35mm Format?

I just finished a photography class at a local college where the last night was "Show Your Photos". As the only digital photographer in the class, I was excited that I could share the D30 images and show how far digital has come. Up until this point, the classes consisted of the instructor's work and the work of the masters of the art. There simply was no time for students to share their own images.

I worked a week to print my best examples for the last class and he critiqued and shared everyone's images but mine. (I'm not whining here, mine were up there with the very best!) 8)

His reason, after looking at my first image, was that the D30 does not use a 35mm format and is useless as a photographic art form. He states that unless a rectangle follows the "Golden Rule" where the long side is 1.618 of the short side then the image is not and can never be perfect. He does make exceptions for square and other formats but feels only the masters can use them correctly or be taken seriously with their result.

My CRW images and resulting tiffs are always 12x8. This equates to 1.5, not 1.618. I resized without constraining proportions to 12.944x8 in Photoshop to satisfy the 1.618 Golden Rule and can't disagree that the image is more pleasing to view. I am certain the image is now distorted by the re-size but can't see where.

Is this a big deal? The 1.618 ratio really is exciting once you realize how things we consider beautiful exactly match this profile but, if it is so universally accepted, why didn't Canon program this ratio into the D30?

Chris, I think there are other issues at play here with this instructor.

What would keep you from cropping and printing your photos in a ratio that would emulate the full frame ratio of the 35mm negative? If he told the class that all images were to be in that ratio, you should have cropped in that ratio.

Assuming you didn't misunderstand part of the assignment, I think the problem is the instructor is an ass. If he were mine, I would tell him so. By not critiquing your photos, he denied you the benefit of the class. If I paid for a class like that I would also demand a refund.

oops, I take it you weren't actually paying money for priceless insights like this one.

I believe 35mm film is 24mm x 36mm (a 1.5 aspect ratio). How about a standard 5x7 print? an 8x10? How about countless magnificent images from Ansel Adams, Paul Caponigro, Elliot Porter, a thousand others? How about a sizable proportion of the world's most famous paintings?

I'm sure the many professionals unwisely using 6x7 will toss and turn tonight, agonizing over the fundamental inadequacy of their work. The Hasselblad users, though, can bask in the warm glow of your instructor's approval.

Have I been taken in? No offense meant but is this a troll?

yours in bemusement,

Actually, James, if I am a troll on this forum I have certainly been at it a long time.

Thank you James and Paul for your response. I have never used or was aquainted with any format other than 35mm slides and had no idea what size or ratios the other formats fit. In fact, I didn't know 35mm is 24x36mm. It has just never been important before. I take the shot, it looks good, I decide a print size, and that's it.

The problem may be with my position as a "duffer" photographer when I am around those who have been doing this their whole lives. I tend to take all I hear as "gospel truth" when yes, Paul, the instructor could well be an ass. He stated early in the class that digital is no good unless you spend $30,000 for a "professional" camera. I don't think I could FIND one that costs that much and, if I could, my D30 would hold its own. I tried to challenge him early on and realized I was dominating the class time and detracting from others who paid as much as I did to take the class so I simply shut up. I am, in fact, challenging his statements here.

Over the ten weeks, the class went from 28 people to 8 on the final night. Enough said. Someday soon I hope to know enough to teach my own "digital photography" class for beginners but until then I am playing catch up on this art. Sooo much to learn!

"Chris, I think there are other issues at play here with this instructor. "

Paul, you got that right!

I didn't want to say that until I had some back up opinions. I feel much better and should have been one of the 20 who ditched early.8)

You know, oops, it's interesting to me that 30 years ago when I started getting a serious interest in photography, there was a huge war going on about whether ANY sort of photography qualified as "art". In most critics' minds, the best that could be said for photography was that it was "craft". I agree with James that it took the work of many great 20th century photographers to gradually change this perception.

Now we have morons like your instructor, who should know better, arbitrarily shutting the door to the next wave of photography (digital). And it would seem he's doing so out of sheer ignorance!

Ya gotta wonder about us humans sometimes!

Maybe you should set up your own show outside his office door!

Mark

Your "instructor" was a moron. First of all, where does he get the 1.618 ratio from in the first place? Here are the ratios of common print sizes:

4x6=1.5
5x7=1.4
8x10=1.25
11x14=1.27
16x20=1.25

How about film sizes?

35mm=24x36mm=1.5 (as others have mentioned)
4x5 (medium format)=1.25
6x7 (medium format)=1.17

As you can see, none of these match his "golden rectangle." This gentleman seems to agree with him:

http://hometown.aol.co​m …9/myhomepage/go​ldrec.html

If that is your preference, fine. But when you tell someone that everything that doesn't conform to your standard is crap, then you have stepped over the line. Unfortunately, I ran into many of these types of people in my college days as well. They seem to be drawn to academia because they have a captive audience at which they are allowed to spew their closed-minded drivel. I went to a Catholic high school (I am Methodist) and this got me into trouble on more than one occassion. I am a very outspoken person and when someone says something that I disagree with, I have a tendency to call them on it. Well, I did this one too many times in religion class because there are certain Catholic teachings that I don't agree with. The teacher called my parents into a conference and told them that if they wanted me to graduate (this was my senior year) that they had better make me shut my mouth. I guess since she couldn't refute what I was saying, she had to flex her muscle to shut me up.

Anyway, I digress. Your instructor was wrong, pure and simple.

Todd

Todd, Thanks for the link (very interesting) and the ratios of different print sizes. I'm feeling better all the time! This instructor lived in New York during the 60's, spouts Zen as the only way to become a master photographer, shoots b/w almost exclusively, has displayed in New York and Paris, and has never owned a camera (he has 15) that used a battery. I think you have him nailed dead-on.

