Gordon Moat wrote:

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.

Supplying square originals results in square pictures in print.
I strongly believe that the majority of images in magezines etc. being
rectangular is the result of more photographers using rectangular formats to
begin with, and is not because there is some preference for, or even "law"
prescribing the use of rectangular images.
So yes, i contest the "square images get cropped" assertion.

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.

Yes, cropping can be (!) used to improve the composition.
That's true for square and non-square formats alike, is it not? Not
something done "especially" with square formats.

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.

Then i really can't understand why you advocate cropping over the use of
long(er) lenses.
"Cropping further" than the alleged amount MF images get cropped anyway
(???), you can well forget about "a few millimeters".
For instance, imitating a 150 mm lens by cropping the image produced by an
80 mm lens will indeed reduce the bit of the negative used to something less
than 35 mm format.
It obviously gets worse when you want to crop to "longer lenses".
Did you really invest in MF equipment to end up using formats smaller than
35 mm format???