[biz-engineer]

Tbh I cannot find a good use of the cross grid too. Looks like a gun scope to me...

Looks like the cross grid is graduated in sensor mm, the width is ~23 units, the length ~35 units (close to 24x36) any ratio can be calculated +- 1 unit.

---------- Post added 02-12-21 at 15:17 ----------

I wonder if there is a method for determining wider ratios like 16:9 or 10:7.

One of the two square grids can get close, but not exactly to those ratio. In any case, it's not straightforward.

[JimJohnson]

Interesting thread. For me, I think Norm stated it best. I shoot in the field and can make multiple representations of the subject via cropping in post-processing. Rarely do I not have a few pixels that can not be sacrificed by cropping. There ARE a few times I know in advance that I will need a specific aspect ratio for a print. I suppose framing lines might be useful in those situations. Although to be honest, I can very closely guestimate the coming crop in those situations using an existing grid.

[Wheatridger]

Probably the favorite feature of my MFT camera is the easy and complete choice of aspect ratios. That's not worth the other drawbacks of mirrorless, IMHO. But since Pentax already knows how to create OVF frame lines in its DSLRs, it should be easy to add 4:3 or 5:7 to our cameras. That would be so helpful. I generally prefer these shapes, because they look like the 8x10 prints I used to make in the darkroom.

Sure, I crop in PP, but it's not the same. My choice of viewpoint has been made, and cannot be altered. If I have a true frame to work with in the field, I'll have the most accurate and complete information to make my best compositional choices.

[biz-engineer]

Interesting thread. For me, I think Norm stated it best. I shoot in the field and can make multiple representations of the subject via cropping in post-processing.

I also crop digital on display as the appropriate crop can strengthen a composition, there is no restriction of aspect ratio in digital, it can be anything really, so it doesn't really matter how the composition fits in the frame. Printing is different, print sizes and frames are mostly standardized, it's 3:2, 4:3, 5:4, 16:9 and 1:1, and yes it's possible to play with white borders and the width of mat boards, but unbalanced picture to frame borders aren't necessarily wanted. I understand norm's perspective as he almost never print, display his picture on monitor or 4K TV.

---------- Post added 04-12-21 at 08:44 ----------

I generally prefer these shapes, because they look like the 8x10 prints I used to make in the darkroom.

Same here. A bit part of the large format look is its aspect ratio. I find that 3:2 isn't quite as wide for horizontal landscape shots (I prefer 16:9 in that case), and 3:2 is too long for vertical portrait shots (I prefer 4:3 or 5:4 in those cases). Only 20% of my prints have 3:2 ratio, most other are 4:3, 5:4, and 16:9 or 2:1 for panoramic views. I prefer ratio closer to square for prints because standard frames size are usually half way between 3:2 and 4:3 or 5:4. No only standard frame sizes aren't 3:2, but also backing boards aren't 3:2. Backing boards and mat window sheets standard sizes here are 100 x 70 cm (<3:2, > 4:3) or 100 x 80 cm (5:4), and multiple of these sizes ( 50 x 70 cm, 140 x 100 cm etc.).

---------- Post added 04-12-21 at 08:58 ----------

Canon 5DSr features five crop modes and aspect ratios: 3:2, 3:2 x1.3 crop, 3:2 x1.6 crop, 4:3 and 16:9. And there are two options to show the crops: Outlined or Masked (edges are blacked out). I think that's pretty useful. If you shot vertical you can use the 4:3 setting, if you shoot horizontal you can set the 16:9 setting, outlined or masked according to preferences.

---

Last edited by biz-engineer; 12-04-2021 at 12:45 AM.

[Sakura]

Simple solution, don't use standard frames, but use custom made frames. They are always much better to strengthen a composition.

[biz-engineer]

Simple solution, don't use standard frames, but use custom made frames. They are always much better to strengthen a composition.

Yes, it's possible, it's more expensive and still doesn't fit standard print sizes , but that's possible. Also, the reason I frame under glass is I can rotate photographs in the same frames without needing infinite number of frame or wall space. I have standardized around three frames 100 x 70 (for wide), 70 x 90 (for 4:3 and 5:4) and 80 x 80 square (7:6 and 1:1). With standard aspect ratios and print sizes I can also reuse my mat windows without having to cut new ones every time. I store prints in folders to protect from dust and light, the folders are only slightly larger than the prints so prints don't move freely inside the folders, if each print had a different L x W sizes it would be a bit of a mess in the folders.

