Why do hobby stores mostly stock 4:3 frames?

victormeldrew · 08-26-2018, 08:19 AM

Originally posted by stevebrot

BTW...who routinely crops to 3:2?

Me. Original ratio all the way baby... Well, mostly anyway.

bigdavephoto · 08-26-2018, 08:58 AM

If you look hard enough, those hobby stores listed also have a selection of frame sides that you mix and match and then put together.

That's the type of frame I like. Made out of metal, Black or silver in color, all different lengths for different size frames. As an example, you can, using the frame parts, make a frame that is 4 inches high and 24 inches long. The drawback is, you have to cut your own mats if you don't make a frame that is a "common" size.

lytrytyr · 08-26-2018, 09:07 AM

Originally posted by bhbrake

I can usually find something decent on the shelf with matting options, but the selection is probably 10:1 in favor of the 4:3 format. Did Fuji and Olympus just sell a tone of cameras to create this phenomenon or is there an obvious industry reason I am ignorant of?

They're just targeting all the Pentax Q system users out there!

**bhbrake** · 08-26-2018, 10:30 AM

Thanks for input. I do see no shortage of 4x6 and 5x7 of course, but it is a mixed bag after that. Historical precedent is funny.

**EssJayEff** · 08-26-2018, 01:29 PM - **1 Like**

Pentax 645D and 645Z have 4:3 ratio sensors; K-1 and APS-C Pentax cameras have 3:2 ratio; Pentax Q at full resolution is 4:3.

**bhbrake** · 08-26-2018, 03:00 PM

Originally posted by EssJayEff

Pentax 645D and 645Z have 4:3 ratio sensors; K-1 and APS-C Pentax cameras have 3:2 ratio; Pentax Q at full resolution is 4:3.

So, this was part of what I was thinking about- did the 645 medium format market drive landscape photography at some point that the 4:3 became a dominant size for large prints? I was told at one point that if you were a professional film landscape photographer, you were shooting medium format. I don't know what John Fielder, Thomas Mangelsen, or any of the other old commercially successful western landscape guys have traditionally shot with, though I think Ansel Adams used 6x6. I suppose most professionals crop the majority of their images, so it isn't necessarily that big of a driver though.

mlaird · 08-26-2018, 03:44 PM - **1 Like**

On a related note, if you find that you need a custom mat size, try this site:
Bux1 Picture Matting

I had a set of six photos I wanted to frame, and the aspect ratio needed to be something unusual in order to fit the six spaces on my wall that I had available. I found some frames that worked well, but couldn't find any pre-cut mats for 14x18 frames, and custom mats looked really expensive until I found that site. The end result turned out just like I wanted, and their prices were pretty good compared to all the hobby stores around my area.

**UncleVanya** · 08-26-2018, 04:51 PM

5:4 not 4:3 is more common.

**EssJayEff** · 08-26-2018, 05:41 PM

Originally posted by bhbrake

So, this was part of what I was thinking about- did the 645 medium format market drive landscape photography at some point that the 4:3 became a dominant size for large prints? I was told at one point that if you were a professional film landscape photographer, you were shooting medium format. I don't know what John Fielder, Thomas Mangelsen, or any of the other old commercially successful western landscape guys have traditionally shot with, though I think Ansel Adams used 6x6. I suppose most professionals crop the majority of their images, so it isn't necessarily that big of a driver though.

I believe Ansel Adams used a variety of film formats, perhaps mostly 8x10 sheet film (4:5 ratio). Large format cameras start with 4x5-inch sheet film. 5x7-inch cameras were favored with high end landscape photographers, too. This ratio was very popular for landscape photography. I wanted a 5x7 view camera for a long time but never could afford one. I would have been relegated to 5x7 contact printing, though, because then you have to buy a 5x7 or larger enlarger.

The 645 and 67 medium formats originate from the 120 format for roll film. 645 was shorthand for 6 x 4.5 cm, with a 3:2.22222 ratio; 67 was for 6 x 7 cm, with a ratio of 4:3.33333. The 6x7 is closer to square (1:1 ratio) than 645.

**bhbrake** · 08-26-2018, 07:33 PM

Originally posted by UncleVanya

5:4 not 4:3 is more common.

You are probably right. I think it may be my perception based on the size range I have been printing in. Looking over the more exhaustive catalog, 5:4 does seem to pop up a lot.
All that withstanding, I am still surprised 2:3 has not made more headway in framing choices.

SSGGeezer · 08-26-2018, 07:55 PM

I think that Michaels does classes on matting and framing for a reasonable charge if you want to learn a few techniques that you may not have in your personal tool box, then I think you can use their cutters when you need to make matts as long as you buy the materials there. If you are going to do a lot of framing, take up woodworking and buy glass and a good router and make your own.

