8 ms·

The Remarkable Persistence of 24x36

109 points by daxelrod 8y ago

teraflop 8y ago
> The 24x36mm image size, which by the 1950s was becoming accepted as a standard, was also widely known as a rather awkward rectangle. It suited landscape photos, but little else—it looked too tall in verticals, and made composition difficult, especially for photographers used to the square shape common in 120 cameras. I don't quite understand this part. If 35mm film was "standard" but photographers had a strong preference for square images, why wasn't there a proliferation of cameras that could shoot 24x24mm images on the same type of film?
- gchpaco 8y ago
  Too small, slide mounts were already standardized on 24x36, and the square was never all that popular among the general photographer. The reason why the square shape in 120 was originally developed was a technical hack. Since it outputs a square, there was never any need to hold a Hasselblad vertically; just take the photo and crop it to suit. The only square consumer oriented cameras I can think of are twin-lens reflex cameras like the Rolleiflex, which are delightful but somewhat uncommon. A number of folks started trying to make use of the square format as a square format, but it was not originally, I think, intended for that purpose. Re: too small; an 8x10, one of the smaller standard print formats for portraits, is about an 8x enlargement from a 35mm frame. With modern materials and good technique, 8x-11x is feasible, but starting to push it at the edges; I have printed 13x17s off 35mm but I would not want to push it much larger. 35mm does 4x6s, 5x7s and 8x10s perfectly reasonably, which is what it spent most of its time doing for common consumer work. It's worth noting that one of the other common consumer cameras of the 1940s was the Brownie, which output 6cmx9cm images and was routinely contact printed, producing something smaller even than a 4x6. 120 produces images that are between 1.8x (in the 645 format) or 2.5x (in most others) as large, physically, meaning that the common enlargements are only 4x-5x. If you push it, with quality equipment, you start getting into print sizes that are super clumsy to handle like 20x24. I've never printed, personally, anything larger than a 16x20. If you do your own wet processing they're also nicer to work with—35mm negatives are real small and kinda fiddly. 4x5 sheets are also delightful to work with, of course, but they require fighting the camera in the field.
  - w0mbat 8y ago
    > The only square consumer oriented cameras > I can think of are twin-lens reflex cameras > like the Rolleiflex, which are delightful > but somewhat uncommon. The Kodak Brownie, a cheap consumer camera that sold in the millions, was a 120 camera that shot square pictures, same format as a Hasselblad or a Rolleiflex. The original Box Brownie came out in 1900 and was the most popular camera in the world for years going through various models up to the 1960s. That's how long the 120 square format was a popular consumer format.
    - gchpaco 8y ago
      The #2 Brownie came out in 1901 and shot 6cm x 9cm, and all of the surviving Brownies I've seen shot rectangular formats. There was the Brownie 127 which shot square, but I only learned of its existence just now; have never seen one in the wild, probably because finding 127 film is functionally impossible.
      - Finnucane 8y ago
        once a year Ilford produces a limited run of 127 bulk rolls (and other odd sizes). I’ve got a 127 Spartus I wanted to get some for, but figured i’d Never use the whole spool.
  - rplst8 8y ago
    > With modern materials and good technique, 8x-11x is feasible, but starting to push it at the edges; I have printed 13x17s off 35mm but I would not want to push it much larger. Many pros push 35mm to billboard sizes. The size of the print doesn't matter. It's the viewing distance.
    - HankB99 8y ago
      Not a pro here, but the greater the distance, the better my pictures look. ;) Back to the subject at hand, it is a little surprising to me that a format closer to square didn't catch on at some point. I suppose that the image quality of the image deteriorates more toward the edge of a circle around the center point. The format that gets the most out of a circle of acceptable quality is a square. As the shape becomes more oblong, more of that 'acceptable quality area' falls outside the image. Perhaps this is one reason that larger formats are closer to square than 35mm.
- Finnucane 8y ago
  >why wasn't there a proliferation of cameras that could shoot 24x24mm images on the same type of film? There was. The 126 cartridge film was the same stock as 35mm, and square format. Since it was a cartridge and needed no sprockets, the image area 26mm x 26mm.
- tjr 8y ago