[wkraus]

While making larger prints (I have about 100 prints over the years), I learned additional things that wouldn't have mattered in small prints or digital display.

I’d love to see how you display your giant prints. Can you show us some examples?

[biz-engineer]

I’d love to see how you display your giant prints. Can you show us some examples?

I was going to provide details of how I frame and display, but as I started to respond I deleted because I am not sure if you are asking seriously (the word "giant" doesn't feel serious). 90x70 cm , 100x70 or 100x80 isn't giant , it's just the right size for fitting and displaying in average homes in Europe. And I'd like to say politely (trying not to sound rude) that I don't care about what the internet think of my prints, I don't have digital photographs of my framed prints, and my PF quota was exhausted long ago. I do prints despite the trends of mobile phones and all digital world and I learn at my pace from trials and errors (experience), from taking the pictures to printing to framing and lighting of the frames, and this is enough to give me satisfaction.

[yucatanPentax]

I was going to provide details of how I frame and display, but as I started to respond I deleted because I am not sure if you are asking seriously (the word "giant" doesn't feel serious). 90x70 cm , 100x70 or 100x80 isn't giant , it's just the right size for fitting and displaying in average homes in Europe. And I'd like to say politely (trying not to sound rude) that I don't care about what the internet think of my prints, I don't have digital photographs of my framed prints, and my PF quota was exhausted long ago. I do prints despite the trends of mobile phones and all digital world and I learn at my pace from trials and errors (experience), from taking the pictures to printing to framing and lighting of the frames, and this is enough to give me satisfaction.

Interesting. I've found most people to be quite sincere when making inquiries on PF. Does one word really change it that much? Anyway, it's all optional.

[wkraus]

I was going to provide details of how I frame and display, but as I started to respond I deleted because I am not sure if you are asking seriously (the word "giant" doesn't feel serious). 90x70 cm , 100x70 or 100x80 isn't giant , it's just the right size for fitting and displaying in average homes in Europe. And I'd like to say politely (trying not to sound rude) that I don't care about what the internet think of my prints, I don't have digital photographs of my framed prints, and my PF quota was exhausted long ago. I do prints despite the trends of mobile phones and all digital world and I learn at my pace from trials and errors (experience), from taking the pictures to printing to framing and lighting of the frames, and this is enough to give me satisfaction.

I was totally serious. In my book 100x70 is giant, even 60x40 would be very big on my wall (I have no photos that big but then I do much less printing overall than I should). Im my darkroom days my standard “fine print” size was 18x24cm. And yes, lighting of framed images is quite a challenge.

[UncleVanya]

I was going to provide details of how I frame and display, but as I started to respond I deleted because I am not sure if you are asking seriously (the word "giant" doesn't feel serious). 90x70 cm , 100x70 or 100x80 isn't giant , it's just the right size for fitting and displaying in average homes in Europe. And I'd like to say politely (trying not to sound rude) that I don't care about what the internet think of my prints, I don't have digital photographs of my framed prints, and my PF quota was exhausted long ago. I do prints despite the trends of mobile phones and all digital world and I learn at my pace from trials and errors (experience), from taking the pictures to printing to framing and lighting of the frames, and this is enough to give me satisfaction.

I am sincerely interested myself. Personally I haven’t solved this and I’m on the lookout for good ideas.

