Not to be argumentative or anything (on *this* list? never happens), but if the aspect ratios were created from psychological studies, then why the success of the 6x6 format? Was that also done because of a psychological study, or was it done to thumb their noses at the psychological studies? I just don't believe that the formats are such as they are because of psychological studies. In fact, the 4:3 standard was done to mimic the human eye angle of vision: "A 4:3 ratio mimics human eyesight visual angle of 155°h x 120°v, that is 4:3.075, almost exactly the same." -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspect_ratio_(image) But 35mm and DSLRs are 3:2, and of course 6x6 is 1:1. That page is an interesting read, by the way. However, to the original point of cropping versus not cropping: stating that cropping to a different composition cannot help a photograph taken with a "worse" composition is poppycock and balderdash. It is just a tool, certainly, but quite a useful too. Andrew On Mon, June 3, 2013 7:19 am, PhotoRoy6@xxxxxxx wrote: > > While I disagree as I believe the subject matter creates the proper > cropping I tend to fit-force the image I think I might print into a 7.5" x > 9.5" > or 6.75" x 9.75" format. (6.75 x 9.75 produces even margins in an 11" x > 14" > matte and of course the 7.5 x 9.5 is the standard opening in mattes from > the "8' x10"" days of film). I also do try to compose using the rule of > thirds as it makes for a more dynamic picture and I assume that there are > psychological reasons/studies why. I guess I somewhat of two minds on > this subject. Roy > > > In a message dated 6/2/2013 9:42:44 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, > randyslittle@xxxxxxxxx writes: > > Most apsect ratios exist for a reason derived from some pyscological > study. > > >
