Related Links:
Square Scotland (6x6cm) [4/2003]

Okay, I admit it. We 6x6cm fan(atic)s have been holding out on you. I have rarely seen what I consider the major benefit of 6x6cm cameras over 6x4.5cm cameras discussed:

What we will do in the following sections is look at some of the benefits of square format 6x6cm cameras that are often overlooked in the debate of 6x6cm versus 6x4.5cm camera purchases.

Since I am making the case here for considering the benefits of 6x6cm cameras versus 6x4.5cm cameras, I won't bother to duplicate the more often heard advantages of 6x4.5cm cameras. I address some comments about these good points for 6x4.5cm SLRs such as fast lenses and system size and cost below. Obviously, 6x4.5cm cameras have many benefits too. But you should at least be aware of the real benefits of 6x6cm square format cameras before you buy into either system.

I hope to convince you that 6x6cm cameras have unique benefits that would be lost in downsizing to 6x4.5cm.

6x6cm Cameras are 6x4.5cm Cameras with Built-in Shift Lenses

Roger Hicks, a noted professional photographer (and one of my favorite photo book authors), revealed in The Lens Book that a 35mm (Nikon) shift lens was one of the handful of "must have" lenses carried on traveling and photojournalism trips. Shift lenses provide a unique ability to control perspective and conquer converging lines often encountered in shooting buildings and other subjects. Unfortunately, most amateurs haven't experienced these and other benefits of shift lenses, so an example may be helpful.

Imagine you are shooting a colorful stone building in old Quebec City in Canada. The streets are fairly narrow, so you are using a wide angle lens. You use a horizontal shot to get all of the building you can in the photo, so you carefully setup and level your tripod. But darn it, some of the top of the building is cut-off in the top of your shot. Sound familiar? The usual solution is to tilt your camera upward, so you can fit in all of the building. Ooops! Now you have created a serious problem with converging verticals in your shot.

If you are a lens-aholic, one obvious solution is to get wider angle lenses. Now you can fit in more building, but you also get more distortion. Your new wider lenses cost a lot more money too. Ouch! You also get more foreground dominance, meaning things in the foreground look bigger and more prominent than the building you really want to photograph. So now you have to crop all that modern trash in the street out too. And often your desired subject becomes much smaller and insignificant in many wider and very wide angle shots. Perhaps you also have some wide angle shots of mountains where the mountains appear much tinier than you remember?

Another and better solution would be to buy a shift lens. Using a shift lens, you can shift the lens up or down. Now it is easy to fit in the top of the building, without adding distortion or the foreground effects of wider angle lenses. The problem now is that shift lenses cost a bundle, especially on medium format cameras. You also generally lose many camera automation features, due to the shifting mechanics needed in these lenses. That means shift lenses are slower to use, usually bound firmly to carefully leveled tripods, and rarely used handheld. You also have to have a handheld meter or use stop down metering and shooting techniques. But on a 6x6cm camera, the equivalent 6x4.5cm shifts are "built-in", and you can still use the camera with fully automatic features, handheld, with standard metering techniques.

Another issue is that many 6x4.5cm cameras have only one shift lens in their lens lineup, and some models have none. The usual workaround here is to buy a shift lens adapter, such as those custom adapters made by Dr. Zoerkendorfer in Germany. You probably can guess that these custom machined marvels of German precision engineering aren't exactly cheap either, and often cost as much as some lenses. Speaking of which, you will also need larger format lenses from 6x6cm or 6x9cm or view cameras, along with leaf shutters for some 6x4.5 leaf shutter camera models. Your regular 6x4.5cm lenses probably won't have the extra coverage needed to provide the desired amount of shift.

The resulting 6x4.5cm SLR shift lens setups will provide you with greater flexibility, including the ability to provide a range of shifts to your photographic capabilities. But this setup is also slow to use, costly, and usually disables many camera features such as metering and even auto-diaphragm action.

Now suppose you had a 6x6cm square format camera instead of that 6x4.5cm model. My main point here is that the extra film area at the top or bottom of your 6x6cm camera provide the equivalent of a 6x4.5cm camera with a built-in lens shift. In other words, you can crop a 6x4.5cm chunk of image out of the top of the film, or the bottom, or either side. This ability to shift your 6x4.5cm crop up or down in the 6x6cm square frame is exactly equivalent to being able to shift your 6x4.5cm camera lenses an equal distance. So a 6x6cm camera is really a 6x4.5cm camera with built-in shift lenses!

In most arguments over the merits of 6x4.5cm cameras over 6x6cm models, this subtle but useful feature is never discussed. The 6x4.5cm advocates would have us pretend that we can only crop a 6x4.5cm rectangle out of the exact middle of our 6x6cm square image. But that's simply not true, and very limiting considering the huge number of 6x4.5cm rectangles you can crop out of a 6x6cm by shifting both up and down, and left and right. Not only can you improve your composition, but you can also enjoy the equivalent of a shift lens on your 6x4.5cm camera by simply using a 6x6cm square format camera!

Composition - After the Shot

One of the major benefits of 6x6cm cameras is that you can vary your composition after the shot is taken. You can't do that in a 6x4.5cm camera, where the shot is either horizontal composition or vertical composition, but never both. With a 6x6cm square camera, the composition is always potentially horizontal or vertical or even squarish. I have often found more dynamic and different compositions from my 6x6cm images during the enlarging stage than I saw at the instant of exposure.

This creative after-the-shot cropping is enhanced by the extra horizontal and vertical cropping space in the 6x6cm square negative. Having some extra open space in the foreground or to the sides makes it possible to move your subject around in your composition, enlarging your compositional opportunities (pun intended).

I might add that it is very easy and cheap to precisely compose 6x4.5cm images either horizontally or vertically in a 6x6cm camera. All you really need is a piece of clear plastic, scissors, and a ruler. Simply cut the clear plastic to fit under your SLR prism or viewfinder on top of the screen. Now use the ruler and sharp edge to scribe a centered rectangle corresponding to both the horizontal and vertical 6x4.5cm formats. I also add rule of thirds lines both as a compositional aid and for aligning lines. Later, you can easily crop out the 6x4.5cm images you composed, either horizontally or vertically, using your enlarger (or a slide film cutter for slides).

If your 6x6cm image composition is a bit off-center, you have enough extra space to either side of these 6x4.5cm inscribed boxes to fix the problem. If you made the same off-set error to either side in a 6x4.5cm image (in a vertical portrait composition, say), you might not be able to use that image at all (e.g., part of arm cut off). While you might not do this very often using a tripod, it is pretty easy to do with handheld shooting, especially when trying to crop closely in the 6x4.5cm camera. By contrast, a 6x6cm user can shoot now, and crop more precisely later. If you are shooting a fast moving event like a riot or a wedding, this flexibility can be very useful too.

Open Space and Photo Sales

The tendency in 6x4.5cm camera users is to crop in the camera, rather than in the enlarger as with 6x6cm users. Most 6x4.5cm shooters will proclaim this approach as a virtue of their format. They can crop in camera and simply have the lab make prints with minimal cropping directions.

Square format photographers often have to interact with the lab, to indicate the desired layout and cropping of the final print. Most labs expect such cropping directions from square format users as a matter of course. Personally, I see this interactive fine tuning as leading to an improved image or print. Thanks to this interaction, the print should turn out more the way I want it to look, rather than what the lab's printer thinks I might like.

You can't convert a horizontal 6x4.5cm shot into a vertical one without losing a lot of film area and quality. But in a 6x6cm square shot, you can change from vertical to horizontal cropping formats at will. So an art director may later decide to recrop an image so the magazine cover or advertisement uses more of that "open space" than many 6x4.5cm shooters would have allowed with their closer in-camera cropping approach.

Many 6x6cm shooters learn to allow for horizontal or vertical cropping. Their square 6x6cm photos also have more "open space" around the subject. In other words, when I am shooting 6x4.5cm shots, I tend to make the subject fill the frame, as with a full-length portrait. But with 6x6cm shots, I might make the same shot with a smaller subject size (e.g., from farther away). Naturally, I am relying on the enlargeability of medium format to enable me to make high quality enlargements even if the on-film image is a bit smaller than full-frame. But this style of shooting has major advantages for cropping after the shot by allowing space for shifting composition and placing advertising copy and logos over the image.

A related issue is that you can't always anticipate how an image will be used or sized. Maybe the photo will end up as an 8x10 inch portrait, but maybe it will be a cover on Shutterbug, or even Time magazine. In fact, you would naturally like the shot to sell and resell to different markets. Here again, having more open space helps, since it may allow some subtle changes in composition.

The table below shows some popular U.S. printing paper sizes, which vary in ratio from 0.6:1 (3x5") to 0.8:1 (8x10"). Depending on the final print size, some cropping may happen even with your "ideal" 6x4.5cm images (0.75:1 ratio). The Europeans also use different rectangular paper sizes and formats too. Many photos used in newspaper or catalog ads will have to fit oddly sized boxes on the page too. So close cropping in the camera by 6x4.5cm users may limit some potential sales that a more open or larger negative size may have made possible.

In fact, many photographers use a simple trick to improve their final photographs. They take a pair of L-shaped white cardboard pieces and create rectangles (or squares) on the test print or enlarger. The cardboard box created by the two L shapes can be sized into rectangles or squares as large as needed to isolate the desired compositional elements.

I find that there are many "hidden" compositions in my negatives (or slides) which could be extracted by such after the shot cropping. In fact, this cardboard L tool setup is a useful composition learning technique to experiment with photographs, not just your own but those printed or published in photobooks. See if you can "extract" different or even better photos (to you) or more interesting compositions. This approach is an essential skill for any photographer, but is especially handy for most 6x6cm square format users. Practice makes perfect!

Again, I am not saying 6x4.5cm shooters can't make similar photos. Rather, I am suggesting that there is a greater tendency with 6x4.5cm to try and see the final image in the viewfinder as it will appear as an 8x10 or 11x14 inch print. That's the crop in camera approach.

This "crop in camera" approach is very common among photographers who come into medium format from a start shooting 35mm (especially slides). To most 35mm photographers, film area is seen as a limited and precious commodity to be used to the fullest. Many newbies to medium format also naturally gravitate to the 6x4.5cm cameras because their smaller size, automation and electronic features, and especially rectangular format seem comfortably closer to 35mm than the square format 6x6cm cameras. But growing as a photographer involves meeting challenges, including that of effectively using the benefits of square format cameras.

Square Composition

This observation is the exact opposite of the conventional net-wisdom on 6x4.5cm cameras yielding exactly the same result as 6x6cm cameras, just with a smaller, lighter, cheaper camera system. The 6x6cm camera can exactly duplicate the 6x4.5cm camera results. But the 6x4.5cm user can't equal the range of (shifted) compositions or format versatility (rectangular, square, circular) of the 6x6cm camera. Yes, you can crop a square out of a 6x4.5cm image, but doing so will result in much smaller area and image quality losses compared to the much larger native 6x6cm square image.

If you do elect to shoot a square composition on a 6x4.5cm camera, you are likely to end up with a 4x4cm superslide. Such a slide has about half the area of a 6x6cm square slide. So in this case, you gain about double the image quality and enlargeability by using the 6x6cm instead of the 6x4.5cm camera to make square compositions.

Unfortunately, so many photographers learn photography using 35mm cameras with 24mm x 36mm rectangles that it can be a major challenge to learn to "think square". The easy way to start is to look at great photographers of the past, many of whom used square format twin lens reflex cameras (such as Rolleiflex TLRs) and SLRs (such as Hasselblads). Seeing photo after photo which makes artistic and effective use of the square format is a quick way to learn the benefits of square composition.

Developing an eye and facility with square composition takes some growth and learning as a photographer. Unfortunately, far too many photographers are unwilling to make the effort or perhaps unable to learn to think more creatively. In a sense, I see 6x6cm square format as a more flexible tool that incorporates 6x4.5cm capabilities but extends and adds to them. Not only can the 6x6cm user learn to shoot rectangles, and put them where he or she needs and wants them, but they can also shoot square compositions effectively and more naturally too. So the common argument that you might as well shoot 6x4.5cm since that is what you end up with from 6x6cm rings hollow to me.

On the other hand, I doubt many 6x4.5 or rectangular format only shooters see or shoot as many square format compositions as 6x6cm users do. I shoot a lot of closeup subjects, and I often find the main subjects end up centered (if only for limited depth of field and light falloff considerations). In recently re-reading Leif Ericksenn's medium format photography guidebook, I was struck by his comment that putting the subject in the center is a powerful way to ensure that it fully captures the viewer's attention. Much as I like Leonardo da Vinci's Rule of Thirds, there are times when I know I have to break the rule of thirds to make the picture interesting. A subject in the middle of a square seems a more natural and more centered image than a subject in the middle of an elongated rectangle. So I find many subjects that fit square compositions in nature and the man-made world, making that option of 6x6cm cameras very valuable to me.

I also find I am more comfortable with shooting fisheye shots on medium format than I am on 35mm. There are many naturally circular compositions in nature and human artifacts (such as the classic car spoked tires I shot last weekend). These compositions are also most natural within a square format rather than a rectangle. The fisheye photo on the top of this page is an example of a composition that fits most naturally in a square rather than rectangular format.

One useful source for me in learning square format was the series of free information booklets on square format topics put out by Hasselblad, along with their Hasselblad Forum magazine. I also highly recommend attending one of their Hasselblad University programs in your area. If nothing else, you will likely be stunned by the many square format compositions and the tremendous impact of such high quality 6x6cm slides when projected by a high quality projector. I sure was!

Shooting Diamonds

This longer axis can be very, very handy for shooting tall buildings where you can't back up far enough to get the building fully in the image. Later, you can crop the building itself out of the diamond. Among other benefits, you can avoid tilting the camera in many cases, or minimize the amount of convergence by using the (40%+) longer diagonal approach.

