Jump to content

Idea for practicing to be a DP - compose literally every photo & video in 2.35 at all times


Karim D. Ghantous

Recommended Posts

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

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.

PiercingDarknessInfraredFlash2015DanielD

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 by Daniel D. Teoli Jr.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

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. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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…

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

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

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

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

  • 3 weeks later...
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. 

Screen-Shot-2021-12-09-at-9.39.19-PM.jpg

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...