Introduction
As we know, Henri Cartier-Bresson is not engaged in framing the image after shooting. All composite construction, it implemented a process of photographing in the frame with an aspect ratio of 3:2 (36 mm x 24 mm). And one must admit, it turned out great! Can you elaborate on this basis, some universal recommendation? Should I and other photographers to do the same?
Equally famous is the fact that Bresson was not involved in printing photos. He believed that after pressing the shutter button – it’s done! In this light, non-poslesemochnogo crop looks more than natural. If during the press photographer had no control over the process of obtaining an image, he is left with no choice but to build an expressive and complete track from the beginning.
You can say that Bresson was a cinematic approach to building the frame. Indeed, when creating a movie operator can not rely on the fact that he is able to fix the track after the shooting. In detail, of course, could be something to do with retouching and the like, but basically the frame to be successfully built already at the first stage.
Another example of the hard approach to the construction of the frame can serve as words of Lars von Trier, Danish film-maker, one of the founders of the Dogma – 95.Item 9 of the manifesto of this movement reads: «The film format must be Academy 35 mm» (film format must be “Academy 35 mm). About the format itself, we still say a few words below, but here we note only that, according to von Trier, the composition must be built in the frame with an aspect ratio of 1.33. The format of the classic, no doubt. But he is better than the classical bressonovskogo fotoformata 3:2 could not explain, I think, the author himself “Dogma – 95.
Incidentally, the filmmakers put in the term framing is not the meaning that photographers. Let’s try to clarify all these issues.
In the world of cinema
According to the encyclopedic dictionary “Cinema”, framing – a “choice of trimming the image, the camera angle and plan for the most expressive solutions. In other words, the filmmakers mean by framing construction of the frame, ie creation of composite solutions in the given framework.
And those same within the specified ratio of length to width of frame, called in English literature aspect ratio. One of the first film was the standard Academy Standard. Two shot in this standard are equal to approximately one frame in uzkoplenochnoy 35-mm photography, and aspect ratio in the Academy Standard is 1.33. (In the literature you can find other figures: 1,37, but discussion of these differences is beyond the scope of this article.) This format is a de facto standard existed until 50 years of XX century.
But, of course, this was not the only format. Ironically, during its existence cinema spawned a great many standards. (See table in Wikipedia.) It is worth mentioning, for example, the most popular Academy Flat (aspect ratio = 1,85) and Anamorphic Scope (aspect ratio = 2,35).
And that is typical: in almost any format was created a certain amount of fine Film masterpieces.
In the world of television and computer
Upon the birth of television, the aspect ratio of 4:3 telekadra was chosen, ie 1,33.This is not surprising: television aligned to the most common kinoformat. But not just television was based on “magic” number of 1,33. This value can be found in other related industries. Suffice it to mention only the computer equipment. Popular PC screen resolution of 800 x 600 1024 x 768, etc. Again, based on the aspect ratio 1.33. Does this mean that the ratio of 4:3 (1,33) – this is the best format of all time? Of course not. Just so happened … One standard “clings” to another …
The field of binocular vision man in the horizontal than in vertical. That, however, it is not surprising: a man looks at the world with two eyes. And if so, then the desire to make the image more extended horizontally should be considered as quite natural.Television, in an attempt to match the many variants of cinematic widescreen broadcasting, too, does not stand still. Standard HDTV is based on the aspect ratio of 16:9 aspect ratio (1,78). What happens next? Wait and see.
In the world of painting
In painting, framing is the choice of an analog format and size of the future picture.At first glance, no rules is not here. For example, the “Mona Lisa” of the great Leonardo written on the blackboard 77 x 53 cm (aspect ratio 1.45). A “Ship of Fools Hieronymus Bosch has dimensions 58 x 32 cm (1,88). Painting is not associated with any pre-set format. And it is not surprising. Why drive yourself in advance the flimsy frame?
Nevertheless, some semblance of a standard exists in painting. In the XIX century, formed the so-called standard French sizes for the painting (see The French Standard Sizes for Oil Paintings). In accordance with this standard, there are three range;: figure, landscape, seascape. The table below, the canvas size in inches are given in blue boxes and yellow boxes are the corresponding aspect ratio (aspect ratio).
Dimensions are based on the book: Jose M. Parramon “How to write butter, MA: Art-Spring, 2001
As seen from the table, even within the same range; aspect ratio varies quite considerably. Moreover, given the size – it is a landmark, rather, for manufacturers of standard frames, stretchers, foundations, etc. The artist, of course, no one can deny himself put together a frame of any size.
In the world of photography
In contrast to the cinema in the photo behind the framing often understand the process of cutting out from the original frame of the final image.
It is appropriate to remind the reader of one enduring delusion. Many people somehow believe that the typical size photographic prints have the same aspect ratio as the narrow screen shot: 36:24 = 1,5. If we divide 15 to 10, then we really get 1,5.But when we take another sample size – and will change the aspect ratio: 20:15 = 1.33.
Fig. 1. Common image file formats
So a photographer to create songs should advance to think about with what aspect ratio will be published his work: 3:2 or 4:3.
But, of course, the photographer can and do refuse to standard formats, ready to print kadriruya scissors or using a tool Crop Program for image processing.
Findings
What of it should be? Crop your image or not? Adhere to whether the cropping some standard ratios or not?
One good advice is this: when cropping technical factors are no less important than the aesthetic. Kadriruya picture after shooting, you should first think about the following issues: whether the resolution will not fall below an acceptable level? how economical will print a large number of non-standard prints? etc. Your answers to these fundamental questions, the photographer can move on to solving aesthetic problems crop. Almost in any preset format can be found satisfactory artistic decision. No doubt, the best way to think about all this in advance. But if I failed to develop a preliminary plan – why not try to solve the problem at the last stage of printing (prepress)?