Naturaly, there are some subjects that work quite well in a diagonal, and can probably be displayed in a frame on such a diagonal too. Because such diagonal photographs are unusual and novel, viewers stop and look at them more closely than the run of the mill formats.

You can also sneak a diagonal shot into the last third of your slide presentations, where some viewers may be starting to get tired. It can really wake some folks up. Many viewers will turn their heads and get more involved by taking this extra bit of physical effort. But don't over-do it!

Unfortunately, rectangular camera formats aren't quite as useful for shooting diamond or diagonal shots. In part, the longer axis isn't that much longer than the longest side of most rectangles. The asymmetry of even 6x7cm rectangles when tilted into a diamond-like image is often distracting, at least compared to a symmetrical diamond pattern (square). In other words, you will probably get the most mileage out of shooting diamond shots on the diagonals of square format cameras versus rectangular formats.

Circular Formats within Squares

Roger Hicks has also designed a custom 4x5" camera around a 4x5" film holder and low cost ($200) 30mm Arsat fisheye for 6x6cm Kiev-88 cameras. Naturally, the fisheye projects a circular fisheye image circa 85+mm in diameter on the 4x5" film. Such circular images naturally work best in a square format when printed or displayed.

A final point on circular fisheye options is that you can use inexpensive fisheye adapters with your regular medium format camera's normal lens(es). While you might not expect a $50-100 US adapter to compete with a prime fisheye lens, you might be surprised how well they perform. Naturally, a square format camera will take best advantage of the circular image, compared to a rectangular format camera.

Format Surprises

Film Format X (mm) Y (mm) Ratio 6x4.5 41.5 56 0.741 6x6 56 56 1.000 6x7 56 69.8 0.802 6x8 56 75 0.747 6x9 56 82-84 0.67-0.68 6x10 56 92 0.61 35mm 24 36 0.667

U.S. Printing Paper Sizes X Y Ratio 3 5 0.600 4 6 0.667 5 7 0.714 8 10 0.800 11 14 0.786 16 20 0.800 24 30 0.800 30 40 0.750

Format Ratio to 35mm 35mm 1X 6x4.5 2.7X 6x6 3.6X 6x7 4.5X

What's going on here? The actual film sizes are way off, but notice how the ratios match up? Since we usually enlarge anyway, the ratios are more important than the actual film sizes. [Thanks to John Sparks for posting this point plus some of the above data].

Film Economy vs. Cost of Backs

The main reason for having a medium format system SLR like my Bronica S2/EC, Kowa 6/66, or Hasselblad 500c is the benefit of interchangeable backs. With an interchangeable back, you can have a back with print film, another with color slide film, and another with black and white film all loaded and ready to shoot. Are you are a fan of black and white photography and zone shooting? With interchangeable backs, you can easily bracket your shots with three backs, as Ansel Adams reported did with his Hasselblads. Some of us like to shoot really important once-in-a-lifetime travel shots on different backs. That way, we have two rolls of film with these critical shots and not just one. This approach is just a form of backup and cheap insurance that can pay big dividends when (not if) the lab or your gear messes up.

The real problem here is that 6x4.5cm backs for 6x6cm cameras are relatively scarce and expensive, even or especially when bought used. For my used medium format gear, the premium is often substantial. For a Kowa 6/66 SLR the 16/32 shot backs run circa $325, while the 12/24 backs average dealer price was $183, with some selling under $100. The used Bronica S2/EC 16/32 backs run around $300, while the 12/24 backs average circa $150, and some can be found for under $100. Similarly, 6x4.5cm backs for 6x6cm cameras are scarcer, with ten Kowa 12/24 backs or five Bronica 12/24 backs offered for sale for every 16/32 back. For the Kowa 16/32 back, only one back was offered for sale by a dozen and a half used Kowa 6/66 dealers - now that's scarce!

How much film do you have to save to make up the $150 to $200 difference in the price of used Kowa or Bronica 16/32 backs versus 12/24 backs? At $3 per 120 roll, you get an extra 4 shots or $1 in film "savings" [note: some 6x4.5cm backs only get 15/30 exposures]. So you need to shoot at least 150 to 200 rolls in your 6x4.5cm back just to break even, right? Granted, I am ignoring the benefits of having more shots loaded (16 versus 12, or 32 versus 24). But then, I could afford two 12/24 backs for the price of one 16/32 back. Not only would I have more shots loaded, but I could have different film types too.

The situation with new 16/32 exposure backs is even worse. How many rolls of 120 film do you have to shoot to justify a $835 16 exposure back for a Hasselblad? Or rolls of 220 film with the $917 B&H; discount price for a 32 exposure Hasselblad back? You would have to shoot about a thousand rolls of 120 film to breakeven on the "film savings" from buying a 16 exposure back. Most amateur photographers don't shoot enough film to see any major savings from such 16 or 32 exposure film back purchases.

A related point is that with some 6x6cm models, you don't have the luxury of using both 120 and 220 film in the same 16/32 exposure back. You would have to buy both a 16 exposure back (to have access to 120 only emulsions) and a 32 exposure back for the larger number of loaded exposures offered by a 220 rollfilm back. Phew! You can quickly understand why cropping 6x6cm film looks like such an attractive alternative.

A number of economy models of 6x4.5cm system cameras use film inserts only. This approach means you don't have the benefits of interchangeable backs, and you can't use a polaroid back on these models either. Lack of a polaroid back can be a real problem for many types of professional photography, where test shots are mandatory. Most of the 6x6cm system cameras have such options as polaroid backs, and even such economy models as the Bronica SQ-Basic SLR features interchangeable 6x6cm backs.

Why Turning 6x6cm into 6x4.5cm Is Problematic

Now you add a 16/32 back. Which film do you put into it? See the problem here? Do you duplicate your 12/24 backs with 16/32 backs having the same films, to get the same flexibility? Do you have one 16/32 back, and find yourself shooting shots to finish off a roll so you could load the faster film you really need into the 16/32 back? What happens to your film "savings" and economy then? How about the extra weight and cost of carrying 1 or 2 16/32 backs along with your 12/24 backs, which have the same film emulsions loaded? What did you leave behind so you could carry more backs with the same films loaded to "save on film costs"?

My final point against the supposed "savings" from the film economy of 16/32 backs versus 12/24 is the most important one. Just how many photos do you have to "save" thanks to that extra 6x6cm film area and "open space" to far outweigh the economy of a few extra shots per roll? If you could save just one great shot a day, wouldn't it be worth a dollar or two in "wasted" film due to using 6x6cm instead of 6x4.5cm backs?

Slides

But virtually all medium format slide projectors are 6x6cm models for obvious reasons. So even if you only had a 6x4.5cm camera, you would be using a 6x6cm slide projector. With a 6x6cm camera, you can have a mix of 6x6cm and 6x4.5cm horizontal or vertical composition shots (among others). I can vouch for the fact that this change of pace in formats enhances the interest and attention of your audience.

But most lecture halls, corporate seminar rooms, and visitor facilities don't have medium format slide projectors. So either you bring your own, which is costly, inconvenient, and bulky, or you use their 35mm slide projectors. If you are doing that, some cynics might suggest that you might as well be shooting 35mm, right?

Superslides - 4x4cm Square

On the other hand, I can take any of my full-size 6x6cm square slides and duplicate them as 4x4cm slides without changing the composition. Now I can use them in 35mm slide projectors to promote my scuba diving classes and trips and so on. Again, I can vouch for the effectiveness of these square format superslides, especially when mixed in with regular 35mm horizontal and vertical composition slides. But if you are going to use superslides, they will obviously work best if you compose for a square format.

While you may not be planning on doing many slide shows, you might be planning on selling more than a few photos to help pay off all your new photo-equipment. If so, you will probably find many photo buyers prefer medium format over 35mm, and the larger, the better. The trend seems to be going upwards from 6x4.5cm and even 6x6cm to 6x7cm, 6x9cm, and 6x17cm panoramics.

Camera Flipping

But on most 6x4.5cm SLRs, you don't have a rotating back. So you have to rotate the camera, usually by shifting your ball head or flipping a pan-head camera platform up through a 90 degree movement. But now you have another problem. You have to twist around to look through the prism viewfinder. Many prism viewfinder designs for rectangular format cameras incorporate a feature that lets you rotate the prism to a more convenient position for these flipped camera shots. I suspect this feature explains why so many 6x4.5cm camera buyers immediately replace the waist level finder with such expensive prisms for more convenient handling and faster shooting.

Camera Size Factors

One of the big advantages of a 6x4.5cm camera over a 6x6cm camera would seem to be smaller size and weight. But since the film is the same size vertically, the 6x4.5cm camera bodies, backs and lenses are surprisingly close in size to the 6x6cm models. Now configure the 6x4.5cm cameras with their prisms, motor winders, grips, and other standard kit setups. The pentax 645N body weighs in at 43 ounces, while the Bronica SQAI body is 53 ounces. So the weight differences between a 6x4.5cm and 6x6cm configured for use may only be a pound or so. I was surprised to discover that my Hasselblad 500c with waist level finder (and no batteries) weighed less than many of the popular 6x4.5cm cameras with prisms and winders, and was nearly as compact and easier to pack.

The major benefit of many current 6x4.5cm models is a higher degree of automation, especially autofocus features, than today's 6x6cm millenium models. Unfortunately, autofocus is not without its problems and compromises. Autoexposure medium format cameras go back to the 6x6cm Bronica ECTL of 25 years ago. Many 6x6cm models have advanced metering options. Many medium format users prefer handheld meters capable of reflected and incident (ambient) light and flash metering anyway. Sales of non-autofocus 6x4.5cm models is still reportedly considerably higher (like 10 fold) than the more costly and feature rich autofocus models.

Cost Surprises

My point here is that the overall system cost for a 6x4.5cm system may not be as much less than the cost of some 6x6cm or 6x7cm systems than you might hope.

Enlargeability and Viewability

But I think the more significant issue is viewability. When you look at a large 6x6cm negative, it has more impact than a smaller 6x4.5cm negative. This difference can have major benefits when comparing images for purchase. Since I believe this holds for larger medium formats as well, I also shoot 6x7cm and now panoramics as well.

See Mamiya's Why Size Counts for an impact assessment of your own. Even though the 6x4.5cm image is the same height as the 6x6cm portrait, the impact of the 6x6cm image is much greater. And it is almost hard to believe that the 6x7cm image is only 25% larger than 6x6cm (69.8mm vs. 56mm axis is 25%).

Square fits 8x10" Contact Sheets

Slide Projectors, Slide Loupes, Slide Viewers - mostly Square...

There are relatively few medium format 6x7cm slide projectors on the used market, and only a few available new. The Mamiya Cabin 6x7cm slide projector is totally mechanical, one slide at a time hand fed system, which is often recommended over more pricey European competitors. But while available for circa $400 US in some overseas markets (e.g., Hong Kong), the USA imported version is nearly $1,000 US more! (see Grey Market Buying Guide on saving 40-60% buying overseas and grey market goods).

Our slide loupes pages suggest some of the common options in modest cost slide loupes. In general, medium format slide loupes are designed for square medium format slides. Slide loupes for larger formats are often specialty order items.

Slide viewers are similar. Thanks to the long period of popularity of square 6x6cm slides in the past, you can often buy bakelite (e.g., Ansco) or metal (e.g., Brumberger) slide viewers with sunlight or 110 volt A/C line powered lighting systems. These used units are quite inexpensive, and enable you to enjoy or share your medium format slide experiences with other viewers without dragging a projector around.

Mechanical 6x6cm versus Electrical 6x4.5cm

Another side effect of the newer designs of 6x4.5cm cameras is the greater use of plastics and electronics. The plastics are lighter, and the smaller size of the camera bodies and internal elements (like winding gears..) makes them less robust than the heavier metal mechanical 6x6cm cameras [see Danny Gonzalez's points on 645 disadvantages..]. Be aware that many of the earlier models of current cameras beyond 7 or 10 years old are no longer supported for parts (e.g., Bronica ETR, SQ-A - see notes). So while the prices of both 6x6cm and 6x4.5cm older models may be attractive, be sure to check into repair situations.

The custom and proprietary integrated circuit chips used in electronically dependent cameras may not be available after the 7 to 10 year support period. Some components like LCD panels have potentially limited lives as well. If you invest in today's heavily automated autofocus 6x4.5cm SLRs, you may find it harder to get repairs in the future when those proprietary chips and custom electronic parts become unavailable.

Mount Conversions

For example, a $150-200 US adapter can be used with the Zeiss (Jena) and Schneider optics for the 6x6cm Pentacon 6/Kiev-60 cameras. Even if you didn't have a 6x6cm Kiev-60 or the pentacon-6 mount version of the Kiev-88, such an adapter could open up a range of low cost and high quality lenses for your Mamiya 645 system.

But if you do elect to buy such an adapter and lenses, then the "extra" cost for a new Kiev-60 6x6cm camera with TTL metering and 80mm f/2.8 lens is only about $200-$250 US, depending on model (MLU). The interchangeable back Kiev-88 cameras using the same P-6 lens mount are only about a hundred dollars more too (with 80mm lens).

The 6x4.5cm SLRs of the current model series began in the mid-1970s (Bronica ETR, Mamiya 645, Pentax 645..). Be aware of the repair issues cited above for 6x4.5cm SLR camera models over 10 years old and out of parts support period. You can buy new and in-warranty 6x6cm East European SLRs for less money than older current 6x4.5cm SLR systems. See Danny Gonzalez's camera reviews for more details on pros and cons of each format and model purchase.

Counterpoint

Probably the most significant difference between the two systems optically is that the smaller 6x4.5cm lenses makes it easier to make faster, larger aperture lenses. Mamiya's 80mm f/1.9 normal lens for their 6x4.5cm models is the fastest production lens in medium format. But Hasselblad has a similar 110mm f/2 lens in their lineup (for 6x6cm focal plane bodies), albeit at higher cost.