**UncleVanya** · 08-26-2018, 07:57 PM

Originally posted by bhbrake

You are probably right. I think it may be my perception based on the size range I have been printing in. Looking over the more exhaustive catalog, 5:4 does seem to pop up a lot.
All that withstanding, I am still surprised 2:3 has not made more headway in framing choices.

It is inertia. The old glass plate sizes stuck, then the print sizes following that stuck, then frame and mat sizes dictated what you print, etc.

What I find most economical is to get standard mats to fit the size prints and frames I can get easily. So for 13x19 prints - I get 16x24 frames and 12.5x18.5 or 12x18 mat openings that fit the 16x24 frame or whatever size I find looks good. Hobby Lobby and many hobby stores do computerized custom mats cheaply if you have to go that route but I find bulk packs are another option. 11x14 frame size with an 8x10 opening for example.

CarlJF · 08-27-2018, 06:37 AM - **1 Like**

Must also say that the 8x10 ratio is still what works best for portraits. Which kind of explain with this ratio is still highly use compared to native ratio. I guess that, by a large margin, most frame sold are for portraits...

normhead · 08-27-2018, 06:57 AM - **1 Like**

I have often printed 3x2, for 30x20 canvases. My theory has always been use a zoom, frame tight, make the most use of your resolution. Cropping means throwing away pixels. I hate throwing away anything useful.

altopiet · 08-27-2018, 07:12 AM

Is it possible that it is the image ratio most smartphones are using?

I think most people have smartphones, but not many can afford printers, and computers with extra digital storage space, especially in my part of the world. They perhaps print special or family photos, as either backup or for general displaying at home, and as the standard ration is 4:3, it would makes sense. Don't many stores have small self help type of basic printers, setup for such a market, as they do in my part of the world?

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
People Mi hija tiene su hobby / "My daughter has her hobby"	Esteban	Post Your Photos!	9	06-17-2021 07:38 AM
Another example why camera stores are dying	DeadJohn	Photographic Industry and Professionals	78	12-04-2017 08:02 AM
Where in EU to get an K-3 (new) body only (old stock/final stock...)	Pentax_SLO	Pentax DSLR Discussion	10	10-18-2016 05:40 AM
Hobby Diversification... what other fun things do you do to pass the time?	Auzzie-Phoenix	General Talk	83	10-25-2015 08:21 PM
How do we (members) get stores to stock	Photo Tramp	Pentax DSLR Discussion	6	10-13-2006 10:34 PM

08-26-2018, 08:19 AM	#16
victormeldrew Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2015 Location: South West UK Photos: Albums Posts: 1,493	Originally posted by stevebrot BTW...who routinely crops to 3:2? Me. Original ratio all the way baby... Well, mostly anyway.

08-26-2018, 08:58 AM	#17
bigdavephoto Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: East central Indiana Photos: Gallery Posts: 893	If you look hard enough, those hobby stores listed also have a selection of frame sides that you mix and match and then put together. That's the type of frame I like. Made out of metal, Black or silver in color, all different lengths for different size frames. As an example, you can, using the frame parts, make a frame that is 4 inches high and 24 inches long. The drawback is, you have to cut your own mats if you don't make a frame that is a "common" size.

08-26-2018, 09:07 AM	#18
lytrytyr Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2011 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 4,310	Originally posted by bhbrake I can usually find something decent on the shelf with matting options, but the selection is probably 10:1 in favor of the 4:3 format. Did Fuji and Olympus just sell a tone of cameras to create this phenomenon or is there an obvious industry reason I am ignorant of? They're just targeting all the Pentax Q system users out there!

08-26-2018, 10:30 AM	#19
bhbrake Site Supporter Join Date: Aug 2016 Location: Colorado Photos: Albums Posts: 332 Original Poster	Thanks for input. I do see no shortage of 4x6 and 5x7 of course, but it is a mixed bag after that. Historical precedent is funny.

08-26-2018, 01:29 PM - 1 Like	#20
EssJayEff Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: near Saxapahaw, NC Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 969	Pentax 645D and 645Z have 4:3 ratio sensors; K-1 and APS-C Pentax cameras have 3:2 ratio; Pentax Q at full resolution is 4:3.

08-26-2018, 03:00 PM	#21
bhbrake Site Supporter Join Date: Aug 2016 Location: Colorado Photos: Albums Posts: 332 Original Poster	Originally posted by EssJayEff Pentax 645D and 645Z have 4:3 ratio sensors; K-1 and APS-C Pentax cameras have 3:2 ratio; Pentax Q at full resolution is 4:3. So, this was part of what I was thinking about- did the 645 medium format market drive landscape photography at some point that the 4:3 became a dominant size for large prints? I was told at one point that if you were a professional film landscape photographer, you were shooting medium format. I don't know what John Fielder, Thomas Mangelsen, or any of the other old commercially successful western landscape guys have traditionally shot with, though I think Ansel Adams used 6x6. I suppose most professionals crop the majority of their images, so it isn't necessarily that big of a driver though.

08-26-2018, 03:44 PM - 1 Like	#22
mlaird Forum Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: New England, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 75	On a related note, if you find that you need a custom mat size, try this site: Bux1 Picture Matting I had a set of six photos I wanted to frame, and the aspect ratio needed to be something unusual in order to fit the six spaces on my wall that I had available. I found some frames that worked well, but couldn't find any pre-cut mats for 14x18 frames, and custom mats looked really expensive until I found that site. The end result turned out just like I wanted, and their prices were pretty good compared to all the hobby stores around my area.

08-26-2018, 04:51 PM	#23
UncleVanya Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2014 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 28,401	5:4 not 4:3 is more common.

08-26-2018, 05:41 PM	#24
EssJayEff Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: near Saxapahaw, NC Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 969	Originally posted by bhbrake So, this was part of what I was thinking about- did the 645 medium format market drive landscape photography at some point that the 4:3 became a dominant size for large prints? I was told at one point that if you were a professional film landscape photographer, you were shooting medium format. I don't know what John Fielder, Thomas Mangelsen, or any of the other old commercially successful western landscape guys have traditionally shot with, though I think Ansel Adams used 6x6. I suppose most professionals crop the majority of their images, so it isn't necessarily that big of a driver though. I believe Ansel Adams used a variety of film formats, perhaps mostly 8x10 sheet film (4:5 ratio). Large format cameras start with 4x5-inch sheet film. 5x7-inch cameras were favored with high end landscape photographers, too. This ratio was very popular for landscape photography. I wanted a 5x7 view camera for a long time but never could afford one. I would have been relegated to 5x7 contact printing, though, because then you have to buy a 5x7 or larger enlarger. The 645 and 67 medium formats originate from the 120 format for roll film. 645 was shorthand for 6 x 4.5 cm, with a 3:2.22222 ratio; 67 was for 6 x 7 cm, with a ratio of 4:3.33333. The 6x7 is closer to square (1:1 ratio) than 645.

08-26-2018, 07:33 PM	#25
bhbrake Site Supporter Join Date: Aug 2016 Location: Colorado Photos: Albums Posts: 332 Original Poster	Originally posted by UncleVanya 5:4 not 4:3 is more common. You are probably right. I think it may be my perception based on the size range I have been printing in. Looking over the more exhaustive catalog, 5:4 does seem to pop up a lot. All that withstanding, I am still surprised 2:3 has not made more headway in framing choices.

08-26-2018, 07:55 PM	#26
SSGGeezer Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2017 Location: Indiana, U.S. Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 4,845	I think that Michaels does classes on matting and framing for a reasonable charge if you want to learn a few techniques that you may not have in your personal tool box, then I think you can use their cutters when you need to make matts as long as you buy the materials there. If you are going to do a lot of framing, take up woodworking and buy glass and a good router and make your own.

08-26-2018, 07:57 PM	#27
UncleVanya Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2014 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 28,401	Originally posted by bhbrake You are probably right. I think it may be my perception based on the size range I have been printing in. Looking over the more exhaustive catalog, 5:4 does seem to pop up a lot. All that withstanding, I am still surprised 2:3 has not made more headway in framing choices. It is inertia. The old glass plate sizes stuck, then the print sizes following that stuck, then frame and mat sizes dictated what you print, etc. What I find most economical is to get standard mats to fit the size prints and frames I can get easily. So for 13x19 prints - I get 16x24 frames and 12.5x18.5 or 12x18 mat openings that fit the 16x24 frame or whatever size I find looks good. Hobby Lobby and many hobby stores do computerized custom mats cheaply if you have to go that route but I find bulk packs are another option. 11x14 frame size with an 8x10 opening for example.

08-27-2018, 06:37 AM - 1 Like	#28
CarlJF Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2014 Location: Quebec City Posts: 1,185	Must also say that the 8x10 ratio is still what works best for portraits. Which kind of explain with this ratio is still highly use compared to native ratio. I guess that, by a large margin, most frame sold are for portraits...

08-27-2018, 06:57 AM - 1 Like	#29
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	I have often printed 3x2, for 30x20 canvases. My theory has always been use a zoom, frame tight, make the most use of your resolution. Cropping means throwing away pixels. I hate throwing away anything useful.

08-27-2018, 07:12 AM	#30
altopiet Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: The Gem of the Karoo, South Africa Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,307	Is it possible that it is the image ratio most smartphones are using? I think most people have smartphones, but not many can afford printers, and computers with extra digital storage space, especially in my part of the world. They perhaps print special or family photos, as either backup or for general displaying at home, and as the standard ration is 4:3, it would makes sense. Don't many stores have small self help type of basic printers, setup for such a market, as they do in my part of the world?