question about mf aspect ratio

Bill Mcdonald schrieb:

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.

At the beginning of being photographer I had problems with shooting 6x6,
but in the meanwhile I love it. Maybe you can have a look at my
"Square-Homepage" for some examples in 6x6: http://www.photo-square.com

--
Laurent Wirmer

This posting is a natural product. The slight variations in
spelling and grammar enhance its individual character and
beauty and in no way are to be considered flaws or defects.

quoting David:
Cropping in the camera is always better. The square has its own beauty.
endquote:

I'm with Bill on this one ;-) To me, one of the benefits of the larger
size of MF image is the ability to crop after the shot for particular
needs. For example, a magazine cover requires a vertical crop, and would
be more saleable if there were open area at the top for magazine name etc.
The same shot might be saleable again as a horizontal crop for a half-page
ad etc. And it might also be a nice square composition when projected as a
superslide ;-)

The crop in camera approach makes sense if you are going to be pushing the
limits of the format in print size and can plan the exact composition you
want to achieve on a final print or poster. In 35mm, doing 8x10" or
larger is pushing the limits, so cropping in camera with 35mm is more of a
necessity for best quality.

Bill is also right that part of the fun of photography is learning to see
with different formats. One of the reasons I really like my horizon 202s
panoramic (24x56mm covering 110+ degrees horiz.) is the differences
between what it "sees" in a scene and what I get from wide angle lenses.
It is also more challenging to get nice multiple focal point panoramic
compositions than in the traditional rectangular formats.

Speaking of which, the original kodak images were circular, making full
use of the lens coverage I guess? ;-) Some artistic types are using the
circle for photographs again in very large contact print formats (20x24"
and up).

Diamond shots (squares on edge) not only fit some subjects better, but
they also let you cheat and use the longer diagonal coverage for thin
vertical subjects like skyscrapers and cityscapes ;-)

grins bobm


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

"Bob Monaghan" wrote:
quoting David:
Cropping in the camera is always better. The square has its own beauty.
endquote:

I'm with Bill on this one ;-) To me, one of the benefits of the larger
size of MF image is the ability to crop after the shot for particular
needs.

You just turned your big juicy negative into a subminiature grainy mess. Not
acceptable.

For example, a magazine cover requires a vertical crop, and would
be more saleable if there were open area at the top for magazine name etc.
The same shot might be saleable again as a horizontal crop for a half-page
ad etc. And it might also be a nice square composition when projected as a
superslide ;-)

Use the right tool for the job and you'll do a better job. Besides, if you
sell an image, you may find yourself in legal hot water if you recycle it in
other commercial contexts.

The crop in camera approach makes sense if you are going to be pushing the
limits of the format in print size and can plan the exact composition you
want to achieve on a final print or poster.

The whole point of lugging the larger format was for the larger print size.
If I didn't need the film area, 35mm would be cheaper, lighter, and the
lenses are sharper.

In 35mm, doing 8x10" or
larger is pushing the limits, so cropping in camera with 35mm is more of a
necessity for best quality.

It's just as much of a necessity in 6x7 if you want nice 16x20s.

Bill is also right that part of the fun of photography is learning to see
with different formats. One of the reasons I really like my horizon 202s
panoramic (24x56mm covering 110+ degrees horiz.) is the differences
between what it "sees" in a scene and what I get from wide angle lenses.
It is also more challenging to get nice multiple focal point panoramic
compositions than in the traditional rectangular formats.

Now you're talking about cropping in the camera: no complaintsg.

Diamond shots (squares on edge) not only fit some subjects better, but
they also let you cheat and use the longer diagonal coverage for thin
vertical subjects like skyscrapers and cityscapes ;-)

That's cropping in the camera, and part of the beauty of the square.

Somewhat more seriously, when I used a wet darkroom and had the XL version
of the Omega B22, I really enjoyed radically crops, taking 8x10 snips of
enormous enlargements. Nowadays, I'd rather do it right in the first place.

I think this is related to my anti-square rant. Since paper is rectangular,
the temptation to crop from the square is irrisistable: a decent 11x14 is
more impressive than an excellent 11x11, and if your trays or printer will
do 11x14s, you end up doing 11x14s.

Anyway, real men don't crop.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

cropping - quite a few 6x6cm users find cropping after the fact to be
handy, e.g., many wedding types prefer square as they can crop horiz or
vertical as needed etc. Only a modest fraction of MF images are printed
to maximum sizes, if only due to cost ;-)

One of the useful exercises in an advanced photo course I took at our
local community college was to take L-shaped brackets to make a rectangle
and see how many (better) images we could find in a given print or
magazine photo etc. Gets to be a game, less is more etc. ;-)

I agree with you on being cautious about multiple image uses (e.g. in
contracts..). My favorite example is the issue of Outdoor Photographer
with the same image used to sell both Nikon and Sigma lenses (see
http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/photoads.html). So which lens took the photo?
Probably the image was taken with a bronica anyway ;-) . Then again, as
Q.G. de Bakker noted, at least some of the photos in the ads for Bronica
were taken by a hasselblad (see URL ;-)

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

David J. Littleboy wrote:


"Bill Mcdonald" wrote in message

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.