Similarly, telephoto lenses for 6x4.5cm are physically shorter, and most lenses are slightly smaller and lighter than their 6x6cm equivalent. This fact arises out of the slightly smaller coverage demanded of a 6x4.5cm frame, whose diagonal is smaller than a 6x6cm camera by about 10%.

So if you plan on doing telephoto, available light, or remote backpacking trip shooting, the 6x4.5cm cameras may have a modest advantage over 6x6cm models worth noting. Again, Danny Gonzalez reviews some of these 6x4.5cm advantages in his camera review pages.

Conclusions

The major advantage of a 6x6cm camera over a 6x4.5cm is the ability to crop the image anywhere in the square 6x6cm image. This extra feature makes the 6x6cm camera act as if it were a 6x4.5cm camera with shift lenses.

The 6x6cm camera is also potentially faster in use (e.g., wedding photographers, photojournalism). There is no need to rotate the camera to select horizontal or vertical formats. You just compose in the viewfinder and shoot away, without having to flip the 6x6cm camera thanks to its square format.

The psychology of use of a square composition camera implies cropping will likely take place after the shot during the print making stage. By contrast, the psychology of most 6x4.5cm rectangular format users is to crop in the camera, and thereby precisely defining the final print at the moment of exposure.

I suggest that the square format approach encourages using the greater 6x6cm film area as "open space" which is useful in refining the composition. Square format users are also more likely to "discover" alternative horizontal or vertical compositions within their square images than rectangular shooters who have previsualized and cropped in the camera. Art directors and photo buyers also have enhanced possibilities when a composition and format have more "open space" for them to exploit. The larger 6x6cm image has greater impact and viewability than the 6x4.5cm image too.

An unexpected observation is that the smaller 6x4.5cm cameras end up being surprisingly large, heavy, and bulky by the time you add in motor drives, grips, flashes, and related accessories. While larger format rectangular cameras often use revolving backs (RB67, 4x5 inch LF), the 6x4.5cm camera user usually has to switch around the viewfinder or prism when switching from horizontal to vertical formats. Unfortunately, the 6x4.5cm cameras are often surprisingly close in price to their larger 6x6cm brethren by the time you add in a set of lenses, prisms, motor winder/drive, and so on.

Another surprise may be the relatively high cost and low utility of converting a 6x6cm camera into a 6x4.5cm camera by using 16 or 32 exposure backs. While you can do so, the supposed economies from "film savings" are probably illusionary for most modest volume amateur users.

Finally, I suspect that the use of square format cameras opens up a new area of creativity for the photographer. The transition to square format isn't easy, but it is a growing and learning experience. Your awareness of compositional issues and possibilities expands. Some fun and exciting compositional challenges are encountered in shooting squares. The transition to exploiting naturally occurring circular elements in both man-made and natural settings is very easy if you can see in squares as well as rectangles.

In the end, the 6x6cm camera offers some subtle but valuable benefits over the 6x4.5cm camera. Some of these benefits are described in the article above. But the key point is that shooting square format helps you grow as a photographer, enhances your vision, and provides you with new mental tools and approaches to image making. Just like a photographer needs to have experience in not just 35mm but also medium format and large format photography to be all the photographer he or she can be, they also have to shoot not just rectangles but also squares and circles and panoramics too....

Related Postings:

Leon Droby wrote:

> I'm currently a 35mm user but I'm ready to make the move to medium
> format.
>
> My question is will there be a noticable difference between the prints
> made with a 645 vs. 6x6 negative?
>
> I'm looking to get primarily into black and white zone system prints
> anywhere from 11x14 to 20x24 in size.
>
> The largest my enlarger will work with is 6x6 so I'm not considering
> the  6x7 format.
>
> Thanks in advance,
> Leon Droby

Hi, Leon--

You're likely to get a lot of responses. The format question can be something of a holy war among photo enthusiasts. There are two things to consider:

1. Proportions. The 645 is roughly the same proportion as 8x10/11x14/20x24 printing paper, so you get to shoot full frame and print without cropping a lot of negative. If that's what you want to do, then there is *no* quality difference between a 6x6 and a 6x45 negative -- you will be cropping the 6x6 down to 6x45 proportions anyway.

Note that many people consider this a prime advantage of the 6x6 format -- you can make the horizontal/vertical cropping decision in the darkroom rather than when shooting.

Also note that many people really like the square format image, and print square photos on rectangular photo paper.

2. Handling. The 6x45 normally needs a prism finder so you can shoot verticals. This makes it very similar to shooting 35mm -- you hold the camera up to your eye to compose and shoot. The 6x6 can be used with a waist-level finder (since you don't have to turn the camera -- there are no verticals in a square world). Many people, me included, like the way a 6x6 camera handles. I use a Bronica with a speed grip that handles very well for shooting people.

So the answer to your question is No, There is no quality difference in printing a 6x45 versus a 6x6 negative. But there are a *lot* of differences between the two formats, and the best way to make your decision is to handle them both and see how they feel. It's often possible to rent medium format equipment so you can do this.

Good luck.

Ken

Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000
From: RD Munger munger@fnal.gov
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: 645 vs. 66

.....

Hi Leon. I've switched from shooting 6x6 to a 6x4.5 and love every minute of it! It's the best thing I ever did, well mostly.. :)

I've never adjusted to the square image. My mind's eye does not see squares at all. In my opinion, very little fits a square without wasting a lot of area.

The benefits of the 645 are many. Most manufactures have at least two zoom lenses, a wide-to-normal, and a normal-tele. The lenses usually cost less. They can be more compact with a prism than a 6x6. The view though the viewfinder is very similar to a 35mm. They can have advanced features such as convient memory locks in the grip, integrated drives, and more.

And that wonderful, rectangular, "ideal" format size image. Also, 15/16 exposures per roll vs 12.

And all of the manufactures have excellent models to choose from. Also the negatives will fit that 6x6 enlarger of yours.

No contest here.... go 645!

Dan

Date: 28 Mar 2000
From: =David:M= dmcs@cyburban.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: 645 vs. 66

....

I totally agree.

There are only 2 reasons I can see why anyone would use a 6x6 camera:

(1) You want square pictures. Since there is no square format enlarging paper made, this must be a very very small minority.

(2) You want to crop at the enlarging phase rather than the composition phase. This makes absolutely no sense (to me) whatsoever, since its just as easier to do it when taking the picture.

Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000
From: LoveThePenguin dpcwilbur@my-deja.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: 645 vs. 66

While I'm a 645 user and thoroughly enjoy my Fuji GA645, the idea of cropping in the finder is not always practical. If you're shooting creative material, or for an agency, it's often wise to give the more image than they request. Cropping is then done digitally in preparation of the ad material.

But, yes, 645 is easier and better when it comes to making standard-format prints.

Date: 28 Mar 2000
From: bhilton665@aol.com (BHilton665)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: 645 vs. 66

....

I'm also a 645 fan (Pentax 645 with 7 lenses) but would point out one other 6x6 advantage that wedding photogs like ... since you crop later you can shoot on-camera (or slightly off-camera) flash for horizontals or verticals without having to tilt the camera 90 degrees, which is awkward with a heavy flash

Date: 28 Mar 2000
From: John Sparks sparks@sparks.col.hp.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: 645 vs. 66

....

I've owned 645, 6x7 and most recently a 6x6 camera. I have found it somewhat harder to compose rectangular photographs with a square format camera, but I happen to like square. Of these cameras, my least favorite was the 645 and the only one I no longer own.

645 cameras require a more complicated flash bracket if you are trying to keep the flash above the camera and time to adjust the bracket as you switch from horizontal to vertical. Also, most wedding albums have 10x10 pages to allow both horizontal and vertical croppings and a square print filling the page and usually the customer is willing to pay more for these larger prints (color labs mostly print on roll paper than can be used square as easily as rectangular).

Another advantage of square is that it's like having a slight shift built into every lens. You don't have to crop the middle of the negative, you can compose and print just the top part for a small rise to keep those building sides vertical (6x7 or 6x9 are even more useful here).

Square also makes a waist level finder usable. I never liked using a waist level finder until I tried one with a bright modern focusing screen. When I'm not trying to photograph a moving subject (though I'm even getting used to that), I find the ground glass screen is much easier to compose on than looking through a viewfinder where I tend to ignore the edges of the frame. A 6x6 camera with a waist level finder can be smaller and lighter weight than a 6x45 camera with a prism.

John Sparks

Date: 29 Mar 2000
From: noidiots@getreal.com (Doofus Alert)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: 645 vs. 66

dmcs@cyburban.com says...

>(1) You want square pictures. Since there is no square format enlarging
>paper made, this must be a very very small minority.

Say what ? I get 5x5's, 8x8's and 10x10's from my lab every day. What rock are you living under ?

>(2) You want to crop at the enlarging phase rather than the composition
>phase. This makes absolutely no sense (to me) whatsoever, since its just
>as easier to do it when taking the picture.

It makes a lot of sense. Every try using a 645 on a tripod ? No thanks, I don't need that much aggravation. Further, I like being able to get both a horizontal crop, and a vertical crop out of the same negative. I might see something in the dark room I over looked the first time. I suppose thats why so many portrait and wedding photographers shoot 6x6. A lot of them shoot 645, and 6x7 as well. Point is, they're all viable formats. Don't dismiss 6x6 as useless just because you're stuck in a rectangle.

Free your mind :)

Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000
From: "Glenn Stewart (Arizona)" gstewart@inficad.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: 645 vs. 66

Over the last several days, =David:M= has written:

> There are only 2 reasons I can see why anyone would use a 6x6 camera:
> (1) You want square pictures. Since there is no square format enlarging
> paper made, this must be a very very small minority.
> (2) You want to crop at the enlarging phase rather than the composition
> phase. This makes absolutely no sense (to me) whatsoever, since its just
> as easier to do it when taking the picture.

and in response to someone else who wrote:

> One can attain the same rectangular prints from a cropped 6x6 negative.

he responded:

> Not without losing negative. So why shoot 6x6 in the first place?
> By the way you can crop 6x4.5 square is you are inclined!
> Where do you get your square enlarging paper, may I ask?

Wow, David. You sure take viewfinder shape and a little bit of excess negative area seriously. Maybe a bit too seriously.

It's not that big a deal, unless you have a hard time envisioning a rectangular shape within a square. People who shoot with square format cameras typically envision what they will present as the final print when they decide to take a photo. This may be a vertical rectangle, a horizontal rectangle or a square. They then position the camera to capture that shape within the square viewfinder. They actually see the final print as they compose. Everything else around the outside of that vision is mentally blocked out. They are composing the rectangle on a square viewfinder before shooting, not composing while enlarging, as you suggest.

This is apparently the opposite of the way you work. It seems, from your writing, that one should choose a viewfinder shape that fits the way they see the world, then only take photos that absolutely stuff that viewfinder shape to the gills. I see that means of working to be terribly confining. It also would require several different cameras if you wanted to shoot the 35mm or 6x9cm aspect ratio (2:3), the 6x4.5 and 6x7cm, 4x5 and 8x10in aspect ratio (2:2.5) or a square (1:1) aspect ratio. In your mind, each print shape requires a different viewfinder shape.

The square prints someone else mentioned can be obtained in two ways. The first is by using rolls of paper in an automated printer. The width is fixed, the paper is simply cut to length as required. A 10x10 inch print is made from a 10 inch wide roll of paper. As each square print is exposed onto it and processed, it is cut to the 10 inch length that results in a square print. The second method is printing the square composition onto a rectangular piece of print paper, then cutting off the excess. You may see this as wasteful, but if you think about it, other art forms can be a lot more wasteful.

Some people choose the square format because of either the variety of equipment available, or the economy of some equipment. A Mamiya C-series TLR has almost as broad a selection of interchangeable lenses as the currently available 6x4.5 format SLR's and will produce equally good photos. Its biggest advantage is its price. The Rollei, Minolta Autocord and Yashica Mat-124 cameras are lightweight, inexpensive and reliable, and they have excellent optics. Even cheaper, the millions of square format box cameras that have been sold over the years. I remember seeing a national photo contest winning shot that was taken with one of these back in the 60's. I don't remember what format the final photo was presented in, but it doesn't matter. The composition of the print that was presented won the contest, not the viewfinder or negative shape. Then on the high priced end of the square format spectrum there's the Hassleblad. Some say the lenses are without equal. NASA sent several of them to the moon (maybe format choice IS rocket science).

Composing a rectangle within a square viewfinder isn't that difficult. And if you're concerned about 'wasting' 3/4 of a cm of neg each side of your composition when cropping from 6x6 to 6x4.5, you probably can't afford medium format anyway. Would it be wrong of me to compose a panoramic scene onto the 6x7 format I use, then cut away most of the print and cover the rest with matte board before presenting a print that ends up being 9 inches wide and 20 inches long? Would it likewise be wrong of me to compose a square photo onto that same 6x7 neg, losing 1/2 cm of neg area on each end as I make the print? As I see things, if the final print presentation works, the means of getting there is of little consequence.

Best regards,

Stew
--
Photo Web pages: http://www.inficad.com/~gstewart

Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000
From: LoveThePenguin dpcwilbur@my-deja.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: 645 vs. 66

Well, I agree mostly.

The cost of film is a rather marginal item.

The square as I've also stated is more versatile.

BUT

I use a Fuji GA645. The vertical format covers my work 99% of the time. When I need horizontal, I rotate. When framing with a 6x6 it is a major change for the mindset of many to think 645 and look 6x6. I got rid of my SQ-B last fall for that reason. Great lenses, but difficult-for-me format. Sometimes the versatility does get in the way of the ability to get the job done.

BTW, Zeiss, while on top in the past, has been equalled these days by Mamiya. The 66 and 67 rangefinders currently have the best lenses in combined resoultion and contrast.