  I like square photos. But I've also taken so many pictures on both film and full-frame digital cameras that 24x36 looks normal to me. Other aspect ratios (besides square) strike me as odd!
mortenjorck 8y ago
I adore these obscure histories of standards we take for granted. I could see this piece being adapted into something like an episode of 99 Percent Invisible.
mauvehaus 8y ago
> Cameras that used 24x36mm sensors returned photographers' favorite lenses to the FOVs they were already long comfortable with. And, of course, the second was prestige. Status is a very strong motivator in the photography hobby. "Full-frame" sensor cameras were bigger and more expensive, their "image quality" at least detectably ahead of that of smaller sensors. Some of us have also been patiently waiting for "full frame" DSLR bodies are doing it because a fast normal lens (so-called because it has (much handwaving) roughly the same field of view as your eyes) is so cheap as to be basically free compared to a nice DSLR body. A similarly fast and sharp 28mm or 35mm (roughly a normal lens on an APS-C-sized sensor) is vastly more expensive, if it's available at all. Pentax[0], to my (limited) knowledge never made a 35mm or 28mm lens that came close to matching the speed and sharpness of the SMC Pentax-M 50mm f/1.7, which can be had <$50 US on ebay. The first 28mm f/2 I see listed is $430, the much commoner f/2.8 and f/3.5 are much cheaper, but give up a lot in low light performance. The 50mm f/1.7 is a mighty fine lens; the arguably better 50mm f/1.4 goes for <$100. It's not until you're looking at the rare, super fast, and arguably yet better still (I have no personal experience) 50mm f/1.2 that you hit the price range of the 28mm f/2. So whether you're buying at the peanuts end of the price range or the high end, you're giving up a stop and a half of low light performance going with APS-C over 24x36. It could be argued that with ever improving digital sensors, low light performance in a lens is less important now than ever. There's probably merit to that. Still, as mentioned in TFA the faster lenses let you make different choices with regards to depth of field than you have with a slower lens. I'd rather have that choice, historical preferences of f/64 notwithstanding. [0] I'm not going into lens generations here. As an extremely casual user, I buy what's good, used, and cheap. I'm strictly an M42 and SMC-M guy, and can't compare with anything newer; my overall impression from reading reviews is that the SMC-K, -M, and -A generations are largely comparable for the same focal length and aperture. The M42 generations are adequately comparable, at least for folks like me.
- Sharlin 8y ago
  On the other hand, to my knowledge very few if any small-and-cheap double-Gauss "nifty fifties" are particularly great wide open on modern high-resolution sensors. Though it could be argued that the current drive for ultra-sharpness among the "Ad-Am" crowd again stems more from prestige—and the tendency to pixel-peep—rather than any real need. Especially in a world where the vast majority of photos are viewed at low resolutions, highly compressed, and on small screens. Mirrorless, with its short backfocus distance compared to SLRs, does bring onto table the feasibility of inexpensive and compact "normal" lenses for APS-C and smaller sensors. The Panasonic 25mm f/1.8 for MFT is a good example, as is the recently announced Canon EF-M 32mm f/1.4.
nicoburns 8y ago
I just wanted to add, for anyone who is not familiar with the site, that The Online Photographer is pne of the Good Corners Of The Internet. It features well thought out articles, a moderated comment section, and a real sense of commu ity. Highly reccomended if you're interested in photography. Oh, and I should add: an ethical ad based revenue model. Ads are self hosted, js free, and only for companies that the author believes his audience may be interested in.
- nabla9 8y ago
  I use adblocker and I didn't even notice the ads. Small amount of small static ad images on the side is perfectly OK for me, but they probably don't generate as much income as those that interrupt you.
  - mygo 8y ago
    > Small amount of small static ad images on the side is perfectly OK for me, but they probably don't generate as much income as those that interrupt you. Well static ads don’t have to be pay per click / or per view, so it’s likely they set their own placement price and make their money up front. Under that scenario they would be making money as long as the ad space is occupied.
    - nabla9 8y ago
      It's ads generate less revenue to the advertiser, they pay less for the ads no matter what the payment method is.
      - mygo 8y ago