Bold statment..

--

Stacey

David J. Littleboy wrote:


"Bob Monaghan" wrote:
quoting David:
Cropping in the camera is always better. The square has its own beauty.
endquote:

I'm with Bill on this one ;-) To me, one of the benefits of the larger
size of MF image is the ability to crop after the shot for particular
needs.

You just turned your big juicy negative into a subminiature grainy mess.
Not acceptable.



You assume everyone makes the largest prints acceptable for a given format.
I rarely make prints larger than 8X10 so cropping is acceptable and needed
to make 8X10 prints from 6x6 anyway. Some people can't "see the crop" while
shooting, doesn't mean it can't be done. Sometimes I don't have the right
lens or can't get the framing right from a given position so cropping is
the only way to get what I want. Limiting oneself to "full frame only"
printing is just that, a limitation.
--

Stacey

David J. Littleboy wrote:



The whole point of lugging the larger format was for the larger print
size. If I didn't need the film area, 35mm would be cheaper, lighter, and
the lenses are sharper.


Missed this one, it's all about what the finished print looks like, not how
giant a print I can possibly make. Why are some people obcessed with making
giant prints? And no one is talking about cropping to 35mm sized film, it's
about cropping to make the image the shape you feel works. I've printed 6X9
on 4 X 10 paper, is there something wrong with doing that? God forbid I
didn't use a 35mm film panaramic camera!


So you feel one should carry a 6X6 and a 6X4.5 camera so they don't have to
crop the 6X6 if they feel a scene wouldn't look right square? Or are you
just trying to make yourself feel better for buying a 6X4.5 camera? :-)


Anyway, real men don't crop.


Well then explains why I do it, nevermind.

--

Stacey

David J. Littleboy wrote:


The whole point of lugging the larger format was for the larger print size.
If I didn't need the film area, 35mm would be cheaper, lighter, and the
lenses are sharper.

No the point is to get the best quality print. A 35mm contact print is tiny.


In 35mm, doing 8x10" or
larger is pushing the limits, so cropping in camera with 35mm is more of a
necessity for best quality.

It's just as much of a necessity in 6x7 if you want nice 16x20s.

If you want a really nice 16x20 use a 16x20 camera. Film should be contact
printed. Shouldn't it?



I think this is related to my anti-square rant. Since paper is rectangular,

When did paper have a shape? Paper is the shape you cut it to. I've got
paper in squares and rectangles. If I wanted it I could have round paper.
Considering this is posted to a MF group I'm more then a little suprised
that anybody would claim paper is rectangular. Send in square film to any
lab here and you'll get square proofs back. They all provide square
enlargements if you want. The only things that get cropped are the
non-square formats.


Nick

"Stacey" wrote:
David J. Littleboy wrote:
"Bob Monaghan" wrote:
quoting David:
Cropping in the camera is always better. The square has its own beauty.
endquote:

I'm with Bill on this one ;-) To me, one of the benefits of the larger
size of MF image is the ability to crop after the shot for particular
needs.

You just turned your big juicy negative into a subminiature grainy mess.
Not acceptable.

You assume everyone makes the largest prints acceptable for a given
format.
I rarely make prints larger than 8X10 so cropping is acceptable and needed
to make 8X10 prints from 6x6 anyway.

Right now, I _only_ print to 8.25x11.75 (A4). But if I get a shot that's
worth it, I want to be able to make up to 13x19. That's really pushing it
from 645 and 6x6 unless you fill the frame.

Some people can't "see the crop" while
shooting, doesn't mean it can't be done. Sometimes I don't have the right
lens or can't get the framing right from a given position so cropping is
the only way to get what I want.

I suppose a nice A4 is better than no shot. But I'd rather work a bit harder
when taking the shot than be limited to A4 later.

Limiting oneself to "full frame only" printing is just that, a limitation.

No, it's _discipline_. It forces your mind and eye to work harder. Since you
have to fill the frame to take full advantage of the format, you might as
well get good at it.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

David J. Littleboy wrote:


I rarely make prints larger than 8X10 so cropping is acceptable and
needed to make 8X10 prints from 6x6 anyway.

Right now, I _only_ print to 8.25x11.75 (A4).

Rules out using 35mm for me, I almost never print larger than 5X7 from
35mm. I have plenty of medformat shots printed 5X7 hanging on my walls
along with contact printed 5X7 negs.


Some people can't "see the crop" while
shooting, doesn't mean it can't be done. Sometimes I don't have the right
lens or can't get the framing right from a given position so cropping is
the only way to get what I want.

I suppose a nice A4 is better than no shot. But I'd rather work a bit
harder when taking the shot than be limited to A4 later.

Again you assume everyone is trying to make "giant" prints.


Limiting oneself to "full frame only" printing is just that, a
limitation.

No, it's _discipline_. It forces your mind and eye to work harder.

You said you can't shoot rectangle images with a 6X6 camera and think
'seeing the crop' takes less mind/eye work? And yes limiting yourself to
full frame printing -is- a limitation.
--

Stacey