Date: 29 Mar 2000
From: lbhistand@aol.com (LBHistand)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: 645 vs. 66

Leon,

One advantage of the 6X6 is that if you shoot horizontal landscapes which include buildings or other vertical elements, you can often compose your photo in the top 3/4 of the frame with the intention of cropping off the bottom of the frame during printing. This will often allow you to hold the camera level solving the problem of converging verticals.

Len

Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000
From: nospam@mindspring.com (MPS)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: 645 vs. 66

I'm a very new medium format user, so perhaps my comments should be taken in that light, but I'll tell you why I went with 6x6 for both of the medium format cameras that I wound up with.

*Impact*-- Everybody does rectangles. Be different. I saw an exhibit of B&W; landscape prints that were all fairly good to very good, but what everybody talked about over wine at the end was "those weird square ones". Square prints can have an impact simply because folks aren't used to that form. Likewise, some folks simply hate squares. Period.

Relative Cost-- I found several TLR 6x6 cameras far cheaper than even entry level 645 systems, but what really underscored it was finding 6x6 SLRs as complete one lens systems for substantially less than newer, (and sometimes inferior construction, IMO) 645 cameras from Bronica and Mamiya.

Cropability-- While I don't currently speak darkroom. I will one day, and I'm confident that should I chose to make 645ish rectangles, I can probably figure how to do so from larger, more versitle 6x6 negs. It's not just that you get to make the cropping decision in the darkroom, it's that you could conceivably arrive at 4-5 completely different prints from one neg. Perhaps I bespeak mine own ignorance, but couldn't one play around with print cropping from a variety of standpoints?

Anyway, film is cheap but images can be priceless, so I've never figured out why anybody would want to hamper themselves by not utilizing film to it's widest available limitations. Why crop inside the back?

Ideally, I'd be shooting 6x7, and maybe one day I'll find a nice complete 6x7 system for a ridiculously low price, but in the meantime, 6x6 is keeping me quite happy. ;-)

BTW, I'm very curious what kind of enlarger will print to 20x24 but not handle 6x7. Currently I'm shopping for an enlarger, and am pondering if I want to spring for a full blown 4x5 system 'just in case'. ;-) Frankly, it's not the sizing of the enlarger that stymies me, since I'm pretty sure that expanding horizons upwards sizewise is almost always good for better pics, but rather the myriad of head/brand/lamp choices that simply baffle me.

Anyway, that's one kind of contrarian view on why one guy currently thinks that paying more to get less on film makes little sense. For some reason that sentence puts me in mind of the APS sham, but that's another ng. ;-)

Humbly,

mps

PS- Are there any other hobbies in which 4x5 is bigger than 6x6 or 6x7? Hah!

Date: 29 Mar 2000
From: =David:M= dmcs@cyburban.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: 645 vs. 66

MPS wrote:

> Anyway, film is cheap but images can be priceless, so I've never
> figured out why anybody would want to hamper themselves by not
> utilizing film to it's widest available limitations. Why crop inside
> the back?

I think you're a little confused. If you use 6x6, you have to crop (meaning lose usable negative) to get a rectangular print. If you use 6x4.5 you dont have to crop (or do so much less) to do so. Remember with 6x4.5 you get 15 or 16 exposures compared to 12 with 6x6. So cropping 6x6 you are also losing valuable exposures.

Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000
From: nospam@mindspring.com (MPS)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: 645 vs. 66

....

>6x6 you are also losing valuable exposures.

No offense, but I don't think it is I that is confused on this issue. 6x6 is square and one does _not_ have to assume a rectangular print. (I truly don't know where folks get that erroneous notion.) I thought that I made that clear when I mentioned the reaction that square prints sometimes receive.

mps

Date: 29 Mar 2000
From: ebruce1035@aol.com (EBruce1035)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: 645 vs. 66

change the screen in your 6x6 to a grid and mark it to 8x10 format

Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000
From: dgrabows@capecod.net (David Grabowski)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: What size MF?

Art Reitsch ar7500@olympus.net wrote:

>I shot 35mm slides for several years and have been serious about large
>format black and white prints of late.  I'd like to get a MF outfit for
>ease of use when the big camera is just too much to deal with.  Now I'm
>wondering about size:  645, 6x6, or 6x7?  It seems to my novice
>reasoning that the square format would be best, especially if the
>viewing screen was marked off for both vertical and horizontal
>rectangles.  A negative could even be printed both ways.  Plus the
>camera doesn't have to be thrown onto its side to change framing.  I
>suppose everyone likes what they're used to, but do you have any advice
>for me?  Thanks much.
>Art

Subject matter would be one consideration I suppose. Also consider how much negative you want to utilize . For scenics or family portraits 6x7 comes to the forefront. for multi directional cropping as you have suggested having an interest in square is best suited and 645 would cover about the same area as the cropped 6x6 but the initial crop would be at the camera and you gain a few more exposures on the same roll. If filmarea and gaining all you can from medium format film is what you have in mind, i suggest the 6x7.

I shoot 6x6 myself but I'm just sort of stuck there, I do throw out a lot of negative but I don't know how many time I have shot for a vertical and ended up print horizontal or vice versa, after veiwing the crop, it just worked better in that shot or fit a flyer better or what ever.

I would suggest an inexpesive introduction to medium format with a lesser camera rig but you already shoot large format , so instead you probably have an idea of what the format is about. If you really want that versatility in cropping you will want the 6x6 I think, otherwise unless you need volume of negative(645) or total ease of handling go with the 6x7, it's about as good as medium format gets .

Incidentally 6x6 is not a natural for everyone, you might want to rent or borrow a camera in that format before you buy. Some people just have a very hard time composing in square, it took me a few months back when I first starete in it to get the feel , now rectangles feel odd to me , especially exagerated one like the 35mm. aspect ratio.

Grabowski

Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000
From: "John Stafford" John@Stafford.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: What size MF?

Art Reitsch ar7500@olympus.net wrote:

> I shot 35mm slides for several years and have been serious about large
> format black and white prints of late.  I'd like to get a MF outfit for
> ease of use when the big camera is just too much to deal with.  Now I'm
> wondering about size:  645, 6x6, or 6x7? [...]

Or 6x9, or 6x12? or 6x17? Complicated, isn't it? If you like the ratio of the 35mm format, then you might feel more comfortable with a format of the same ratios. That said, let me say that after thirty years of 35mm work, and having a natural proclivity to a 'horizontal aspect' view of the world and then finally using 6x9 (really more like 6x8) for several years, I have finally come to dearly appreciate the square format today. It is so 'equitable'. :) Of course no particular format is correct.

Date: 29 Mar 2000
From: mel1wood1@aol.com (Mel1wood1)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: 645 vs. 66

John Sparks sparks@sparks.col.hp.com writes:

>I've owned 645, 6x7 and most recently a 6x6 camera.  I have found it
>somewhat harder to compose rectangular photographs with a square format
>camera, but I happen to like square.  Of these cameras, my least
>favorite was the 645 and the only one I no longer own.

Square composition is challenging to say the least. There are times when it's extremely difficult when composing square... one example is photographing a full figure, such as someone standing or in a horizontal position... the problem being that the subject appears lost in the square image, there is so much space to the left and right of the vertical subject with the subject being centered.

As you get closer to the subject, the space around the subject decreases, and this is when the square format excells, a 150mm is excellent with portraiture. One other thing I figured out is that with 6X6 the consideration of an exceptionally strong background is a must! The purchase of an extension tube is also a good idea.

I enjoy the square format, I think if I had it to do again though I would have purchased a 6x7 though... but I hang on to my Hassie...

mel

Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000
From: RHICKEY@webtv.net (Bob Hickey)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: 645 vs. 66

Not to belabor the obvious: but if you were to realize the savings derived from film, from choosing 645 over 6X6, you would need to shoot 2,792 rolls ( B&W;, B&H;, Adorama prices ) to save enough money to buy an AE Prismfinder for a Bronica 645. Every shot perfect of course, no problem there.

Fly in the ointment: people move like crazy, blink too. Mostly they get very annoyed when some photographer is deciding how to frame, or set the flash bracket, or turn the camera.

I guess they just don't understand.

Bob Hickey

Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000
From: John or Jenn lastimp@home.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: 645 vs. 66
Mel1wood1, mel1wood1@aol.com writes:

>     Square composition is challenging to say the least.  There are times when
>it's extremely difficult when composing square... one example is photographing

I found it enlightening...not challenging...a whole new way of looking at things...really got my creative juices flowing... then I gave the loaner 6x6 back and went back to 645 (sigh)

rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
From: "Free-Online" mail@dfellman.free-online.co.uk
Date: Fri Mar 31 2000
[1] Re: 645 vs. 66

I find that some subjects suit the square format (I have a 6x6) but others need to be printed into portrait or landscape, using the equivalent of a 6x4.5 neg. If you shoot square and centre your subject, not too big mind, you have the flexibility of producing either square, portrait or landscape from the same shot!

Have fun

Danny

rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
From: Radimus radimus@my-deja.com
Date: Fri Mar 31 21:39:17 CST 2000
[1] Re: 645 vs. 66

6x6 is certainly easier to get into financially. You can usually find good Yashica TLR's with Yashinon lenses for $100-150 and good used Rolleis for <$400. I have a Yashica D with a Yashinon lens and a YashicaMat EM. Both cameras cost me $180.

I'm a 35mm, APS, and 120 format user. I like 6x6 because of the different look a square print gives. I also like its simplicity. Only one way to hold the camera. Don't have to worry about fancy brackets and such to get a flash re-oriented above the camera because you had to turn the camera vertically.

Rad

Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2000
From: ralf.r@bigfoot.com (Ralf R. Radermacher)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: TLR vs. SLR and converging verticals

Hello all,

here's an aspect of the TLR vs. SLR discussion which I have never seen mentioned here and which I have myself become aware of, only quite recently.

My career in MF began with a Mat 124G. We all know it has a 80 mm lens which is considered roughly equivalent to a 50 mm lens in 35 mm.

From the beginning, I suspected that this equation couldn't be correct. My pictures taken with the Mat showed much stronger converging verticals than anything I had ever taken with a 50 mm lens on a 35 mm SLR. So, my conclusion was that a 80 mm lens for MF had to be much closer to, say, a 40 mm lens than a 50 mm.

Then I got my first MF SLR, a Kiev 60 with a prism finder and, again, a 80 mm lens. Suddenly, my verticals were a lot more parallel. Variation in focal length between the 80 mm lenses of the Mat and the K60? That much? Unlikely. Well, relief was stronger than the desire to investigate and I almost forgot the whole thing.

Until recently, that is, when I began to collect facts, figures and an understanding of the idea behind shift lenses and how they work.

In this context, someone pointed out the relation of camera height (above ground), tilt and converging verticals.

And that's when it struck me. The Mat has a WLF and I only use the K60 with the prism. An estimated 60 or 80 cm of height difference for the taking lens.

Add to this my below-average height (1.65 m) and that because of this I must be tilting my cameras always a little more upwards than a taller person would have to and you have the explanation why I'm much happier with the K60 than I'd ever have been with any TLR and this for a reason which people hardly ever think of.

Oh, and portraits are so much nicer if they don't look as if the lot of them had been taken by a dog... :)))

Cheers,
Ralf

--
Ralf R. Radermacher - DL9KCG - K"ln/Cologne, Germany
Ralf's Cologne Tram Page - www.netcologne.de/~nc-radermra

From Hasselblad Mailing List;
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999
From: Peter Klosky Peter.Klosky@trw.com
Reply to: hasselblad@kelvin.net
Subject: Re: RE: Additions to the line? ( A16V )

As others point out, you can simply put fine line drafting tape (1/64") or marker pen lines on your focus screen for 8x10, 5x7 vertical or horizontal crops, and continue to use normal backs.

Date: Wed Apr 12 09:22:30 CDT 2000
rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
From: flexaret2@aol.com (FLEXARET2)
[1] Re: What size MF?

from: flexaret2@aol.com (Sam Sherman) 4-12-2000

The use of 6x6cm or 4.5x6cm formats is a very subjective matter.

In Japan 4.5x6cm format has been very popular since the 1930s, which is why the Japanese make so many 4.5x6cm cameras.

I and many others in the US prefer the 6x6 format. It is easy to compose portraits and other subjects and crop later. I have used this format for many years and prefer it. I have tried many of the 4.5x6cm cameras and they are hard to hold when turned on their sides for vertical and portrait photos. They are also clumsy to use on tripods for vertical shots. The 4.5x6cm SLR cameras are just revisions of Hasselblad/Bronica style cameras intended for waist level use with square format. When these cameras are turned on their sides for portraits they are plain awkward to use.

Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000
From: LoveThePenguin dpcwilbur@my-deja.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Mamiya C220

Here's a large format hint that's useful for 6x6 shooters:

To straighten out curved lines, as on buildings, LF users shift the lens. It stays parallel to the film plane but slides up, down, right, or left to get the desired effect.

Precisely the same effect is available in other formats by framing to the top, bottom, right, or left of the frame! By doing some experimentation (viewing, you don't have to spend any film) you can see the availability of this capacity. So when you make a print from the neg you then mask the appropriate portion of the neg.

The method is simple. Keep the film plane in the desired relationship to the subject. Then raise, lower, or shift the camera, moving the subject's image to the appropriate portion of the viewing area.

Imagine that. Large format capability from your medium format!

Also, on the C220, make certain that the Single-/Multi-exposure switch on the winder side of the body clicks into place. If it's loose, tape it down. Otherwise your results may be undesirable.

rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
From: Jeff S 4season_WONDERFUL_SPAM@boulder.net
[1] Re: Movements and Medium Format
Date: Sun Apr 16 17:30:49 CDT 2000

R123 wrote:

 I recently visited a local camera shop and learned a bit about an
attachment for Mamiya cameras which gives the photographer the ability to
use different movements, i.e., shifts and tilts.  Great!  The problem is
that it is a $1500 attachment!  Are there other medium format cameras
which have movements?  If so, are they also expensive? 

