question about mf aspect ratio

Bill Mcdonald wrote:

Thanks guys for all the responses!As I said, I am truly a medium
format newbie, but hopefully I'll learn fast!

I apologize for what probably was the dumbest question ever posed
here. And I'm especially grateful for the cropping advice. I forgot
how HUGE the negative is!



Not dumb at all. The trick is thinking/visualising the crop while shooting.
Many 6X6 focus screen have grid lines to help do this. As I said in another
post, you can frame the scene in the upper portion of the frame and
slightly correct for converging verticles etc. I've shot all of the formats
and 6x6 is still my favorite.
--

Stacey

That was absolutely, positively, and without a doubt, NOT the dumbest
posting on usenet... Not even close, no way...

Actually, it was not a bad question, even if I did tweek your chain a bit...
I have noticed over the years that those who start in photography with
rectangular formats, initially have a blind spot about square format... I
print in both square and rectangular format, depending upon the picture... I
use 11x14 paper to print 10x10, or thereabouts... What I do is trim the
paper before printing to 11x11... The 3 inch pieces are tossed back into the
paper safe and used for test strips... Seems like I never have enough test
strips... Keep posting and let us know how it's going...
denny
denny

"Bill Mcdonald" wrote in I apologize for what
probably was the dumbest question ever posed
here.

Mark A wrote:

...
6x7 - 69.5mm x 56mm

Europeran cameras (Linhof, Sinar) are usually 72x56, Americans are
69.5x56 and Pentax 67 is 68x56.

6x9 - 89.5mm x 56mm

More commonly about 84x56. Makes the aspect ratio exactly 3:2.

-- Lassi

6x7 - 69.5mm x 56mm

Europeran cameras (Linhof, Sinar) are usually 72x56, Americans are
69.5x56 and Pentax 67 is 68x56.

Yes the 120 film backs for view cameras vary quite a bit, but I don't really
consider them to be MF cameras. There is very little variation in format
size of true MF cameras. There are no MF cameras made in the US that I am
aware of. Most are made in Japan and a few Europe.

You are incorrect about the Pentax 6x7. It is 56mm x 70mm. Trust me, I have
owned one for the last 20 years. The size does vary very slightly (and I
emphasis VERY SLIGHTLY) depending on which lens and which aperture is used.
http://www.pentaxusa.com/products/ca...roductID=10291

6x9 - 89.5mm x 56mm

More commonly about 84x56. Makes the aspect ratio exactly 3:2.
-- Lassi

Same comments I made above. You are talking about 120 film backs for LF
cameras. I am talking about true MF cameras like the Fuji 6x9.

BTW, check out the specs on the Schneider 100mm f/5.6 enlarging lens which
they claim covers the 6x9 format. On page 2 of the MTF charts they state the
exact format coverage as 56mm x 79mm. I believe that Schneider is a European
company.
http://www.schneideroptics.com/photo...n-s_56_100.pdf

"Lassi Hippeläinen" wrote in
message .. .
Mark A wrote:

...
6x7 - 69.5mm x 56mm

Europeran cameras (Linhof, Sinar) are usually 72x56, Americans are
69.5x56 and Pentax 67 is 68x56.

6x9 - 89.5mm x 56mm

More commonly about 84x56. Makes the aspect ratio exactly 3:2.

True. There is no fast rule. I have two Veriwides, a Plaubel and Brooks,
each with different "6x9" dimensions on the "9" side.

"Mark A" wrote in message
...
6x7 - 69.5mm x 56mm

Europeran cameras (Linhof, Sinar) are usually 72x56, Americans are
69.5x56 and Pentax 67 is 68x56.

Yes the 120 film backs for view cameras vary quite a bit, but I don't
really
consider them to be MF cameras. [...]

Which gives me an excuse to rave about the 'real' MF folding cameras of
yesteryear that had front rise and drift. God I wish I could put a _good_
120 back on one.

Mark A wrote:

6x7 - 69.5mm x 56mm

Europeran cameras (Linhof, Sinar) are usually 72x56, Americans are
69.5x56 and Pentax 67 is 68x56.

Yes the 120 film backs for view cameras vary quite a bit, but I don't really
consider them to be MF cameras. There is very little variation in format
size of true MF cameras. There are no MF cameras made in the US that I am
aware of. Most are made in Japan and a few Europe.

For me MF is pretty much equivalent to roll film. With limits... 6x17
just doesn't sound like MF anymore.

You are incorrect about the Pentax 6x7. It is 56mm x 70mm. Trust me, I have
owned one for the last 20 years. The size does vary very slightly (and I
emphasis VERY SLIGHTLY) depending on which lens and which aperture is used.
http://www.pentaxusa.com/products/ca...roductID=10291

In that case I've been misinformed. I don't own one :-(


6x9 - 89.5mm x 56mm

More commonly about 84x56. Makes the aspect ratio exactly 3:2.
-- Lassi

Same comments I made above. You are talking about 120 film backs for LF
cameras. I am talking about true MF cameras like the Fuji 6x9.

No. My Moscow 2 folder scans are 57x85, when the whole frame is covered,
but only about 55x83 is clean. The edges of the bellows shade the
corners a little. Since the Moscow is a Zeiss Super-Ikonta copy, the
size is also copied from German practises. AFAIK also box cameras are
about that size.

BTW, check out the specs on the Schneider 100mm f/5.6 enlarging lens which
they claim covers the 6x9 format. On page 2 of the MTF charts they state the
exact format coverage as 56mm x 79mm. I believe that Schneider is a European
company.
http://www.schneideroptics.com/photo...n-s_56_100.pdf

German, located in Kreutznach. Their 6x9 is even smaller than mine...

-- Lassi

Hi Bill,

just for fun, see the Square* Format page
http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/square.html

see http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/formats.html for
various format spec's

grins bobm

*also "Diamond" shots - squares on edge ;-)


--
************************************************** *********************
* Robert Monaghan POB 752182 Southern Methodist Univ. Dallas Tx 75275 *
********************Standard Disclaimers Apply*************************

On 11 Feb 2004 16:44:54 -0600, (Bob Monaghan)
wrote:
Great articles. I really have learned a lot from the responders to my
question.

I realize that I am the typical 35 mm shooter who moves to the square
format and hits a wall, and tries to convert the new format to 35.

I especially look forward to trying out the "diamond" approach.

Bill Mcdonald in Joshua Tree

P.s. One day I think I may feel that the square format liberated me in
my compositions, once I learn to crop afterwards, rather than "in
camera" as I do now:-)

Hi Bill,

just for fun, see the Square* Format page
http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/square.html

see http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/formats.html for
various format spec's

grins bobm

*also "Diamond" shots - squares on edge ;-)

"Bill Mcdonald" wrote in message
...
On 11 Feb 2004 16:44:54 -0600, (Bob Monaghan)
wrote:
Great articles. I really have learned a lot from the responders to my
question.

I realize that I am the typical 35 mm shooter who moves to the square
format and hits a wall, and tries to convert the new format to 35.

I especially look forward to trying out the "diamond" approach.

Bill Mcdonald in Joshua Tree

P.s. One day I think I may feel that the square format liberated me in
my compositions, once I learn to crop afterwards, rather than "in
camera" as I do now:-)

Cropping in the camera is always better. The square has its own beauty.
Learn to use it.

http://www.fotografiewimvanvelzen.nl/publication02.htm

Lots of good stuff:
http://www.fotografiewimvanvelzen.nl....htm#artikelen

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan