"Q.G. de Bakker" wrote:

Gordon Moat wrote:

I really wonder about the longer focal length, or telephoto usage. While
many
seem to want longer lenses, I question how much they actually get used.
[...]

Many medium format (645 or 6x6 mostly) photographers will claim using a
150
mm lens often. When looking at what these are most useful for, it is often
tight framing for portraits, either head shots, or only head and shoulders
(upper torso) images. While a longer lens can be less obtrusive to your
subject, by allowing more distance, I really wonder about the desire to
always fill the frame.

It's not about being less obtrusive.

Long lenses have a far wider use than just filling a frame with a tight head
shot. Are not restricted to portrait photography.
Landscape photography, for instance, wants a rather wide lens, or a long
one; you either show the lay of the land, or details. Or produce boredom.

And that (excluding the boring bits) is what makes short tele's very useful.
I think you're assumption ("what these are most useful for [etc.]") is
severely flawed.

Fair enough. I suppose it was very over-generalized. Just to make it clear, I
have used long tele lenses for landscape and other non-portrait uses. I should
have typed a better response.



With 6x6 photographers especially, most of the square
images get cropped anyway, so what is the big deal about cropping further.

What do you mean, "most of the square images get cropped anyway"?

Usage patterns, in that there are not many square images that get printed, at
least in publications. Of course, there are some that only do square image
prints, so again this is over-generalized. i don't think it is possible to
state anything on this news group without someone refuting it, however, at some
point assumptions need to be made for point of argument, or just to try to make
a point.

I feel that I have not stated this well enough. Let's try: . . . with the
larger than 35 mm film area, and great modern emulsions, cropping is one great
creative tool. Using that tool of cropping ability, one can accomplish
particular desired framing or coverage in the final printed image by cropping.
Obviously, if one only accepts the absolute maximum extent of quality in a
system, then cropping could be an unacceptable option. I don't have any
problems cropping an image, so I choose to use cropping as a creative choice.





The big deal about cropping is that you don't invest in MF equipment to end
up using bits of film no larger than the 35 mm miniature format.
And it's not the money, its why you spend the money: there is quality in
square mm/inches. The more the better.

Obviously, but I am not against cropping a few millimetres to get a different
end composition. There is a group of photographers that do not believe in using
cropping, but I am not one of them. Also, I have never cropped any medium
format film down to 35 mm size, nor even close to it. In fact, it is tough to
use much of any cropping with 35 mm film, so framing tends to be much more
exacting requirements to maintain the more limited quality, not that I am
advocating sloppy framing for medium format.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com