If you think about it, any 6x6 camera can be thought of as a 6x4.5 with shift capability! Works pretty good in practice too. If you need a lot of camera movements, get a view camera.

--
Jeff
Somewhere in Boulder, Colorado

rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
From: Silver Image Photography silverimage@mediaone.net
[1] Re: Narrowed Down (Was Need help with MF Purchase)
Date: Tue Apr 18 17:53:42 CDT 2000

Why 6x6? Because it is square. Nor horizontal, no vertical. The camera stays in the same position all the time. This is a very valuable asset. I am shooting weddings, with a 645, along side of another photographer, using 6x6 (a TLR at that). Here I am, flipping my camera back and fourth in the bracket and she is just shooting away. I will be going square for next wedding season (can't afford for this season).

I use the Bronica ETRSi, and I love it, and will keep it as my back up. My choice for the 6x6 will be the Bronica. My heart longs for the Rollei 6008, but, it is not in my budget (then again, I have a year). I am new to this group and don't know why your daughter is in so much need of a 6x6, is it for school? Is she a full time photography student? If she is, Bronica has some very attractive deals for full time students, and even if she is not a student, they have some great rebates.

Good Luck,

Timothy Courtemanche

....

From Medium Format Digest:
From: wchang@cshl.org (William Chang in Marr Lab - CSHL)
Date: Tue, 9 Feb 93 13:45:50 EST
Subject: Mamiya Press for Polaroid and Panorama

I'm thinking of getting a used Mamiya Press, as a Polaroid camera and as a 4.5x9 panorama camera. I like the 1:2 aspect ratio for wide angle, and cropping has the same effect as a vertical "shift". Does this make any sense? (The "real thing" 6x12 or 6x9+shift are $$$.) There seems to be many models of the Mamiya Press, 2x3 backs, and Polaroid backs. I'd appreciate any information or tips, on the camera, lenses, and Polaroid film. Thanks in advance,

-- William Chang (wchang@cshl.org)

p.s. cross-posted to rec.photo

From Medium Format Digest:
From: Brian Segal astro@px3.stfx.ca
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1993
Subject: Re: Medium Format Digest Vol 2, No. 15

.....

[editorial note by moderator Hamish Reid:]

[OK, I know I'm going to end up regretting this, but I can't help joining the fray by pointing out that I often use the extra size of the 6x7 format (well, 5.5 x 7) to help correct the perspective problems with buildings shot from street level at the same time as keeping a good negative size. Shooting *vertically*, with the building in the top half (or so) to keep the lines relatively straight and non-convergent, gives me a similar usable negative size as a full-frame 645 (i.e. 5.5 x (say) 4cm) - with reduced perspective distortion, and in a way that doesn't produce as large a neg as with 6x6 (ie. 5.5 x 5.5).... OK, not necessarily terribly compelling, and of probably marginal interest or, indeed, usefullness, but it's one of the advantages of 6x7 as I perceive it. I just don't get the same quality from 645 in this application, and I'm afraid that whilst I rent and use a Hassy fairly regularly, it's far too expensive for me to justify buying. Oh well....

And yes, the Pentax 6x7 is fine vertically - at least on my tripod, a Bogen 3036 with a sturdy 3029 head. Well, at least *I* don't have any trouble...

- HR ]

From: Carey L. Jones careyj@pipeline.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000
Subject: Re: What, exactly, are the virtues of 645?

qnu@worldonline.nl says...

> Carey L. Jones wrote:

[...]

> > Because *all* lenses suffer when used wide open.  Even slow lenses.  A
> > fast lens stopped down a stop or two will be at least as sharp as a
> > slower lens at the same aperture, and the fast lens can be used in low
> > light situations where the slow lens is hopeless.
>
> Not all, and not all the same amount. The Zeiss Sonnar f/5.6 250 mm is an
> example of a lens that will give maximum performance even when used wide
> open.

Granted, it is easier to make a slow lens sharp. The Mamiya 7 lenses immediately come to mind - slow, but *really* sharp. However, the faster a SLR lens is, the easier it is to focus quickly and accurately. This is why so many pros and serious amateurs paid twice as much to get 50mm f/1.4 lenses for their manual focus 35mm cameras.

> > > But just imagine how they would look under your Rodenstock loupe if you
> > > would have used a faster speed, or a tripod.
> >
> > Time and terrain permitting, I do use a tripod.  I keep it in the trunk
> > of my car, so I won't forget and leave it at home.  However, sometimes
> > either time or terrain preclude using a tripod.  Ever tried using a
> > tripod from a moving power boat?  An airplane?  The engine vibration goes
> > right up the tripod legs.  Some museums won't let you use a tripod, and
> > most prohibit flash photography.  There are lots of situations where good
> > hand-holding skills come in handy.  It's a skill worth developing, even
> > if you only use it 5 percent of the time.
>
> A tripod can not be used in all situations, i agree. But if you have to use
> your camera handheld, try using faster shutter speeds.

I do use faster shutter speeds when the light and DOF considerations permit. Sometimes you need to stop down for adequate DOF. Sometimes you just don't have enough light to use the faster speeds, especially if you only have slow lenses. ;-) I'm not claiming that slow speed hand-held shooting is the preferred way to take photographs, just that a photographer can develop the ability do do it when circumstances require.

> > > Mirror damping can not even be considered to be of any importance when
> > > discussing hand-held photography. Mirror induced camera shake is several
> > > orders of magnitude less than photographer induced shake.
> >
> > In 645, I agree.  Although I've heard some horror stories about mirror
> > slap with Pentax 67 cameras that make me wonder about them.  ;-)
>
> I bet those stories are about cameras on tripods. Most people assume that
> the tighter they bolt down their camera and tripod head, the better it is.
> Tightening all controls on a tripod head allows the whole camera-tripod
> setup to resonate as one. Allowing some minimal play will absorb most of the
> vibrations, eliminating camera movement and reducing the effect of mirror
> induced shake. A good quality fluid-head is ideal in this respect.

Could be, but why not use mirror lock-up when shooting from a locked-down tripod?

> > On a good day, I average about 4 hits out of 5 shots.  The air rifle, a 
> > Beeman HW 77, came with a factory test target, fired from 10 meters,
> > which had all three shots touching.  The javelina (wild pig) rimfire
> > metallic sihlouette target is only slightly larger than a pop can, and I
> > usually hit 4-5 out of five at 60 meters with my favorite .22.
>
> So only 80 percent of your handheld photos will justify the use of MF.

Actually my pictures show a good deal better percentage than 80% on the slow speed shots. I don't *always* shoot slow speeds, either. Just when terrain, time, and light/DOF considerations call for them.

> > [...]
>
> > > Well yes, i know the kind of situation. I also know the  disappointment
> with
> > > the final result.
> > > Sometimes a missed shot can be better than a non-optimal shot.
> > > But, i agree, not always ;-)
> >
> > I know what you mean.  Sometimes a technically "perfect" grab shot has a
> > compositional flaw that you didn't notice while you were shooting. :-(
>
> Or even a technical flaw...

But if you don't try, you don't get any shot. 120 film is cheap enough to take the occasional chance.

> > > In my opinion (and perhaps it's only me ;-)) the Hasselblad 200-series
> > > prices are preposterous!
> >
> > I agree.  Of course, most of the newsgroup thinks the Contax prices are
> > preposterous.  ;-)
>
> Since both Hasselblad and Contax prices are preposterous, you should have
> gone for the extra little bit of image size. ;-)

I didn't say I agreed with the group. ;-) And the 200-series Hassy prices (new) run about double what a new Contax 645 costs. B&H; lists the following prices in their magazine ads:

   Hasselblad                      Contax
 202-FA body         $3334    645 AF outfit (includes body, 80mm

 110mm f/2 FE lens    3918      f/2.0 Planar lens, film back
 A-12 magazine         730      w/insert, and AE prism finder) $3999
                     =====                                     =====
 Total               $7982                                     $3999

The Hassy price does not include a motor winder. The Contax body has it built in. The Contax film insert also accommodates either 120 or 620 film. Paying twice the considerable price of a Contax 645 to get an extra 14mmx56mm of film, which I'll just crop away, doesn't make a great deal of sense to me. Even the 503-CW kit, when you add a motor winder and AE prism (to match the Contax specs), runs as much as the Contax kit, plus any lens other than the 350mm f/4. That's a lot to pay just to get to crop more of your frame. ;-)

--
Carey L. Jones

From Rollei Mailing List;
Date: Thu, 4 May 2000
From: Tim Ellestad ellestad@mailbag.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] 6x6 to 6x45

Emmanuel BIGLER wrote -

>More seriously : if you consider a 6x6cm image as being actually
>56x56mm, the diagonal is 79mm. So the "80mm" lens exactly covers it
>and by definition is "standard-53 degrees" simply because a focal
>length equal to the diagonal of any image covers 53 degrees
>*diagonally*. Now consider a 4.5x6cm image, actually something like
>42mmx56mm. The diagonal is 70 mm. So the answer to the question is :
>if 100% is assigned to any standard focal length, 100*80/70 = 114%
>will be the relative effective focal length of a 80 mm used in 4.5x6
>format, with respect to a "standard-53 degree" 70mm focal length.

Yes, but most photos are composed within the confines of the horizontal and vertical dimensions of the format - the aspect ratio. If you are comparing the horizontal fields of any given focal length used for 6x6 or for 6x4.5 they will be the same as long as the final usage makes no demands on the vertical - i.e. slides, prints where the aspect ratio can be whatever the film format suggests or greater, or in the case of 6x4.5, 5x7 prints. But if you are going to make prints in the 4 to 5 aspect ratio (8x10's) then the negative area used will be less. The 6x4.5 frame is actually about 40.5x56 and a 4x5 aspect ratio will reduce the useable long dimension to about 50.625 The vertical frame dimension will impose the useful fields of the lens. An 8x10 portrait print made from a 6x6 neg shot with a 150mm lens will be matched in perspective and image cropping by a 6x4.5 neg shot with a 135mm lens. Likewise, an 8x10 wide-angle shot made with a 50mm lens on 6x6 would be duplicated on 6x4.5 by a 45mm lens.

The maximum negative area used to make an 8x10 from 6x4.5 is about 40.5x50.625. This is a negative area loss (and an image quality loss) of almost 20%.

Tim Ellestad
ellestad@mailbag.com

Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000
From: "David Glos" david.glos@uc.edu
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: MF first experience - Pentax compatibility lens

Miguel,

A Pentax 645 is a fine way to enter the MF world. Build quality, ease of use and optical quality is all top notch. Like the Mamiya 645's, it is of the focal plane shutter variety, although, leaf shutter lenses are available if you need to flash sync at higher shutter speeds. Although dependent on batteries (6 AA's) I have found my pair of P645's to be very, very dependable, and standard Duracell akalines are good for around 50 rolls. I have the 35, 55, 75, 120macro and 150 lenses. At one time, I also had the 45, which was optically great, but traded them in for the 35 and 55 combo, which better fit my shooting style. All of the lenses that I have are great optically, although, the 120macro is the real standout of the group and by far my favorite lens. All the manual focus Pentax 645 optics are bargin priced, although, the newer AF versions are a bit pricier. Like Nikon, Pentax chose not to abandon its manual focus 645 users when designing the new AF 645. The manual focus lenses will work on the new AF body, while the new AF lenses will work on your older body.

You can also use 67 lenses on your 645 body, via a realitively inexpensive Pentax adaptor, although, you can't use the 645 lense on the 67 body (simply not a large enough image circle). Pentax also has a full line of closeup accessories, if that is your interest. Don't fret the lack of removable backs too much. You can pick up a second, used P645 body for $500-600, which isn't a lot more than most removable backs go for in other systems. Perhaps one of the biggest gripes is lack of a reasonably priced Poloroid back, although, that may be of little concern to you. The one stop meter display increment is a little too course for serious slide shooting, although, I have always found the meter to be quite accurate. The newer AF model, the P645n, has a better meter display, and more complex metering options. Hope that helps.

Regards,
David Glos

From: zxcvbob bob@area51online.net
Date: Sun, 09 Jul 2000
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: 6x6 virtues was Re: What, exactly, are the virtues of 645?

> IMHO, I think it's the public's phobia of square formats - even though
> an image can be any shape once you get it in the darkroom....

I was told by two different "artsy" ladies at my church that I couldn't just frame a square print (11x11") because the format would be visually disturbing. One of these ladies actually is a professional artist. They said it *might* be OK in a rectangular matte. There wasn't anything I wanted to crop out of the image, so it's hanging in my office now in a simple black frame with no matte, and I get more complements on that picture than all the others 8x10's and 5x7's combined. I guess I must work with a lot of disturbed people :-)

Regards,
Bob

From: "Major Mouse" nospam@nohow.nn
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2000
Subject: Re: 6x6 virtues was Re: What, exactly, are the virtues of 645?

...

>I was told by two different "artsy" ladies at my church that I couldn't
>just frame a square print (11x11") because the format would be visually
>disturbing.

Imagine how they'd react to a round print.

If for no other reason than "conservation of lens resources", the round format has a reason for existence. 6x6 comes the closest to round of any format in use. Old time shots, some truly engaging, often have seriously vignetted corners, and thus approach round. We might guess that the photographer who captured this masterpiece simply could not afford a lens which did not vignette, or even remain vaguely sharp at the edge, and now we've come to accept the results as representitive of the era.

MM

Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2000
From: csoles@rmi.net (Clyde Soles)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: 6x6 virtues was Re: What, exactly, are the virtues of 645?

Robert Monaghan rmonagha@smu.edu wrote:

> quote:
>  The only real advantage 6x6 format has over 645 is that its square format
> is more forgiving of sloppy composition. ;-)
> end-quote:
>
> actually, see http://www.smu.edu/~rmonagha/mf/square.html Square benefits;
>
> my personal view is that 6x6 is like 6x4.5 with all shift lenses ;-) so
> while you can crop the 6x4.5 out of the exact center of a 6x6cm shot, you
> can't get all the many 6x4.5cm crops shifted up/down left/right out of a
> 6x4.5 that you can out of a 6x6cm with lots of "elbow room" ;-)

It's a bigger neg too, even when printing onto standard paper. To make an 11x14 print, the 645 (56 x 41.5mm) must be cropped to 52.8 x 41.5mm while 6x6 (56 x 56mm) is cropped to 56 x 44mm.

