Tim Parkin - Landscape Photographer

Sorry about the leave of absence – a case of Swine flu I think (or man flu more likely). Just before I was incapacitated by self pity, I spent an enjoyable weekend at a certain Mr Cornish’s (yeah I know, name dropping and everything, sorry..). During the weekend we talked about all sorts of photography stuff, as people do, and we came to discuss aspect ratio preferences. I mentioned that I had only really used my 4×5 camera in portrait orientation as I thought it wasn’t just aspect ratio that is important to ‘learn’ but also the orientation, after all it’s about learning to see in a certain way. It wasn’t the first time I’ve been called anal but I think it was meant in a nice way. Anyway we got to talking about what our favourite aspect ratios were and for what reasons. Now I’ve been looking at various pictures for some time trying to work out what other aspect ratios work and as much as I like 4×5 (OK, it’s verging on an obsession) but I don’t think it works particularly well in landscape mode. The other options are 3×2, 2×1 and 6×17 and 16×9

Interlude..

Well lets have a think about what can change compositionally as you move to a landscape orientation. As we move to a landscape orientation, we are both able to spread the transverse movement of the eye so wide, sweeping compositions become possible (as in this ode to Minor White here, this wonderful Lake District composition here this epic Glencoe-scape. Also, compositions that use an off-centre balance become possible (see here, here and here). Wider formats allow more ‘breathing space’ around the composition and allow shallower diagonals, see here. They also allow objects in the landscape to ‘gaze’ (as in the last Dunstaburgh example of Joe’s. Ultra wide is more difficult to categorise – In my (personal) opinion, most ultra wide landscape images tend to be medium landscape images with some extra included either side. There are exceptions though, like Mark Denton’s Durdle Door (see dt0043).

I’ll start with 3×2 with ‘yeah sort of’. I’m not sure if it’s overexposure to this aspect ratio but it always seems to be either too narrow or too wide (mostly too narrow in my mind). Obviously some compositions may work perfectly with this ratio but I don’t seem to see many..

Next in line is the obvious 5×4 landscape format. Now I see more satisfactory compositions in this format but that may be to do with more committed photographers putting up with 6×7 or large format cameras (for the record, 6×7 is nearly 4×5 in aspect ratio, although just slightly fatter 68×55 according to me horseman holder which makes it 4×4.95 or 5×4.04). However for me this is just a little ‘blunt’, squeezed, stunted – perhaps trying too hard to be square? Again, there are some spectacular compositions in 5×4 but they seem to be the exception rather than the rule.

Now we get to what I think is my favourite – 2×1. When I look at 2×1 compositions, things look more balanced and, in a good composition, I tend to look all around the frame. 2×1 breathes, it seems to allow for more creativity in graphical composition. Anyway, personal opinions again, it just seems right. 2×1 is also pretty close to 16:9, the ratio that was chosen as the most like the human gaze by widescreen TV manufacturers, based on enormous amounts of research.

Finally 6×17. Now I used to be impressed by 6×17 shots, taken in by the span and detail. However as time has progressed, the pictures that once blew me away now hold less interest; they don’t hold me eye anymore. This could be because of my warped aesthetic but from what I can tell, this reaction is fairly common (comments welcome please). 6×17 just seems too.. big! Most compositions seem to shout breadth over quality (cue tailoring catchetisms) and very rarely does a composition hold together across the whole frame. Some of the best 6×17 shots I have seen have been ones where the composition could almost be considered as two parts of a story combined together; One composition leading through to another. Mark Denton, Colin Prior and Jaspal Jandu seem to be the main proponents of 6×17 in the UK.

So, where does this lead me? Well as I was talking with Joe about this he suggested I could borrow one of his 6×12 backs and a bunch of 120 film that was nearing expiry. So I think it’s time to start playing with different aspect ratios, starting with 6×12 and possibly trying out the one format I haven’t talked about.. square. I have to say that this is the one format that seems to have a unique status. Square pictures really have to work compositionally; there graphical structure has to work otherwise they fall apart. This ‘challenge’ interests me and although it worried me that I’ll fail completely – I do want to try and I hope I can manage as good a job as our Dav does.

p.s. The picture to the right is from the first proper camera outing I made after I got into photography, August 2005. Obviously I had a fondness for 2×1 from the start