        that’s only one side of it. the site operator also has to decide if placing the ads are worth the cost of having ads on his pages. So if the operator is selling static ad placement and getting buyers, then he’s at least covering that cost plus profit, otherwise it’s not worth it. So it’s like buying a billboard. The advertisers have to decide if it’s worth their money or not. But the operator will be making money as long as the ad space is occupied.
combatentropy 8y ago
> It used 35mm movie film And why was movie film 35mm wide? It seems an odd width. William Dickson was going for a frame 1 inch wide, then added 3/8" for the sprocket holes. The original specification was in Imperial units: 1 3/8" (34.925mm). I don't know when or why its name turned to metric. "At the end of the year 1889, I increased the width of the picture from 1/2 inch to 3/4 inch, then to 1 inch by 3/4 inch high. The actual width of the film was 1 3/8 inches to allow for the perforations now punched on both edges [...]." --- https://archive.org/stream/journalofsociety21socirich#page/450/mode/2up https://archive.org/stream/journalofsociety21socirich#page/4... To go back further, we would have to ask, why is an inch an inch?
alxv 8y ago
The 35mm format is rather amazing balance of design trade-offs. No wonder it is so enduring. It's large enough for the double-Gauss lens (a.k.a. normal prime lens) to have a nice shallow deep of field wide open. f/1.2 is close to the limit of a typical SLR mount. So a normal 50mm f/1.2 lens gets us 42mm of aperture. This means we can get the same depth of field and angle of view as a 6x7 medium format with a 110mm f/2.8 lens or a 4x5 large format with a 180mm f/4.5 (but with a much smaller system!) And we get a faster lens as a bonus. Smaller formats lose some of that versatility of composition. The focal length of the normal lens on APS-C is 32mm. We would need f/0.8 lens to the same DOF. That's not possible on an SLR mount. Mirrorless systems with their shorter flange distances could get us there. But even then there are limits to how short the flange can be because image sensors become much less efficient as the angle of incidence of the light hitting them increases.
GlenTheMachine 8y ago
Enthusiastic (and, in solidarity with another popular post right now, mediocre) amateur photographer here. When I was a teenager I desperately wanted a 35 mm SLR. I bought photography magazines, read all the reviews. For me, price was the biggest factor, so I was looking at Pentax K1000-class cameras, which could be had then for a little over $100 with a lens. The thing that struck me then, and still strikes me today, is the sheer amount of brand snobbishness in photography. Back then, you weren't a “real” photographer”, and you weren't using a “real” camera, unless you were shooting Nikon, Canon, or Leica. And of those, only the Canons were at all affordable. And yet, you could throw the exact same Ektachrome in any 35 mm camera, grab a good prime lens, and shoot exactly the same pictures. No one on earth could tell whether you had taken it with a Leica or a Pentax. And the same thing is true today. Today, because most of my photography (which is, again, mediocre) is travel photography, I shoot an Olympus em-10 with a $300 lens most of the time. It's small and it won't break my heart if it gets broken or stolen. The m43 system has a ton of great lenses and high quality camera bodies. With the different sensors it's now possible, in theory, to even tell the difference between pictures shot on an Olympus and a FF Nikon, but in practice 99% of photographers won't ever realize those differences. But it isn't a Nikon or a Leica, so I'm still not using a “real” camera. Anyway, my point is this: to be perfectly honest, I doubt the ability of the field to choose standards based in technical merit. There are decent reasons to desire FF cameras over APS or m43 — the availability of a lot of legacy lens designs, for instance — but as far as I can tell that isn't the real reason it's taking off. It's taking off because it's now possible to drop ten grand on such a system. Sorry for the cynicism. But I've been told so often that I'm not using a real camera that I finally just decided to ignore the hype and enjoy taking pictures.
- frostburg 8y ago
  The Leica lenses were better than the Nikon lenses that were better than the Canon lenses that were better than the Pentax lenses, on average (there are exceptions to this). It didn't really matter at normal print sizes for usual focal length, but for example a 21/3.4 Schneider Super-Angulon for Leica from 1963 was a vastly better ultrawide than what you could have for other 35mm systems. If you try to print big (let's say A3+) you'll rapidly find the limits of the m43 system.
abruzzi 8y ago
While tha 36x24 frame dates to the original Leica, I believe the 3:2 aspect predates that significantly as the some of the early Kodak box cameras shot 6x9cm on 120 film.