--
http://home.rmi.net/~csoles/index.htm

From: flexaret2@aol.com (FLEXARET2)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 17 Jul 2000
Subject: Re: 6x6 virtues was Re: What, exactly, are the virtues of 645?

One of the problems with 645 only cameras is having to turn the camera to shoot portraits on some and landscapes on others. Bob Shell likes the 645 adaptation of the Kiev 60 as held normally it is excellent for portraits which he specializes in. It would be a clumsy camera to hold for landscapes. Many of the other 645 cameras (I believe Contax 645 and others) when held normally are fine for landscapes, but uncomfortable to turn for portraits - unless the back could revolve and the camera always held normally. With Bronica S2-A etc. I did not like the 645 back, as I like the Waist level finder and could only shoot landscape views. I had no way of turning the camera for portraits. With those heavy old clunky Bronica prisms turning the camera to shoot a portait on the 645 back would be extremely uncomfortable.

I think it boils down to the type of work one is doing and how comfortable the photographer is with the chosen camera being used.

- Sam Sherman

From: "Robert P. Pielli Sr." photo35744@earthlink.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000
Subject: Re: frames and mats for 6x6

Graphik Dimensions
www.pictureframes.com

www.portraitsbypielli.com

From: "Q.G. de Bakker" qnu@worldonline.nl
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000
Subject: Re: 6x6 virtues was Re: What, exactly, are the virtues of 645?

Carey L. Jones wrote:

> I recently ran across a book of lunar landscape photos taken by the
> Apollo astronauts.  Excellent photos.  Most were printed square.  Most
> would have worked just as well, rectangular.  Many subjects work equally
> well in either format.  However, the "normal" human field of vision is
> rectangular, and the landscape photographer, at least, must consider
> that, when composing an image.  If you are trying to depict a subject the
> way a viewer would have seen the actual subject, a horizontal, moderately
> rectangular format is the way to go.  Any other format, including
> vertical rectangular and "panoramic" rectangular, takes on an artificial
> quality, as if the user were looking through a window.  I am not saying
> that other formats are "bad", merely less "natural-looking".  It may be
> preferable to print a shot of a skyscraper in a vertical panoramic
> format, just to "bust the viewer's chops", with its soaring height, but
> departures from the "normal" field of view should be used only when there
> is a specific reason to do so.

The point of composition is not to try to emulate the way a person would see the scene. This can not be done: we are always restricted by the confines of our format. Matters like our eyes combination of a focussed tunnel-vision and a blurry, very wide-angle peripheral vision, giving a strong emphasis to the center of our field of view; the way we see a scene by scanning it with our eyes; the 3-dimensional impression we have, all are not attainable in photography, you'll never get the 'natural look'. If the natural look would be attainable, we perhaps wouldn't need composition, we'd just present the scene as is.

Composition is about how to 'fill', how to distribute visual elements over a certain, restricted area in such a way that makes the most pleasing visual impression. And this can be done in all formats equally well.

Of course some subjects are more easily arranged within certain formats, while others can best be accomodated in others. There is no hard and fast rule on format.

Departures from the, non-existant, "normal" composition/format/aspect ration *must* be undertaken if they give the most pleasing or the strongest, or whatever, visual impression. This is the only "specific reason" in composition, the only goal that has to be satisfied. So it is *not* an departure from what "should" have been done instead, i.e. try to achieve a rectangular, landscape, "natural look".

So there really is no "ideal" format (though the 6x7 format once was called this). Square composition is just as valid as any other. So, again, there is no inherent need to crop 6x6 images at all. In fact, this is just as undesirable as cropping an already well composed rectangular image.

From: flexaret2@aol.com (FLEXARET2)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 18 Jul 2000
Subject: Re: 6x6 virtues was Re: What, exactly, are the virtues of 645?

I can't get over how this 6x6 vs. 645 discussion has carried on.

I prefer 6x6 - so here are some oddball thoughts-

1- I can compose a vertical subject within the complete 6x6 frame and leave it that way.

2- I can compose a horizontal subject within a 6x6 frame and leave it that way.

I have 5x5 inch proofs made by my lab and sometimes I have square enlargements made if it suits me.

3- Keep in mind that lenses are round. The square format utilizes most of the round optics of the lens. I have no idea if this means anything or not as I also shoot a lot of 35MM (rectangular format).

This subject goes on and on..........

Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" qnu@worldonline.nl
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: format mania and 645 shifts Re: 6x6 virtues Re: virtues of 645

Carey L. Jones wrote:

> It's true that all formats require some cropping to fit "standard" print
> sizes, but 6x7 and 645 require *less* cropping for the standard print
> sizes than 6x6 does.

I really wish people would begin to understand that the confection sizes printpaper come in DO NOT OBLIGE YOU BY (NATURAL?) LAW TO CROP YOUR NEGATIVE TO MAKE IT FIT THE PAPER!

Why not crop paper? It's even cheaper than film.

From: "Q.G. de Bakker" qnu@worldonline.nl
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000
Subject: Re: 6x6 virtues was Re: What, exactly, are the virtues of 645?

MPS wrote:

>[...]
> > However, I suppose the waist-level finders
> >found on most 6x6 cameras make it harder to compose the image accurately,
>
> That has not been my experience at all. Rather I find myself noticing
> more off-center-of-interest details when composing in a WL finder (or
> on reversed large glass for that matter).

One great advantage of using waist-level finders in composing images, not mentioned yet, is that you're not watching your subject *through* your camera, but you are looking in a different direction: down. This takes away the directness of viewing a subject, and makes you more aware of viewing an image, and so more aware of forms and colours: composition. (The same effect that you get with converging verticals on prints: you *see* them every time you actually look up at a building. But you do not *notice* them until they are in a print, which you don't watch looking up.)

A lot of people comment on the big viewfinder image when they first have a look through a waist level finder on a MF camera. But i truly believe it is not the size of the image that surprises them, but the fact that they are watching an image, and not the subject as through a peep hole.

From: miaimNOSPAM@mindspring.com (MPS)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000
Subject: Re: Cost of move to MF

"John Welton" jwelton2@home.com wrote:

>I am finding a hidden expense in shooting 6x6 and that is the cost of custom
>mats and frames for printing square. I typically buy the standard premade
>aluminum frames and precut mats and for an 8x11 it's a little over $20. For
>a 5x5 print with custom mat and 10x10 aluminum frame, its over $40 now. Just
>an FYI to consider all costs when making a comparison.
>
>John - Baltimore

I guess it depends on what look you're going for, but my current working bias is that the image either works or doesn't and the matting and framing are at best, hopefully non-distracting. I've completely given up on the idea of mats for squares, since I think that the square image is strong enough by itself. Rather, I prefer to print squares centered on standard rectangles and frame in readily available standard frames. My last several project images have been framed in hand-rubbed Pacific Island fruitwood frames with rounded corners and no mat. Cost of these in 8x10 (for 8x8 prints) is something like $8 ea. from the discount supply and to my eyes they look a heck of a lot better than most of the stuff offered by the custom frame shops.

If you're dead stuck on matted images, Logan (brand) offers a variety of mat cutters from ~$20 on up. The one I think I might like is a compact cutter with guide ruler and board for ~$100USD or so. Given the prices of custom mats, a MF shooter would realize cost savings almost immediately.

mps

[Ed. note: a reminder some prints need to be square too - CD covers!]
From Contax Mailing List:
Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2000
From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com
Subject: Re: [CONTAX] OT: Blues and jazz thoughts??

I thought he wanted something new, too. Oh well, this is a Polydor deal and they have never been known for being very adventurous in their album covers.

I'll probably shoot this on my Rollei 6008i with 6 X 6 back since CD covers are square, and if it might be a poster it would work better on medium format.

I'll play with lots of variations and maybe he will go for something different.

Bob

Date: 22 Aug 2000
From: oorque@aol.com (OorQue)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Square-format landscape book...

I don't know if this is the book that was referred to in another post or not but it's a good one if you're into square-format landscape photography, as I am.

Check out The Making of Landscape Photographs by Charlie Waite, published in 1992 by Collins and Brown LTD of London, England.

The author uses a Hasselblad and nearly every photo in the book is uncropped ... it was this book that convinced me I didn't have to turn my squares into rectangles in order to create an attractive image. Highly recommended.

JG

Date: 19 Sep 2000
From: John Sparks sparks@sparks.cos.agilent.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: new to 6X7

Mike Katona mkatona@pinetel.com wrote:

>Being a newbie to 6X7, I have a question.  In making contact sheets, what is
>the accepted layout for the 10 exposure roll?
>Thanks

I don't think there are any good answers. I keep my negatives in sleeves that hold 4 rows of up to 3 frames and cut my negatives into 2 strips of 3 and 2 strips of 2. If I print on 8.5x11 paper, I only cut off a little on the 3 frame strips. I wish 9"x12" paper was available in the US (I've seen it advertised in English magazines). One reason I wish the 6x8 format (9 frames per roll) was the standard instead of 6x7.

John Sparks

Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000
From: Peter Hardman peter@ssbg.zetnet.co.uk
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: new to 6X7

John Sparks wrote:

>snip
>I wish 9"x12" paper was available in
> the US (I've seen it advertised in English magazines).

It's actually A4; 210x297, or about 8 1/4 x 11 3/4. I find a roll fits reasonably well on half a sheet of 12 x 16. Since this is the size of my slot processor this is mostly what I use.

--
Peter Hardman
Breeder of Shetland sheep and Shetland cattle.

Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000
From: David Grandy dgrandy@accesscable.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Your choice or advise on 6 x 6 or 6 x 7

With your enlarger I'm not sure if you have to change something when you use a longer lens. In the Omega enlargers you often have to remove an auxiliary 35 mm condenser but you do nothing at all if that same enlarger has a colour head. All I can say I to refer to your instruction manual.

An 80 mm lens should cover 6X7. I use a Schneider 80 mm Componon-S and love it. The 75 mm lenses are of a simpler design and will cover up to 6X6, but not 6X7. The 80 mm's are just better lenses.

There are lots of choices out there for medium format cameras, especially if you have no commercial plans for that camera. To me a "commercial" medium format camera MUST be able to use a Polaroid back. That's because failure is NOT an option. When you (or I) are just goofing around then failure is an option especially when you are trying something for fun.

So what cameras would I be thinking about? Although I use a Mamiya 645 for work, a 6X7 will give you - when all is said and done- a better image. And it won't matter to you that your film cost has gone up a third (10 exposures instead of 15) if you are trying to make a fine image and not a buck.

So what's out there?

A Rapid Omega. This was a 6X7 rangefinder camera sold in the 70's. It had (I believe) four lenses and based on the images a friend of mine takes with his, they were excellent. The older versions of this camera were called Koni-Omega. There weren't a lot of these made and they are out of production now. One downside to a rangefinder is that you can't use a bellows lens shade, and that can be extremely important.

One of the Fuji rangefinders. I had a GL690 which had a 6X9 negative. You couldn't use this neg on your enlarger but Fuji also sold the camera as a 6X7. It had very sharp interchangeable lenses and sort of looked like an overgrown Leica. You will find both the Rapid Omega and the Fuji (the current Fuji's rangefinder have fixed lenses) but they certainly aren't common.

An RB67. Although this passes my Polaroid pro test, I really think that it's too big and heavy for weddings. But in the studio or for fashion photography, this IS the camera. There are tons of "bits" out there for this cameras since it has been in production for 25 + years.

The Pentax 6X7. It sort of looks like an overgrown Pentax! Great glass and handles more like a conventional 35 mm camera. That fill flash problem (it X-synchs at 1/30) can be cured with a leaf shutter lens - or slow film! This camera is used a lot for fashion as well - perhaps because it handles so easily. I used on for few days and really liked it. It is still being made (and was recently updated) so like the RB, buying new accessories or lenses wouldn't be a problem. Like the RB this camera has been around for a long time. I don't think that you'd have problems finding used stuff for the Pentax, but it was never as popular as the RB and "bits" will be slightly harder to come by.

From Contax Mailing List:
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001
From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com
Subject: Re: [CONTAX] Re: WLF for 645

> From: Henry Posner/B&H Photo-Video henryp@bhphotovideo.com
> Reply-To: contax@photo.cis.to
> Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 
> To: contax@photo.cis.to
> Subject: [CONTAX] Re: WLF for 645
>
> There's less 6x6 to choose from (Bronica & 'blad) and nothing in AF, but
> among wedding and fashion people, 6x6 remains VERY popular. In the wedding
> field, the upsell from an 8x10 to 10x10 album (at least in the USA) is
> among the easiest and most profitable upsells available to the
> photographer. For fashion work, shooting 6x6 lets the art director use the
> resulting image in both vertical and horizontal layouts for a variety of
> placements in different media.

I'm on your side on this, Henry. I actually wrote an eloquent defense of 6 X 6 when I wrote my Hasselblad book ten years ago. But dealers I talk to tell me that sales of square format are down against 645 and 67. Is your store's experience different? I thought the decline in 6 X 6 demand was why Rollei came out with that nifty flip back for their cameras so you not only get 645, you get horizontal or vertical without turning the camera.

Bob

From Hasselblad Mailing List:
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001
From: Michael Waldron michael@cadogan.net
Subject: Somewhat OT - pre-made frames w/ sq mats

Hi-

I almost always print square and have been looking for pre-made frame/mat combos with square holes in the mats.

I found Nielson metal frames with pre-cut square mates and they cost about $30 for a 16x20 frame with a slightly off white mat with a 7 3/4 square cut out. These are fairly nice, with supposedly archival mats. They come in black, silver and gold.

