FRAME SHAPE

The shape of the viewfinder frame (and LCD
screen) has a huge influence on the form that
the image takes. Despite the ease of cropping it
later, there exists a powerful intuitive pressure
at the time of shooting to compose right up to
the edges of the frame. Indeed, it takes years of
experience to ignore those parts of an image that
are not being used, and some photographers
never get used to this.
Most photography is composed to a few
rigidly defined formats (aspect ratios), unlike
in other graphic arts. Until digital photography,
by far the most common format was 3:2—that
of the standard 35mm camera, measuring
36x24mm—but now that the physical width
of film is no longer a constraint, the majority
of low- and middle-end cameras have adopted
the less elongated, more “natural” 4:3 format that
fits more comfortably on printing papers and
monitor displays. The question of which aspect
ratios are perceived as the most comfortable
is a study in its own right, but in principle,
there seems to be a tendency toward longer
horizontally (the increasing popularity of widescreen
and letterbox formats for television), but
less elongated for vertically composed images.
THE 3:2 FRAME
This is the classic 35mm frame, which has been
transferred seamlessly to digital SLRs, creating
in the process a sort of class distinction between
professional and serious amateur photographers
on the one hand, and everyone else on the other.
The reason for these proportions is a matter
of historical accident; there are no compelling
aesthetic reasons why it should be so. Indeed,
more “natural” proportions would be less
elongated, as evidenced by the bulk of the ways in
which images are displayed—painting canvases,
computer monitors, photographic printing paper,
book and magazine formats, and so on. Part of
the historical reason was that 35mm film was
long considered too small for good enlargements,
and the elongated shape gave more area.
Nevertheless, its popularity demonstrates how
easily our sense of intuitive composition adapts.
Overwhelmingly, this format is shot
horizontally, and there are three reasons for this.
The first is pure ergonomics. It is difficult to
design a camera used at eye level so that it is just as
easy to photograph vertically as horizontally, and
few manufacturers have even bothered. SLRs are
made to be used for horizontal pictures. Turning
them on their side is just not as comfortable, and
most photographers tend to avoid it. The second
reason is more fundamental. Our binocular
vision means that we see horizontally. There is no
frame as such, as human vision involves paying
attention to local detail and scanning a scene
rapidly, rather than taking in a sharp overall view
all at once.
The net result is that a horizontal frame
is natural and unremarkable. It influences the
composition of an image, but not in an insistent,
outstanding way. It conforms to the horizon,
and so to most overall landscapes and general
views. The horizontal component to the frame
encourages a horizontal arrangement of elements,
naturally enough. It is marginally more natural to
place an image lower in the frame than higher—
this tends to enhance the sensation of stability—
but in any particular photograph there are likely
to be many other influences. Placing a subject
or horizon high in the frame produces a slight
downward-looking, head-lowered sensation,
which can have mildly negative associations.
For naturally vertical subjects, however, the
elongation of a 2:3 frame is an advantage, and the
human figure, standing, is the most commonly
found vertical subject—a fortunate coincidence,
as in most other respects the 2:3 proportions are
rarely completely satisfactory.
Human vision
Our natural view of the world is in
the form of a vague-edged, horizontal oval, and
a standard horizontal film frame is a reasonable
approximation. The final reason is that 3:2
proportions are often perceptually too elongated
to work comfortably in portrait composition.
4:3 AND SIMILAR FRAMES
Traditionally, and once again with digital
photography and on-screen presentations, these
“fatter” frames are the most “natural” image
formats. In other words, they are the least insistent
and most accommodating to the eye. In the days
when there was a rich variety of large-format film,
formats included 5×4-inch, 10×8-inch, 14×11-
inch, and 8½×6½-inch. There is now a reduced
choice, but the proportions all work in much the
same way, and equally for rollfilm formats, digital
backs, and lower-end digital cameras.
In terms of composition, the frame dynamics
impose less on the image, because there is less of
a dominant direction than with 3:2. At the same
time, that there is a distinction between height
and width is important in helping the eye settle
into the view, with the understanding that the
view is horizontal or vertical. Compare this with
the difficulties of a square format, which often
suffers from lack of direction. As noted opposite,
these proportions are very comfortable for most
vertically composed images.
SQUARE
While all other photographic frames are
rectangular, with varying proportions, one is
fixed: the square. A few film cameras have this
unusual format—unusual in that very few images
lend themselves well to square composition. In
general, it is the most difficult format to work
with, and most design strategies for a square
frame are concerned with escaping the tyranny
of its perfect equilibrium.
We ought to look a little more closely at
why most subjects are ill-suited to a square
arrangement. In part, this has to do with the axis
of the subject. Few shapes are so compact that
they have no alignment. Most things are longer
in one direction than in another, and it is natural
to align the main axis of an image with the longer
sides of a rectangular picture frame. Hence, most
broad landscape views are generally handled as
horizontal pictures, and most standing figures
as verticals.
The square, however, has absolutely no bias.
Its sides are in perfect 1:1 proportions, and its
influence is a very precise and stable division
of space. Here lies the second reason for the
unsympathetic nature of square proportions: they
impose a formal rigidity on the image. It is hard
to escape the feeling of geometry when working
with a square frame, and the symmetry of the
sides and corners keeps reminding the eye of
the center.
Occasionally a precise symmetrical image is
interesting; it makes a change from the normally
imprecise design of most photographs. However,
a few such images quickly become a surfeit. It
is fairly normal for photographers who work
consistently with a square-format camera to
imagine a vertical or horizontal direction to the
picture, and to crop the resulting image later.
Practically, this means composing fairly loosely in
the viewfinder, to allow a certain amount of free
space either at the sides or at the top and bottom.