Also, Mark, good idea about setting up the display outside his door. Better yet, like I said, the college would probably let me teach a beginning digital class if I could present a good lesson plan. I would probably get the 20 students he lost during the course and it would be scheduled next to his. Paybacks are tough!

After every class the other students in his class would quizz me on the way to the parking lot about "How much does digital cost, what is the best camera, what about printers, is my computer enough, etc. etc."
Twang! Did I wish I had all the answers for these folks!
My heart went out to these people because they weren't even digital newbies; I think they were digital "wannabee's". This, more than anything, made me come back class after class for the people, not the instructor. I'll bet each one of you would have loved to be in my place in that parking lot and I wish you had been there!

You members have made ME feel a lot better about what I felt as major disappointment after my first formal photography class. Where else would I go, after all, for the answers. Thanks again.

Chris-
I realize this is a late response, but I'm in catch up mode. You will (quite unfortunately) find that people like this instructor are around every corner. Doesn't matter if it's NASCAR, fishing, home improvement, baking...there are always going to be know-it-alls that want to push their own views. If these individuals happen to be in a "power" position or one of influence, they cannot resist using their pulpit to beat down the masses. I could supply you with a very long list of very experienced photogs that would be rolling all over the floor at the "perfect format" jazz this person shoved at you. I know many, many "crop in the camera" types, but just as many that crop in the final print stage. Take a look at published images from world famous individuals, measure them and your personal validation will be complete. The subject and final output controls everything. We have lived in a vertical format world for years because of books and magazines; it often is the correct way to frame an image. I think computers and on line viewing are having an impact on that. Why doesn't this person open his mind and let his students learn? Sounds like an insecurity thing (on his part). Facts are that anyone can be a master, and you may possess more compositional artisitc ability than any person you have met. Some people have it and the rest of us strive to. I don't think you can look at too many images by "masters" and always see that their interpretation of a scene, or their technical ability or their choice of composition, film, exposure, etc. was necessarily any better than what you or I would do. My grandfather always used to tell me to treat everyone with respect, open doors and be a gentleman and "trump a fool by not being one." Shoot on and perfect your craft and don't look back.
SAP.

Photoze, Very well said. I have learned more since starting this topic than I learned in his 10 week class. Thanks for the support and insight.

Chris,

This is a late reply, I just joined the forum. Your instructor is a first class idiot----he is a petty, mean-spirited moralist without the first inkling or what art is or isn't. He most certainly is not a teacher. Real teachers are exceptional people who nurture, encourage and inspire their students. Art has no boundaries or rules--any real artist knows that (Picasso, Cezanne, Dekooning, Irving Penn, Helmut Newton etc.--any real artist in any medium). If I look at your photo and you evoke in me a genuine emotional response--then you have succeeded as an artist--regardless of the format or whether or not the photo is in focus, properly exposed, highlights are washed out, shadows are blocked up--whatever---if it works, it works--that's all there is to it.
Art is definitely not a preconception---it is a process based on discovery without preconception. Sure the Golden rectangle works--but there are also times when it gets too damned boring and too predictible and anything other than that stupid golden rectangle is refreshing and welcomed---context determines whether something works in a given moment or not.

Is photography an art? Absolutely not. Is painting an art? Absolutely not. These are simply mediums. Mediums never define art. The Artist defines the medium.
I think your instructor is threatened by your innate abilities. You don't need this guy.


Sincerely,

Giacometti

oops,

Your instructor sounds like someone who is afraid of change. This is usually because the person is afraid that his "mastery" of the craft will be challenged, and ultimately eclipsed. Sad thing is, that he probably was a good photographer once (I can't regard him as a good photographer now, if he is not willing to accept different ways of making a photo than what he prefers himself). Even sadder, he is a fraud: 35mm is not regarded as "true" photography by the large format followers. If he tried to tell you that 35mm is "the" way to practice photography, he sounds like a poser! (And here I'm not making any judgement about LF photography, or any other types).

It used to be that photographers were the only ones who knew how to work a camera (100+ years ago). I'm sure there were those who resisted change, even in those time, because it meant that earning a crust was no longer going to be as easy for them as in the past. Commercial film and light meters must have scared some of these people in the past. (Portrait painters must have been really peeved off... But it has not killed their art, and the best still practice it today.)

Is B+W the only way to shoot? NO! Neither is any particular format of frame ratio. You work with what you've got, and you "paint a picture" for the viewer, the best you can. THOSE are the rules. Everything else is BS!

Well said Rudi.

I'd like to invite that instructor here to discuss his/her theories, but I'm sure that he has a principle of never using computers and internet because they are full of false information and bad influences

... not to mention that he does not even realise that the D30 sensor IS, in fact, of the same ratio as 35 mm film!

He hasn't got much going for him as a teacher, has he?

Giacometti, Rudi, Thanks Again.

G., great insight into art. A light in my soul went on with your words and said, "YES!".

And, Rudi, spoken like a true artist. I love your work, BTW, and bet Howie likes it, too.

If you meet up with this guy again tell him 35mm was originally a movie industry format so you can never use it in the portrait format. I used to teach photography in the UK and if my classes had dropped that much and qualifications weren't obtained I would have been in front of the head of department. My students could also go directly to my head if they had a problem. I gave in in the end because of the beurocrasy in the UK too much form filling rather than teaching "Which Blair" project as I called it. I am a freelance and enjoyed passing on what little knowledge I had and enjoyed working with creative young photographers. It was refreshing to me as I am usually constrained by photography to do what someone else wants. This has turned into a job advert, any chance of a green card. David