109 points by daxelrod 8y ago

> The 24x36mm image size, which by the 1950s was becoming accepted as a standard, was also widely known as a rather awkward rectangle. It suited landscape photos, but little else—it looked too tall in verticals, and made composition difficult, especially for photographers used to the square shape common in 120 cameras. I don't quite understand this part. If 35mm film was "standard" but photographers had a strong preference for square images, why wasn't there a proliferation of cameras that could shoot 24x24mm images on the same type of film?

gchpaco 8y ago
Too small, slide mounts were already standardized on 24x36, and the square was never all that popular among the general photographer. The reason why the square shape in 120 was originally developed was a technical hack. Since it outputs a square, there was never any need to hold a Hasselblad vertically; just take the photo and crop it to suit. The only square consumer oriented cameras I can think of are twin-lens reflex cameras like the Rolleiflex, which are delightful but somewhat uncommon. A number of folks started trying to make use of the square format as a square format, but it was not originally, I think, intended for that purpose. Re: too small; an 8x10, one of the smaller standard print formats for portraits, is about an 8x enlargement from a 35mm frame. With modern materials and good technique, 8x-11x is feasible, but starting to push it at the edges; I have printed 13x17s off 35mm but I would not want to push it much larger. 35mm does 4x6s, 5x7s and 8x10s perfectly reasonably, which is what it spent most of its time doing for common consumer work. It's worth noting that one of the other common consumer cameras of the 1940s was the Brownie, which output 6cmx9cm images and was routinely contact printed, producing something smaller even than a 4x6. 120 produces images that are between 1.8x (in the 645 format) or 2.5x (in most others) as large, physically, meaning that the common enlargements are only 4x-5x. If you push it, with quality equipment, you start getting into print sizes that are super clumsy to handle like 20x24. I've never printed, personally, anything larger than a 16x20. If you do your own wet processing they're also nicer to work with—35mm negatives are real small and kinda fiddly. 4x5 sheets are also delightful to work with, of course, but they require fighting the camera in the field.
- w0mbat 8y ago
  > The only square consumer oriented cameras > I can think of are twin-lens reflex cameras > like the Rolleiflex, which are delightful > but somewhat uncommon. The Kodak Brownie, a cheap consumer camera that sold in the millions, was a 120 camera that shot square pictures, same format as a Hasselblad or a Rolleiflex. The original Box Brownie came out in 1900 and was the most popular camera in the world for years going through various models up to the 1960s. That's how long the 120 square format was a popular consumer format.
  - gchpaco 8y ago
    The #2 Brownie came out in 1901 and shot 6cm x 9cm, and all of the surviving Brownies I've seen shot rectangular formats. There was the Brownie 127 which shot square, but I only learned of its existence just now; have never seen one in the wild, probably because finding 127 film is functionally impossible.
    - Finnucane 8y ago
      once a year Ilford produces a limited run of 127 bulk rolls (and other odd sizes). I’ve got a 127 Spartus I wanted to get some for, but figured i’d Never use the whole spool.
- rplst8 8y ago
  > With modern materials and good technique, 8x-11x is feasible, but starting to push it at the edges; I have printed 13x17s off 35mm but I would not want to push it much larger. Many pros push 35mm to billboard sizes. The size of the print doesn't matter. It's the viewing distance.
  - HankB99 8y ago
    Not a pro here, but the greater the distance, the better my pictures look. ;) Back to the subject at hand, it is a little surprising to me that a format closer to square didn't catch on at some point. I suppose that the image quality of the image deteriorates more toward the edge of a circle around the center point. The format that gets the most out of a circle of acceptable quality is a square. As the shape becomes more oblong, more of that 'acceptable quality area' falls outside the image. Perhaps this is one reason that larger formats are closer to square than 35mm.
Finnucane 8y ago
>why wasn't there a proliferation of cameras that could shoot 24x24mm images on the same type of film? There was. The 126 cartridge film was the same stock as 35mm, and square format. Since it was a cartridge and needed no sprockets, the image area 26mm x 26mm.
tjr 8y ago
I like square photos. But I've also taken so many pictures on both film and full-frame digital cameras that 24x36 looks normal to me. Other aspect ratios (besides square) strike me as odd!