Then I went to Ikea and got big square frames (maybe 20x20?) with a thin silver mat near the frame and a cream mat with an 11x11 hole for about $15. They come in cream and black and are made in China (by certainly underpaid labor). They also had smaller frames 10x10" with 5x5" holes in the mat -- 3 for $8! These are clearly not archival, but the frames are nice. I used new material in the backing.

Are there other sources of pre-made mat/frame combos, or do most of you go custom?

Thanks,

Michael

From Leica Mailing List:
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001
From: "Austin Franklin" austin@darkroom.com
Subject: RE: [Leica] Re: OT square format (was OT MF)

> A 6x6 inch square looks great on an 8x10 piece of paper with a
> half inch more
> space on the bottom then the top.

Nielsen Bainbridge makes some AWESOME frame 'kits' for square images...black recessed frame, with 8 ply bright white beveled mat board...the galleries LOVE when I mount using those ;-)

They are also excellent for Leica images too...it is their "Archival Gallery Frame" series, and it is most reasonably priced. Available at Charrette (better prices I think) or Light Impressions I believe.

From Rangefinder Mailing List;
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001
From: Mike Johnston d76121@voyager.net
Subject: Re: [RF List] Bronica RF645

Bern wrote:

> I saw it very briefly at a trade show last Oct. Looks
> pretty good.Good ergonomics. Nice selection of lenses.
> My only problem is the format. For me, its sort of
> like Half-frame 35.

Really? That's funny, I've always seen 645 as sort of a "perfect" format, significantly bigger than 35mm and amounting to just a cropped 6x6 (which I always crop anyway). Plus, the 16 shots per roll, the fact that the whole roll fits nicelly on a contact sheet, the fact that the contacts are big enough to "read" without further enlargement, and the fact that the negative is still small enough to use relatively short focal length lenses on the camera and relatively affordable and available enlarging setups, always seemed like a package of perfect compromises to my mind. The only thing that could be improved would be if 32-frame rolls were cassette-loaded and sprocket-holed like 35mm film, but that's asking too much in the twilight of film photography.

.....

--Mike

From Rollei Mailing List;
Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2001
From: Austin Franklin darkroom@ix.netcom.com
Subject: RE: [Rollei] Let down by my Rollei

> To shoot 645 with a Hasselblad you need the low slung finder and
> side motorized
> Handgrip beside the back.
> So that's an additional 3,4,5 thousand bucks added to your
> original investment.

How about ZERO to your original investment... The Acute-Matte has crop marks for 645 vertically and horizontally. Just use your 6x6 back, crop for 645...and shoot it at 6x6. Zero additional cost. You can do this with your Rollei too...if the screen has the crop marks...

From ROllei Mailing List;
Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2001
From: "John A. Lind" jlind@netusa1.net
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Let down by my Rollei

Ummmmm, a minor correction is in order . . . 645 gets 15 frames from 120 and 30 frames from 220. If you look at the edge of the film strip, you'll see one edge is numbered for 6x6 and the other for 645; count 'em. I also have a 645 and for some reason after 15 or 30 frames the crank just keeps turning!

A 645 (or at least the one I have) isn't nearly as agile as a 35mm SLR. Although the size and weight are noticeably smaller than a 6x7, a 6x6 just isn't that much bigger either . . . and the weight is about the same . . . at least with my 645. I burn film in it fairly slowly compared to 35mm too. Yes, it's more convenient having 15 or 30 frames compared to 12 or 24, but it's not that many more, and film loading is just as cumbersome.

The advantage with what I use it for is nearly the entire frame is usable area for prints compared to 6x6 which must be cropped to about a 645 for common large print sizes. I'd have to go to a 6x7 to get more film area for a print. With a prism finder, turing a 645 SLR on its side for a vertical isn't all that bad. With a WLF on it or for a TLR, it would be a real PITA though.

Even a 645 with a motor drive is a real beast to hand hold. Hard for me to imagine someone using one in "continuous" mode without laughing!

...

[Ed. note: Mr. Shell is a noted glamour photographer, photobook author, industry analyst, former editor of Shutterbug, repair guru...]
From Rollei Mailing List;
Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2001
From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Let down by my Rollei

> From: "John A. Lind" jlind@netusa1.net
> Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2001 
> Subject: Re: [Rollei] Let down by my Rollei
>
> Ummmmm, a minor correction is in order . . .
> 645 gets 15 frames from 120 and 30 frames from 220.  If you look at the
> edge of the film strip, you'll see one edge is numbered for 6x6 and the
> other for 645; count 'em.  I also have a 645 and for some reason after  15
> or 30 frames the crank just keeps turning!

That's completely wrong. 120 roll film was designed from the beginning to give 12 exposures nominal 6 X 6 and 16 exposures nominal 645. Hasselblad magazines always gave 12 for 6 X 6 and 16 for 645, as the film was designed for. Rollei 645 magazines for the SL66 and 6000 series have always given 16 exposures. Bronica 645 magazines for the focal plane shutter cameras gave 16 exposures. Hell, even my Kiev 88 cameras give me 16 exposures when I put the 645 back on them, and my Kiev 645 gave me 16 frames from the getgo. There are many other examples.

For some reason when Japanese companies started making 645 cameras they short-changed us to only 15 exposures. I challenged this with Mamiya designers something like twelve years ago, and pointed out there was plenty of film on the roll for 16 frames. All they had to do was put another notch in the control wheel that stops the film advance after enough film has been advanced and add 16 to the frame counter. They never could come up with a logical reason to leave off the 16th frame.

One of them finally told me that 16 was an unlucky number, and that is the only explanation I ever got that halfway made sense.

They finally relented to pressure and the Mamiya 645 AF gets 16 on a roll as does the Contax 645.

Bob

Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2001
From: DFStein@aol.com
To: rmonagha@post.cis.smu.edu
Subject: Re: Which lenses for a 617 format camera ?

rmonagha@post.cis.smu.edu writes:

since circular photos are unusual they draw interest ;-)

This is still my goal-but most any lens throws a FAR greater image than we imagine. The 127mm Ektar stopped down just about fills a 5x7-I tried. As you see I must remount that lens on an 8x10-but actually it works in implying the circle. Some of the famous "circle" stuff doesn't really employ all the lens image but was cropped, that's my understanding of Emmett Gowin's stuff. And we need to take the next step and use the circle as a compositional tool.

Overall, I find that large format photographers are mired in staid ways, not using some of the cropping and other lessons of 35mm and medium format. Not many "got it" from scratch like Julia Margaret Cameron did! Basic art training can help-dealing with shapes, macro vs micro, foreground and distant, scale and so on.

THANKS

[Ed. note: some interesting notes about cropping from noted photobook author Jim Brick...]
From Leica Mailing List;
Date: Thu, 31 May 2001
From: Jim Brick jim_brick@agilent.com
Subject: [Leica] Re: cropping, personal opinion

Eric wrote:

>Jim Brandenburg's _Chased by the Light_ is
>wonderful.  When you realize that the 90 images were consecutive  exposures
>and he only had one chance at an image a day, it becomes mind-boggling.   If
>cropping from an image is cheating, is tossing out an image also  cheating?
>Why is eliminating parts of an image any worse than eliminating an entire
>image?
>
>I think it was Robert that made an analogy between his photographs and
>stones.  Either it works or it doesn't.  But if you chip away enough at a
>stone, you can create something truly wonderful.  Take away everything  that
>makes an image weaker, and you're left with a far better image!
>
>Eric

Well said Eric. Now for my $.02 !

This is probably one of the most inane topics bandied about on the LUG.

Cropping.

If you have a paid shoot where you control all of the variables, where, when, why, who, how, etc., then after the shoot cropping can, for the most part, be eliminated. You crop in the viewfinder (usually ground glass) so that you get the highest quality original.

But in any other situation, stuff creeps into the frame, you cannot move forward. You've captured a fleeting moment but had a 21mm lens on your camera instead of a 50. And on and on and on ad nauseam.

The reason for cropping is extremely simple. To make a photograph, into a good photograph. To make a good photograph into a great photograph. To make a great photograph into a masterpiece. You fit what you have into what the customer wants. You throw away the excess baggage to present your best image.

If you don't crop your photographs to produce the most pleasing composition and dynamic appearance, you won't have any customers. If your photography is for yourself, your friends will form an opinion about your photographic skills. An opinion that they probably won't share with you.

When you look at people's photographs on-line, in a street fair, in an exhibit, in a gallery, you look at each photograph with a critical eye. Distracting and unsightly extra garbage, even extra blank space, extra blank sky or blank ground, will reduce the overall impact of a photograph.

Everyone strives to compose and crop in the viewfinder (more difficult with a RF than a GG) but it rarely works out to complete satisfaction. There is always extra stuff. Attempting to never crop is an experiment in self punishment. Perhaps it has some teaching merit.

Cropping is one of the MAJOR tools of a photographer. I SHOULD be used to create a masterful looking photograph. After you print your uncropped 7x10, 8x10, 8x8, etc., use your "cropping tool" to find the "real" photograph. Sometimes you get lucky and the whole is the part. But don't count on it.

Many people print out beyond the film edge showing the film markings etc. This is both dumb and ugly. For pre-cropped proofs, OK. For finished prints, yuck! I have a Beard easel (English) which allows me to make black borders on 'from-negative' prints regardless of the cropping. But I mostly print Cibachrome which automatically gives black borders, with zero effort.

They are just there. Nice medium.

Pardon my shyness and I'm not singling anyone out as I don't know the origin of this insanity, but whom ever it was that said "no cropping!" "You must print everything on the negative/positive right out to the edge," in a photographic moron.

Perhaps it was Boris Badanoff and Natasha! Squirrel must never crop! Squirrel must die! (old folks joke.)

Jim

[Ed. note: another diamond user ;-)]
From Hasselblad Mailing List;
Date: Tue, 29 May 2001
From: Peter Klosky peter.klosky@marcgs.com
To: mark@rabiner.cncoffice.com, hasselblad@kelvin.net
Subject: Re: 5 pdf's

Mark,

Thanks for pointing out how diagonal is less important as a measure. My own chart tool shows diagonal, width and height, so it serves all. I was going to make a comment that I've seen folks use a camera tilted for the diagonal to get in a large group, airplane, building, skyline or what have you. At first it seemed odd to use a camera that way, but now I see the sense of humour in it and sometimes do it myself for less serious photos. There are other measures, too, such as width of field, with the assumption that an 8x10 will result.

Peter

...

From Hasselblad Mailing List;
Date: Tue, 29 May 2001
From: Mark Rabiner mark@rabiner.cncoffice.com
Subject: Re: 5 pdf's

... (see above post)

When i was a kid i saw in a Kodak how to shoot better photos pamphlet a square format shot tilted on a 45 degree angel so it was a diamond. A shot from behind the catcher with the ump and pitcher making a baseball diamond. I did a shot like that myself and it remains in my family album 37 years later. (with a brownie Instamatic 100) Of all the different companies putting out the specs on their lenses, Hasselblad is the only company who listed the side by side angle as well as the diagonal! It matched our results from the formula we were applying. All of the other companies just listed the diagonal angle.

By the way we found out if you like using your 100mm lens on your half frame camera (18x24) and you decide to take that small step to 8x10 film: Your lens of choice would be a 1000mm one! If they make one of that exact length!

Now that's easy to remember!

Mark Rabiner

[Ed. note: another view ;-)..]
Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2001
From: Mark Rabiner mark@rabiner.cncoffice.com
Subject: Re: [Leica] Leica Quality versus Medium Format

>[Snip]
>
> Herb Ritts shot the 1999 Pirelli calendar using a Mamiya RZ... a number of
> shots using the 150/3.5.    I'm not sure about you, but when I saw the
> calendar, I certainly said, amongst other things..."WOW!"
>
> Kim

Both Herb Ritts and Anne Leibowitz have mentioned much of the allure of 6x7 is it's incredible impact on the light table. This is why photographers use 6x7. I'd go 645 any day. It use to be that the additional average did not make up for Mamiyas low contrast optics.

But people needed that impact on the light table and would use them anyway. Now their optics are more than OK. They cost a lot more and have been upgraded. Frankly i find it astounding that so many of the best people find acreage on the light table so crucial to how their work goes over to the extent that they would use such a clunky piece of trash as a Mamiya 67 RB or RZ. Hell Ritts and Leibowitz are more famous than just about anyone they'd ever photograph, who do they need to impress?

"Only as good as their last image" would be what's on their minds.

The rangefinder i can get excited about. The RB's and RZ's put me off. A 6x6 camera needs to be twice the size to make it 6x7? But the fact is a 6x7 Looks miraculously twice the size on the light table.

It's as if you need a Loup to see 6x6 but don't' need one to see 6x7. No it makes no statistical sense.

I've been there making the presentations and i know how it feels. I've made some of mine by showing up with a tray so what they first see are projected images from 35mm transparencies. NOT laid out on a light table where larger slides of half the quality will have twice the impact.

Mark Rabiner
Portland, Oregon
http://www.rabiner.cncoffice.com/

Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2001
From: Stephe Thayer ms_stephe@hotmail.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Basic MF SLR recommendation

FOR7 wrote:

> "Also with 6X6 you get a built in "shift" as you can use the upper area  of
> the image to get less distortion."
> You lost me there. Could you elaborate on that?

Sure, say you're shooting a landscape you want a small amount of ground, some trees and a "big" sky. With a 6X4.5 (or a 35mm) shooing horizontal you have to tilt the camera (and the film plane) up to get this shot which makes the trees look like they are falling away from you, especially with a wide angle lens. With a 6x6 you compose this same scene using the upper 2/3 of the frame, are able to have the camera close to level and the tilting film plane distortion is avoided. When you print you crop off all of the ground you shot and only print the upper part of the negative.

