Hello Ian,
the ratio of a frame has significant impact upon the aesthetic result
and impact of an image.
We can't say, ''simply'' adjust for the new frame.
In any picture if we change the ratio, for example by cropping, it's
immediately a new picture with new arrangements and new dynamics in
the way it is viewed.
The format of a picture is such a special element that every serious
photographer must think in advance, because it will have a direct
bearing in the effect of the final photograph.
The 4:3 lacks, in my opinion and in first thought, the inherent
dynamics of 3:2 and so it appears as an annoying and limited
compromise. So, following the way I see it, it's not a matter whether
someone likes to break the 'rules', or if that's good or bad, but been
stuck with a frame which can not deliver the same dynamic and
geometrically harmonic compositions of 3:2.
But, as I said that's my first impression, so I'd be glad to hear any
counter-arguments especially in favour of 4:3 :)
Christos
On 16/06/07, Ian Manners <oice500@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Rules were made to be broken, and the true photographer knows
> when and how to break them :-)
>
> Having a different ratio simply means you adjust how and what you
> view through the viewfinder, margin for editing they call it these days.
--
Christos Stavrou Photography
www.christosstavrou.com
blog: http://thinkinpictures.wordpress.com
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|