mortenjorck 8y ago

I adore these obscure histories of standards we take for granted. I could see this piece being adapted into something like an episode of 99 Percent Invisible.

mauvehaus 8y ago

> Cameras that used 24x36mm sensors returned photographers' favorite lenses to the FOVs they were already long comfortable with. And, of course, the second was prestige. Status is a very strong motivator in the photography hobby. "Full-frame" sensor cameras were bigger and more expensive, their "image quality" at least detectably ahead of that of smaller sensors. Some of us have also been patiently waiting for "full frame" DSLR bodies are doing it because a fast normal lens (so-called because it has (much handwaving) roughly the same field of view as your eyes) is so cheap as to be basically free compared to a nice DSLR body. A similarly fast and sharp 28mm or 35mm (roughly a normal lens on an APS-C-sized sensor) is vastly more expensive, if it's available at all. Pentax[0], to my (limited) knowledge never made a 35mm or 28mm lens that came close to matching the speed and sharpness of the SMC Pentax-M 50mm f/1.7, which can be had <$50 US on ebay. The first 28mm f/2 I see listed is $430, the much commoner f/2.8 and f/3.5 are much cheaper, but give up a lot in low light performance. The 50mm f/1.7 is a mighty fine lens; the arguably better 50mm f/1.4 goes for <$100. It's not until you're looking at the rare, super fast, and arguably yet better still (I have no personal experience) 50mm f/1.2 that you hit the price range of the 28mm f/2. So whether you're buying at the peanuts end of the price range or the high end, you're giving up a stop and a half of low light performance going with APS-C over 24x36. It could be argued that with ever improving digital sensors, low light performance in a lens is less important now than ever. There's probably merit to that. Still, as mentioned in TFA the faster lenses let you make different choices with regards to depth of field than you have with a slower lens. I'd rather have that choice, historical preferences of f/64 notwithstanding. [0] I'm not going into lens generations here. As an extremely casual user, I buy what's good, used, and cheap. I'm strictly an M42 and SMC-M guy, and can't compare with anything newer; my overall impression from reading reviews is that the SMC-K, -M, and -A generations are largely comparable for the same focal length and aperture. The M42 generations are adequately comparable, at least for folks like me.

Sharlin 8y ago
On the other hand, to my knowledge very few if any small-and-cheap double-Gauss "nifty fifties" are particularly great wide open on modern high-resolution sensors. Though it could be argued that the current drive for ultra-sharpness among the "Ad-Am" crowd again stems more from prestige—and the tendency to pixel-peep—rather than any real need. Especially in a world where the vast majority of photos are viewed at low resolutions, highly compressed, and on small screens. Mirrorless, with its short backfocus distance compared to SLRs, does bring onto table the feasibility of inexpensive and compact "normal" lenses for APS-C and smaller sensors. The Panasonic 25mm f/1.8 for MFT is a good example, as is the recently announced Canon EF-M 32mm f/1.4.

nicoburns 8y ago

I just wanted to add, for anyone who is not familiar with the site, that The Online Photographer is pne of the Good Corners Of The Internet. It features well thought out articles, a moderated comment section, and a real sense of commu ity. Highly reccomended if you're interested in photography. Oh, and I should add: an ethical ad based revenue model. Ads are self hosted, js free, and only for companies that the author believes his audience may be interested in.

nabla9 8y ago
I use adblocker and I didn't even notice the ads. Small amount of small static ad images on the side is perfectly OK for me, but they probably don't generate as much income as those that interrupt you.
- mygo 8y ago
  > Small amount of small static ad images on the side is perfectly OK for me, but they probably don't generate as much income as those that interrupt you. Well static ads don’t have to be pay per click / or per view, so it’s likely they set their own placement price and make their money up front. Under that scenario they would be making money as long as the ad space is occupied.
  - nabla9 8y ago
    It's ads generate less revenue to the advertiser, they pay less for the ads no matter what the payment method is.
    - mygo 8y ago
      that’s only one side of it. the site operator also has to decide if placing the ads are worth the cost of having ads on his pages. So if the operator is selling static ad placement and getting buyers, then he’s at least covering that cost plus profit, otherwise it’s not worth it. So it’s like buying a billboard. The advertisers have to decide if it’s worth their money or not. But the operator will be making money as long as the ad space is occupied.