[biz-engineer]

I was totally serious. In my book 100x70 is giant, even 60x40 would be very big on my wall

The perception of size depends greatly on viewing distance. There isn't much room to step back in a hallway, 60x40 cm is already good. In a living room or bedroom , I find 90x70 to be the ideal size, not too small and not too heavy. When framing under glass, weight becomes a real challenge as the size of the frame increases. Glass (and even Acrylic) is heavy and the weight increases by more than the square of the frame size , "more" because the thickness of the glass panel must be increased with the size of the frame to maintain flatness and to contribute to solidity of the frame assembly. At 60x40, 1.5mm or 2mm glass (acrylic needs to be at least 2mm thick) is thick enough to maintain flatness and contribute to rigidity of the frame assembly, at 90x70 or 100x70 I use 3mm thick acrylic glass, it becomes heavy. At 100 x 140 cm, 4mm acrylic is super heavy to hang on wall, it requires two points attach. Lighting is easy and inexpensive, a pair of GU10 LED spots per frame, neutral white (4500K), 60 degrees beam, at the ceiling 30 degree angle to the prints brings life to the prints and eliminate glare (hence no need to buy expensive anti-reflex museum glass). Dark frames, brown for color prints or black for black & white prints, white mat window width 7.5 cm, and spot light make the prints pop. The width of the mat window is key for the emphasis on the print, too large and it minimizes the impression of the print (can be intentional for small prints), if the mat window is too narrow the frame becomes distracting to the viewer, that's why there is a certain relationship between the size of frames and the aspect ratios of the prints. In addition, maintaining a fixed mat width geometry makes the aspect ratio of the prints and frames different. For example, 16:9 prints are framed in 3:2 frames; 3:2 prints are framed with 4:3 frames; 5:4 / 7:6 / 1:1 prints are better framed with square frames. Hence my idea of composing images for the intended final aspect ratio instead of just arbitrary cropping in computer software.

[wkraus]

The perception of size depends greatly on viewing distance. There isn't much room to step back in a hallway, 60x40 cm is already good. In a living room or bedroom , I find 90x70 to be the ideal size, not too small and not too heavy. When framing under glass, weight becomes a real challenge as the size of the frame increases. Glass (and even Acrylic) is heavy and the weight increases by more than the square of the frame size , "more" because the thickness of the glass panel must be increased with the size of the frame to maintain flatness and to contribute to solidity of the frame assembly. At 60x40, 1.5mm or 2mm glass (acrylic needs to be at least 2mm thick) is thick enough to maintain flatness and contribute to rigidity of the frame assembly, at 90x70 or 100x70 I use 3mm thick acrylic glass, it becomes heavy. At 100 x 140 cm, 4mm acrylic is super heavy to hang on wall, it requires two points attach. Lighting is easy and inexpensive, a pair of GU10 LED spots per frame, neutral white (4500K), 60 degrees beam, at the ceiling 30 degree angle to the prints brings life to the prints and eliminate glare (hence no need to buy expensive anti-reflex museum glass). Dark frames, brown for color prints or black for black & white prints, white mat window width 7.5 cm, and spot light make the prints pop. The width of the mat window is key for the emphasis on the print, too large and it minimizes the impression of the print (can be intentional for small prints), if the mat window is too narrow the frame becomes distracting to the viewer, that's why there is a certain relationship between the size of frames and the aspect ratios of the prints. In addition, maintaining a fixed mat width geometry makes the aspect ratio of the prints and frames different. For example, 16:9 prints are framed in 3:2 frames; 3:2 prints are framed with 4:3 frames; 5:4 / 7:6 / 1:1 prints are better framed with square frames. Hence my idea of composing images for the intended final aspect ratio instead of just arbitrary cropping in computer software.

Thank you! Short of peeping into your livingroom this is as good as it gets.

[thibs]

So I found the answer to my OP.

Using Ricoh Image Sync via Wifi. The grid can be selected:
- the 9x9 grid immediate right and left lines, corresponds to the 7:6 ratio
- the small square grid immediate right and left lines correspond to the 5:4 ratio
- the large square grid immediate right and left lines correspond to the 4:3 ratio

Using camera own grid setting is the same, except the 9x9 grid isn't available, no 7:6 ratio.
On of the camera grid however provides a 1:1 ratio.

Thank you all for your contribution.

Now, what's not so great is the grip and crop function aren't on the same top wheel dial. Ricoh could just simplify this by having a single grid or crop function so that turning the smart dial would go though all aspect ratios from 1:1 to 2:1. There is no need to have two separate grid and crop functions.

Thanks, very useful.
Ricoh might want to write this down in some manual

[PixL8]

I wonder if someting like that could be added in a upgrade?