Karim D. Ghantous Posted November 15, 2021 Share Posted November 15, 2021 A long time ago I made the decision to take photographs only in the landscape aspect ratio. This was partly because I thought I might be a DP one day, and the best way to get your eye trained for that is to force yourself to compose in landscape. Even if the subject begged to be shot in portrait, I always found a way to shoot it in landscape. (The only exceptions I would allow myself were photos taken with the intention of submitting to stock libraries, which never happened anyway. But even in these cases, I made myself shoot both aspects where applicable). I'm glad I made that decision, regardless of the fact that I probably won't be a DP after all. I much prefer a consistent approach to photography, rather than the haphazard approach that we are encourage to take. You can hold an exhibition and every single image can be a different aspect ratio, so that IMHO encourages laziness disguised as 'variety'. But, I don't think I went far enough. In hindsight, I should have probably shot everything in 2.35:1 for a while. Why? Because if you can compose a difficult subject in 2.35, you can compose it in 1.85. Of course the challenge would have been to find a way to shoot in 2.35 on 35mm SLRs. But, hey, where there's a will there's a way. Your relatives will probably not like the fact that literally all your family photos and videos are in 2.35:1. But you're either into it, or you're not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel D. Teoli Jr. Posted November 15, 2021 Share Posted November 15, 2021 (edited) Well, makes some sense, if you got that luxury of time. Much of what I shot was blind, either in the dark or from the hip unframed. But it is nice to have it all consistent as you say. Infrared flash (Candid) With infrared flash, in the dark you can't see anything on the screen. You work blind unless you are lucky enough to have tons of light. Almost everything I shoot is cropped to my liking. And even if I try to play studio photog, I still crop some. I'm not that anal for studio work. For street work, if you come back with 70% of what you were after you can still be a success. Another thing you can do is carry a little viewfinder with you and look at things with your viewfinder in the aspect you prefer. Edited November 15, 2021 by Daniel D. Teoli Jr. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robino Jones Posted November 15, 2021 Share Posted November 15, 2021 (edited) Couple years ago I adapted my custom anamorphic 2X lens on a Pentax LX 35mm. Wider than 2.35:1 Edited November 15, 2021 by Robino Jones Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Tyler Purcell Posted November 15, 2021 Premium Member Share Posted November 15, 2021 I personally don't understand the "wide screen" 2.40:1 fad. It's great for certain theaters that were built for it. But the majority of theaters, even modern cineplexes, have bigger screens in 1.85:1 mode. Plus modern TV's are nearly formatted for 1.85:1, meaning just slivers of black at the top and bottom. Wanna do a landscape? Just make sure the top and bottom have something interesting in them. They do make some pretty sick landscape cameras tho, much wider image than 2.40:1 and they're super cool. Make a print and hang it on the wall sorta thing, super cool. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce Greene Posted November 15, 2021 Share Posted November 15, 2021 A fun project to be sure! But, it will not teach you to shoot movies I’m afraid. Please let us know if you have an exhibition of your photographs. I’d love to see them!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karim D. Ghantous Posted November 16, 2021 Author Share Posted November 16, 2021 Robino, that's awesome. I love it. I don't think I could have afforded anything anamorphic back then. But I surely could have converted my camera to a wider aspect ratio with masks for the VF and the film plane. Tyler, you may be familiar with Nick Carver: (18:50) Bruce, it's about composition, not about anything else. I notice you really like 2.35. I hope I don't catch that bug because I don't think many clients or subjects would appreciate it! LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce Greene Posted November 16, 2021 Share Posted November 16, 2021 22 hours ago, Karim D. Ghantous said: Bruce, it's about composition, not about anything else. I notice you really like 2.35. I hope I don't catch that bug because I don't think many clients or subjects would appreciate it! LOL 2.39:1… well I’ve shot a bunch of films for the theatrical market in the former USSR. The distributors there strongly prefer scope format, so I’ve shot quite a bit of it. ? Im not sure I really “like it”, just what’s required. Most of my still photography is close to 1.85/1 format. Probably because it’s close to the native format of the camera! I have very very few photographs in portrait mode though… 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Mark Kenfield Posted November 17, 2021 Premium Member Share Posted November 17, 2021 I'm also in the reformed 2.39er camp these days. So many cinemas screens now vertically shrink down (rather than expand outwards into) a 2.39:1 ratio, that the "widescreen" effect nowadays, is frequently a smaller, less immersive experience than conventional 1.85:1. It's even got to the point that I've started to become frequently irked by series shot exclusively for TV screens (on streaming platforms), that have elected to shoot wider aspect ratios. You're only ever seeing these things on your TV at home, and they're giving you a smaller, less immersive image (with black bars at the top and bottom). I've always loved the immersion of a big IMAX screen, and I think it's hard to deny, that a larger overall image, seems to have a more engaging effect for most things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karim D. Ghantous Posted November 18, 2021 Author Share Posted November 18, 2021 12 hours ago, Mark Kenfield said: I've always loved the immersion of a big IMAX screen, and I think it's hard to deny, that a larger overall image, seems to have a more engaging effect for most things. Agreed. IMAX is the future of cinema. It will be digital but it will be true IMAX, not just a slightly larger screen. I do like the concept of aspect ratios, and for most applications it's still relevant. But, nothing beats IMAX for immersion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Palmer Posted November 18, 2021 Share Posted November 18, 2021 There is so much 2.39:1 these days, it's lost a lot of its appeal, especially in digitally shot movies. At least that's how I feel. Sometimes yes, it can be effective for composing images even without showing on a large screen. There are one or two such scenes in this trailer, and the two-shot at about 1.42 is a good example of keeping the characters far apart without resorting to cutting or panning. https://vimeo.com/ondemand/lawrenceafterarabiamovie/639004797 However, much of this film would have looked better in my opinion at 16:9 ratio . Maybe because it's a period movie. Perhaps we are so used to seeing old photos etc in squarer ratios ? Also, I wonder if 2.39:1 doesn't look as sharp as 16:9 when projected digitally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pablo Cruz Villalba Posted December 9, 2021 Share Posted December 9, 2021 On 11/15/2021 at 2:51 AM, Robino Jones said: Couple years ago I adapted my custom anamorphic 2X lens on a Pentax LX 35mm. Wider than 2.35:1 Hi. I also use pentax lx. What anamorphic lens you use? I use the pentax smc m series Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robino Jones Posted December 10, 2021 Share Posted December 10, 2021 On 12/8/2021 at 7:31 PM, Pablo Cruz Villalba said: Hi. I also use pentax lx. What anamorphic lens you use? I use the pentax smc m series This was a long time ago - it's a custom anamorphic lens using a Helios 58mm with anamorphic projector lens and a single focus element by SLR Magic Rangefinder. I think the helios was m42 so it was easy to adapt to K-mount. Later I installed a PL mount and hard mounted everything it's very solid and a good budget anamorphic option. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now