combatentropy 8y ago

> It used 35mm movie film And why was movie film 35mm wide? It seems an odd width. William Dickson was going for a frame 1 inch wide, then added 3/8" for the sprocket holes. The original specification was in Imperial units: 1 3/8" (34.925mm). I don't know when or why its name turned to metric. "At the end of the year 1889, I increased the width of the picture from 1/2 inch to 3/4 inch, then to 1 inch by 3/4 inch high. The actual width of the film was 1 3/8 inches to allow for the perforations now punched on both edges [...]." --- https://archive.org/stream/journalofsociety21socirich#page/450/mode/2up https://archive.org/stream/journalofsociety21socirich#page/4... To go back further, we would have to ask, why is an inch an inch?

alxv 8y ago

The 35mm format is rather amazing balance of design trade-offs. No wonder it is so enduring. It's large enough for the double-Gauss lens (a.k.a. normal prime lens) to have a nice shallow deep of field wide open. f/1.2 is close to the limit of a typical SLR mount. So a normal 50mm f/1.2 lens gets us 42mm of aperture. This means we can get the same depth of field and angle of view as a 6x7 medium format with a 110mm f/2.8 lens or a 4x5 large format with a 180mm f/4.5 (but with a much smaller system!) And we get a faster lens as a bonus. Smaller formats lose some of that versatility of composition. The focal length of the normal lens on APS-C is 32mm. We would need f/0.8 lens to the same DOF. That's not possible on an SLR mount. Mirrorless systems with their shorter flange distances could get us there. But even then there are limits to how short the flange can be because image sensors become much less efficient as the angle of incidence of the light hitting them increases.

GlenTheMachine 8y ago

Enthusiastic (and, in solidarity with another popular post right now, mediocre) amateur photographer here. When I was a teenager I desperately wanted a 35 mm SLR. I bought photography magazines, read all the reviews. For me, price was the biggest factor, so I was looking at Pentax K1000-class cameras, which could be had then for a little over $100 with a lens. The thing that struck me then, and still strikes me today, is the sheer amount of brand snobbishness in photography. Back then, you weren't a “real” photographer”, and you weren't using a “real” camera, unless you were shooting Nikon, Canon, or Leica. And of those, only the Canons were at all affordable. And yet, you could throw the exact same Ektachrome in any 35 mm camera, grab a good prime lens, and shoot exactly the same pictures. No one on earth could tell whether you had taken it with a Leica or a Pentax. And the same thing is true today. Today, because most of my photography (which is, again, mediocre) is travel photography, I shoot an Olympus em-10 with a $300 lens most of the time. It's small and it won't break my heart if it gets broken or stolen. The m43 system has a ton of great lenses and high quality camera bodies. With the different sensors it's now possible, in theory, to even tell the difference between pictures shot on an Olympus and a FF Nikon, but in practice 99% of photographers won't ever realize those differences. But it isn't a Nikon or a Leica, so I'm still not using a “real” camera. Anyway, my point is this: to be perfectly honest, I doubt the ability of the field to choose standards based in technical merit. There are decent reasons to desire FF cameras over APS or m43 — the availability of a lot of legacy lens designs, for instance — but as far as I can tell that isn't the real reason it's taking off. It's taking off because it's now possible to drop ten grand on such a system. Sorry for the cynicism. But I've been told so often that I'm not using a real camera that I finally just decided to ignore the hype and enjoy taking pictures.

frostburg 8y ago
The Leica lenses were better than the Nikon lenses that were better than the Canon lenses that were better than the Pentax lenses, on average (there are exceptions to this). It didn't really matter at normal print sizes for usual focal length, but for example a 21/3.4 Schneider Super-Angulon for Leica from 1963 was a vastly better ultrawide than what you could have for other 35mm systems. If you try to print big (let's say A3+) you'll rapidly find the limits of the m43 system.

abruzzi 8y ago

While tha 36x24 frame dates to the original Leica, I believe the 3:2 aspect predates that significantly as the some of the early Kodak box cameras shot 6x9cm on 120 film.