 3 inch mat around the whole photo. 14X18 frames are pretty easy to find at Michael, Hobby Lobby, etc.

I've started to use the 8X12 size more and really like it for certain photos that look chopped off when you crop to an 8X10.

where do you get your mats cut? i got a quote for $50 once so figured standard sizes might be the only way to go. we don't have a hobby lobby. i might need to go online for one. i want to get a mat cutter but that is on the rather long list i actually really like that look of a larger mat edge but need to find a good inexpensive mat cutting place

 

[boBQuincy]

I cut my own mats (not surprising since I do most things myself). It really is not that difficult, Logan makes some very nice mat cutting systems that help a lot. Logan also makes a device that removes any math from the "equation" (pun intended).

Most of the Logan equipment can be had for 40% off with the weekly coupons at Michaels and Moores. The stores also have some decent frame pieces that let us put together frames of any size. All of this is available online too, from places like framingsupplies and dickblick (I like Jerry's Artarama, and they are local).

Not to be a pita, the golden ratio is actually 1.6:1, derived by the ancient Greeks and used to design their temples.

 

[Steve's Girl]

where do you get your mats cut? i got a quote for $50 once so figured standard sizes might be the only way to go. we don't have a hobby lobby. i might need to go online for one. i want to get a mat cutter but that is on the rather long list i actually really like that look of a larger mat edge but need to find a good inexpensive mat cutting place

Usually, at Hobby Lobby. You can buy a large sheet of mat material and they will cut it. I don't recall how much it is exactly. I just watch for the half off frame sale and stock up on mats and frames then. I think the frame and mat for the last 8X12 I did was less than $20 for everything. Check Michaels and Joanns (the super Joanns not the old dumpy ones). I've bought frames and mats there as well.

 

[jann1033]

I cut my own mats (not surprising since I do most things myself). It really is not that difficult, Logan makes some very nice mat cutting systems that help a lot. Logan also makes a device that removes any math from the "equation" (pun intended).

Most of the Logan equipment can be had for 40% off with the weekly coupons at Michaels and Moores. The stores also have some decent frame pieces that let us put together frames of any size. All of this is available online too, from places like framingsupplies and dickblick (I like Jerry's Artarama, and they are local).

Not to be a pita, the golden ratio is actually 1.6:1, derived by the ancient Greeks and used to design their temples.

the only pita i know comes with a gyro

from what i understand( or hope i understand) the 3:2 ratio is used in photography since 35mm film is something like 1.67 instead of 1.63 which just so happens(?) to be pretty close to the golden rectangle/ratio of long side plus short side's lengths to short side's length ( or i could have those 1.6+#s backwards, and evidently it's like the pirate code, more of a guideline ) and then when someone saw the golden rectangle, that is where someone got the bright idea to divide it into thirds and voila rule of thirds. although i know it preceeds photography, i think it's the same ratio of leaves on stems, flowers etc.
but anyway, i just want to not crop my photo. i just read this morning that the 8x10 size originally came about due to the old size of the plates in the ancient cameras, not that that helps much now.

i'll have to check for mats online . we only have joanns and michale's in our area and i don't get the fliers for michaels cause they are to far away( joanns by me don't carry mat cutters)so i'll have to have my kids save me the coupons. i used to make mats all the time but my hands were less shaky then but i know hub can do it. everytime i spend $ on a mat i curse myself for not having bought a cutter already so i may need to move it up higher on "the list"