"Q.G. de Bakker" wrote:

Gordon Moat wrote:

Rather obvious that it matters not which format one used, prior to doing a
crop.

So why did you mention 6x6 format specifically?

It is the only current square format, and few square images are in current
printed publications. Perhaps that means that most printed matter comes from
rectangular formats, or it could mean that it came from cropped square format.
Perhaps I was going out on a limb supposing that 6x6 shots got cropped into
rectangular compositions, and instead there is little current 6x6 usage,
meaning the remaining rectangular images in publication came from rectangular
format cameras. Only a statistician can solve this one, so I will leave it
alone.



This also proves my point that it is not possible to state anything on
this news group without someone refuting it, thus we are left with a
difference
of opinion, and no point in either of us trying to convince the other.

Hmm... This also proves the point that sometimes much nonsense is produced.
;-)

Glad you agree. ;-)



If a longer lens was not available for a system, and the composition would
be
helped by a crop, then it is the only remaining choice.

Duh! "If no longer lens was available" is your excuse for wondering why
people use long lenses that *are* available???

If I need a longer lens, and I don't own one, then I rent one. If I had a
system that was at the longest lens limit, and needed even longer, then my
choice would be to rent a different system with longer lens choice. If I still
find myself at the longest lens limit, then I have no choice but to crop, or
not take the photo. Of course, given a chance for a photo, and no long lenses
immediately available, would someone be better off skipping taking the photo,
or cropping it later to a better composition?



Now if one always found
that the desired results needed to be cropped (or even the majority of the
time), then I feel that the system was chosen in error. One would be
better
served by using a system that more closely matched their desired
compositions.

Yes...
And if the moon was made of cheese it would go good with crackers. ;-)

Must have been watching too much Wallace & Grommit. ;-)


You seem to be forgetting that we two are discussing your assertion that
using long(er) lenses (you know, the ones available) is somewhat of a
questionable practice.

I never meant to imply that. Long lenses can be inconvenient due to cost or
size (weight), but if that is the only way to get particular images, then that
is the only choice. My assertion was that some people made comments about some
lenses not being long enough, which might imply that the usage of shorter
lenses was a questionable practice, though you read that the opposite
direction.

Let's back up to the Bob M. statistics about lenses. While I will not judge the
accuracy of his figures, it is interesting that the normal focal length lens
for a given medium format system is the most common lens, and quite often the
only lens owned. Both of us know people who do not fit that pattern, though it
makes one wonder how some people accomplish so many different compositions with
only one lens. Using just a normal lens, one needs to be closer to a subject to
get a tight head shot. The limits of close focus for some systems limits how
close, and the comfort of the subject with that closest distance is another
consideration. A longer lens with similar closest focusing distance could allow
a tightly framed composition, or alternatively, the photographer could put more
distance between the subject and the camera. I like having that longer distance
most of the time, which I feel allows a comfortable working distance, though
obviously all situations and photographers can differ in this regard. I have
also done fairly close distance images, some of which are very tightly framed
images.



"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.

Okay, this is better served by a more precise example. Using a Bronica RF
100
mm f4.5 at 1.2 metre distance, gives a mid chest up to the head image
(more
than shoulder width) landscape framed shot. The same landscape
(horizontal)
format shot with a Bronica Zenzanon-PE 150 mm f3.5 at 1.5 metre distance,
gives
a head and neck image (less than shoulder width). To crop the 100 mm image
to
the same composition as the 150 mm image, would require the film to be
cropped
to about 34.75 mm by 45 mm (from 42.5 mm by 55 mm). Perhaps that is small,
but
it is hardly 35 mm.

No, it isn't. But that is a conveniently chosen example.

Thank you, I was trying to be careful about that. ;-)

I should point out that the mention of the RF645 was one item that Bob M. and I
specifically discussed, so I felt a closer examination was a good choice. Bob
M. mentioned the desire to use a 150 mm, and the RF645 only has a 100 mm
(though a 135 mm was briefly available). Also interesting is that a comparison
with the RF 135 mm lens would have shown that lens to have an even tighter
composition than the 150 mm at closest distance.


Have another look at mine. It is about the same practice you advocate over
the use of long lenses. You do end up using less film than 35 mm format.
You may say that that too is a conveniently chosen one. But it's not
unrealistic, is it?

To put this to a point, I "advocate" the use of long lenses. I also "advocate"
cropping as a creative tool. I "deride" the non-usage of normal to short
telephoto lenses due only to considerations of tight composition. I
"understand" it is not always possible, nor desirable, nor comfortable, for a
photographer to be physically at a close distance to their subject, though I
further "deride" the non-acceptance of that as a valid technique.

While we could both come up with many unrealistic examples (and I thought 80 mm
compared to 150 mm was unrealistic), the current reality of imagery is that
nearly anything goes. Both of us have likely seen large prints from truly small
sensor direct digital cameras, prints from pinhole cameras, and unusual usage
of various formats and films, both in publications, and in galleries. The vast
acceptance of direct digital images, and small image files, has made many
formats acceptable. While it use to be the situation that few professionals
used smaller than medium format gear, it is less common for publications, art
directors, and galleries to deride (or dismiss) the usage of smaller formats,
smaller crops, or even smaller digital sensors . . . anything is valid today.

Have you ever tried to crop an image to a small area? Do you crop at all? I am
not trying to push towards a "crop every shot, because your gear is too short"
approach, and I never intended for anyone to think that. I also do not want
anyone to get the idea that "cropping is evil, and should not be done".


. . . . . . . .

Obviously, if you want to use longer lenses, then an SLR is the only
answer. [...]

Is it about SLR vs RF now?

Actually, yes. That is what Bob M. brought up about wanting a compact camera
for medium format, and that led our discussion (Bob M. and I) onto rangefinder
(and folder) cameras. Bob M. expressed his dislike for some newer rangefinder
cameras due to the lack of longer lenses, and sighted the example of wanting a
645 format that could use a 150 mm lens (or even a 6x6 that could use a 150 mm
lens). While I could have mentioned the Mamiya 6, it is not a currently sold
camera, and there are some aspects of it that I do not like much.


I was sure you did not understand why people used long lenses, i.e. you
believed people could well do without. And that you thought 6x6 cm format
got cropped anyway.

So, we are left with lots of writing. Perhaps somewhere in all this interchange
between both of us, there is some understanding for others, or at least things
to ponder. If my lack of eloquence, or writing ability, has left some doubt, I
do apologize in advance. We are here to share and learn.

Ciao!

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