Again I said IMHO (In my honest opinion) that 6X4.5 isn't that large a jump. Sure more negative is better and yes it does look better than 35mm by a good margin. Personally if I'm going to shoot 120 film I either use 6X6 or 6X7/6x9. Getting a few extra frames on a roll isn't a concern for me but saving that bit of money for others may be? For landscape use I prefer something like my baby graphic that has movements and can control the image. For portrait work a 6X4.5 is probably a great format. Again YMMV from mine on this. They asked for opinions, I gave mine.

--
Stephe

Date: Tue, 15 May 2001
From: david@meiland.com (David Meiland)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.darkroom,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Asking for Help from MF Shooters & Printers

"Ken Hart" kwhart@aec.nu wrote:

>As for composing on a 6x6, take a Sharpie brand marker and draw two
>horizontal lines and two vertical lines on the ground glass to  approximite
>the 4x5/8x10/16x20 format. Works for me!

I used an x-acto knife to scribe four lines as you mention on the underside of my 'blad plain acute matte screen. It has made a huge difference for me, as I can see immediately whether a subject fits a portrait, landscape, or square format better. It makes it utterly simple to keep within vertical 8x10 for headshots, etc.

---
David Meiland

Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2001 
To: rmonagha@post.smu.edu
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: cropping - non-full frame rigs Re: What's the advantage of 6X6?


many MF cameras do not have full frame viewers, not only SLRs but also
many rangefinder and viewfinder 6x4.5cm lack exact WYS-on screen-IWYG
So if you really want to be safe, you have to shoot conservatively, then
crop prior to printing.

One of the minor benefits of 6x6cm is that cropping is assumed for
printing - even square; so you can touch up composition or float the
cropping lines as desired from a contact or test print. On 645, there is
some tendency to print what you shot without cropping on the final print,
bypassing the cropping stage, and hence the minor improvements that might
result (and expense and delays it produces too ;-)

All the standard amateur prints are cropped by the minilabs, since most 
camera viewfinders only show 75% on up of the central image area, and a
full frame print causes complaints ;-) Slide mounts tend to do a bit of
cropping too.

I also don't always carry my 500mm f/8 lenses with me for medium format
SLR rigs, but I can usually get by with a central crop from my 250mm f/5.6
or 320mm APO etc. I have macro lenses and bellows and all that partly to
do such cropping of slides, and it is very handy at times...

Cropping in the camera is also a lot more practical if you have zoom
lenses, which are very rare to non-existent in medium format (this NG). i
do a lot of zooming by walking around, but there are a lot of situations
where I can't, and then cropping comes to my rescue ;-)

grins bobm 

From: shadcat11@aol.com (ShadCat11)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 26 Aug 2001 
Subject: Re: What's the advantage of 6X6? 

> IMHO you should be getting the framing correct in the camera. Cropping a
> larger neg/slide down in format is a waste of film, a waste of the
camera's
> quality and the sign of a lazy approach on behalf of the photographer.
> Steve

Back in the 50s and 60s it was common for photographers, I among them, to carry
a TLR or single lensed 4X5 cameras for most uses, cropping if necessary when it
wasn't physically possible to more closely approach a subject, or when doing so
would alter a desired perspective. In practice it meant that most of the time
you had all the qualtity inherent in MF or 4X5 with little or no cropping
necessary, or when it was, the results would be no worse than full frame 35 mm,
often better. It was not a bad tradeoff for the time.

Additionally, a square format allows for a limited "shift" effect. If, for
example, it is necessary to render parallel lines in a building, it is often
possible to place the composition in the top two thirds of the frame, keeping
the focal plane in alignment with the subject, later cropping from the bottom . 

This trick works with other formats, provided the lens has a wide enough angle
of view.

Cropping also allows changing the aspect ratio of the photograph.
Manufacturing standards should not dictate the shape of a photograph. For some
pictures, a 35mm double frame, square, or 4X5 may not work as well as a
"customized" format. Rigorously squeezing compositions into a particular
format strikes me as an accomodation rather than an imaging strategy. Just
because Leica inventor Oskar Barnack saw the world as a long rectangle, must we
all?

Cropping is just another creative option available to the photographer. There
is no morality or higher discipline issue involved here, IMHO, and I can assure
you that laziness is not a factor at all.

Allen Zak 

From: "Joe Codispoti" joecodi@charter.net>
To: "Matthew Midnight Gaylen" midnight@montrose.net>,
	hasselblad@kelvin.net>
Subject: Re: [HUG] SQUARE FRAMES
Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2001 

Mathew,

check these sites for aluminum frames cut to order in any size.

Aluminum frames are sold in pairs and each pair comes with 1/2 of all the
necessary hardware to assemble a complete frame- minus the hanger.

http://www.netaxs.com/~framefit/aluminum3.html

http://www.frameusa.com/uframe.htm

http://www.pictureframes.com/

http://www.americanframe.com/index.html

Joseph Codispoti
ClearSight USA
P.O. Box 150, San Luis Obispo, CA 93406 USA
www.clearsightusa.com
joecodi@clearsightusa.com



----- Original Message -----
From: "Matthew Midnight Gaylen" midnight@montrose.net>
To: "HASSelblad" hasselblad@kelvin.net>
Sent: Sunday, October 14, 2001 2:10 PM
Subject: [HUG] SQUARE FRAMES


Who makes a 5in x 5 in frame for photos?
--
Prints, The Artist Formerly Known as Midnight


From: "Q.G. de Bakker" qnu@worldonline.nl>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Square?
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 

G"ran Thyberg wrote:

> I'm thinking of enter the medium format field
> and the first thing I want to decide is to go
> 6x4.5 or 6x6.
> I have very seldom seen a square picture in
> an album or on a wall.
> What is the advantage of 6x6 over 6x4.5 ?

First, you don't have to turn the camera to change aspect from horizontal to
vertical.
The square format fits the circular image circle best, so it makes best use
of your lenses. Even if you want the rectangular format 6x6 images are
preferable, since they offer 1.5 cm built-in shift when cropping to 6x4.5.

Then there is the aesthetics. Having different aspect ratios, different
formats obviously look different. Pick the one you like best. And don't
forget that you can always crop a square from any rectangular format, and a
rectangle from the square format.

> I would mostly do portraits and nature.
> What about 6x7 ?

Equally fine. But cameras get bigger and heavier (there's quite a difference
between the Mamiya 645 and the Mamiya RZ67!).

The Mamiya RB or RZ 67 SLRs have rotating backs, so you do not need to turn
the camera when changing from horizontal to vertical. Very nice. They are
very high quality machines too, with perfect lenses, but rather bulky.
Perhaps too bulky to take out in the field?

Mamiya also makes a 6x7 rangefinder, which might be more suited for
landscape photography, but of course not so well suited to do close
ups/macro. But perhaps that's not included when you say nature photography?
These rangefinders are perfectly good for portraiture as well.




From: "Q.G. de Bakker" qnu@worldonline.nl>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Square?
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 

G"ran Thyberg wrote:

>> The square format fits the circular image circle best, so it makes best use
>> of your lenses. Even if you want the rectangular format 6x6 images are
>> preferable, since they offer 1.5 cm built-in shift when cropping to 6x4.5.

> This is interesting. Is your point that with a square format
> you never have to work too far off the "center-line" from
> the lens ?
> Or did I misunderstand something ?

When trying to fit a rectangular format into a circle, you'll find that the
largest fitting rectangle will be a square. Given that lenses produce
circular images, and all film formats are rectangular, the square format
uses most of the lens' image.

Is it really an advantage? Well, yes. In a way.

When shifting the lens relative to the film becomes necessary to avoid
converging verticals and the like, you basically need an image circle large
enough to allow shifting the frame format whilst keeping it inside the image
circle. Because the square format uses the maximum available of the lens'
image circle, it can be seen as a smaller format with built-in shift.

Instead of using a shift lens on a 6x4.5 format, a regular lens used on 6x6
will, when cropping to 6x4.5, provide a total of 1.5 cm vertical shift, 33%
of the image height.

> I often find myself laying flat on the ground trying
> to capture some little bug or leaf, so some macro is
> definitely on the agenda.
> I'm not familiar with the 6x7 rangefinder and why it wouldn't
> be suited to macro.

Rangefinder cameras suffer from paralax. You don't see exactly what the
taking lens sees because you're not looking throught it, but through a
separate viewfinder, both horizontally and vertically offset. This means
that perspective and field of view are different. This is not a problem at
longer subject distances, but it is when subject distances are small, as
they are when doing photomacrography: the viewfinder will look straight
passed the subject that is right in front of the taking lens, or the other
way around.

Because of this unsuitability, there are no macro accessories, likes
extension tubes or bellows, on offer for rangefinder cameras, and their
viewfinders too are not suited (can't focus that close).

> Maybe the 6x7 format is way out of my budget anyway.

I don't know, there are many good, used Mamiya RB 67's around for quite
reasonable prices. Have a look and see what you can find before you decide
either way.

From: "Q.G. de Bakker" qnu@worldonline.nl>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Square?
Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 

Brian Ellis wrote:

> I'm not knocking the 6x6 format, whether one uses it or another format is
> obviously a matter of personal preference rather than "right" or "wrong,"
> but it's just always seemed odd that the ability to make a vertical or
> horizontal print without changing the camera position is so often mentioned
> as an advantage of the 6x6 format, as though  it can't be done with any
> other format.
>
> Perhaps the idea is that the degree of cropping and
> enlargement required to do that even with a 6x7 negative is so great that
> most people wouldn't want to do it? I'm sure someone more mathematically
> inclined than I am could easily calculate the difference in the degree of
> cropping and enlargement involved in making a vertical print from a 6x6
> negative vs. making the same vertical print from a 6x7 negative at any
> particular print size.
>

The idea of it being an advantage stems from wedding and other reportage
use, where repeatedly having to flip the camera really is a pain. Using a
square format and cropping later to whatever aspect is lots easier to do and
retains full format advantage.

But you're right, you can crop a vertical format from a horziontal frame as
well. And i suspect you're right too that the (perceived) degree of cropping
required is what is shying people away from doing so, though in your example
(6x6 vs 6x7), there is absolutely no difference in the degree of
enlargement. But you shouldn't compare two different formats, but instead
consider the difference between a vertical 6x7 and a vertical image having
the same aspect ratio cropped from a horizontal 6x7. The cropped "vertical"
will need to be enlarged 23% more. Remarkably (perhaps surprisingly so)
little (the percentage obviously growing when the format's aspect ratio gets
larger, but at 6x9 it still is a bit less than 50%)!


From: remove.david@meiland.com (David Meiland)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: What's the advantage of 6X6?
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 

no@spam.com> wrote:

>One good reason is convenience - you can compose horizontally or vertically
>withought flipping the camera around and crop later to suit your composition.
>Another argumetn made by Hasselblad (which I find a little lame) is that the
>lens projects a 6cm image circle anyway so with a 6x4.5 you are "wasting"
>part of the image. But since you'll probably crop, you don't need that
>extra anyway.
>Then there are those who feel more comfortable with square images and don't
>crop them at all.
>
>Guy
>http://spyra.com

6x6 is definitely a waste of film a lot of the time, but the fact that
you can crop after the shot, at the light table, is really really
nice. I had a guy here ordering prints recently and we laid out the
chromes on the light table. I left him to play with the cropping guide
a while and when I came back he had decided what he wanted and made
marks on the sleeves for his prints. What he wanted was different than
what I had printed from the same stuff. I'm sold on 6x6 for that
reason. I have a bunch of 8x8 proof prints hanging on the wall at the
moment and I'm going through them deciding on how to print 11x14s from
them. Some of the negs are 3 years old and I have no idea whether or
not I was composing horizontal or vertical--I just make the decision
now.

---
David Meiland
Oakland, CA

**Check the reply address before sending mail


From: shadcat11@aol.com (ShadCat11)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 15 Aug 2001 
Subject: Re: What's the advantage of 6X6?

>>I will be purchasing a medium format camera soon and I'm in the
process of weighing the pros and cons of each format, make and model.
Unless I plan to use the square format (I may not) I can't think of
any advantage to a 6X6 system. It would appear to me that a cropped
6X6 image is no different than a 6X45 image. So why spend the extra
money when you can get practically the same results from a (less
expensive) 645 camera. Just some thoughts.

Among the advantages of the square is the ability to use it as a substitute for
a (modest) shift lens.  I often level my camera and frame the subject on the
bottom/side/top 2/3s of the frame in order to keep parallel lines straight,
eliminate background distractions etc., then print accordingly.  

Another advantage; with loose framing It allows vertical and horizontal
cropping of the same image, an oftentime necessity for publication purposes.
This is accomplished with a 645 by making two exposures, so in the above
circumstance, more wasteful than shooting square.

IMHO, 645 is much like a super 35 mm, and excellent in that role.  6X7 can
duplicate every advantage of the square, including the "shift trick",
especially convenient if it has a revolving back.  But 6X7s are bigger and
heavier, and for a given angle of view the lenses offer less depth of field.

I like them all, but consider square the most versatile compromise.  

Allen Zak


From: Yongfei Lin yongfei.lin@eds.com>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: What's the advantage of 6X6?
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 

When talking about cropping, people always think about cropping either horizontal or vertical. Not always. With 6x6, you can "tilt up" the base-line and crop in a sort of diagnal
way.

Also, MF projection is a very important reason. You don't have to "turn" the slides.


From: "Brian Ellis" bellis60@earthlink.net>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: What's the advantage of 6X6?
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 

The 6x6 format exists because when 120 roll film cameras first appeared, the
pentaprism hadn't yet been introduced. Pentaprisms  reverse the otherwise
upside down, backward image on the focusing screen and allow for eye level
viewing. Instead of a pentaprism, early roll fill cameras came equipped with
a standard focusing hood that required the photographer to look straight
down into the camera from above. This made rectangular format cameras (such
as today's 645 and 6x7 cameras) too awkward to use for both horizontal and
vertical images. Only one orientation or the other was feasible. As a
result, the film format was designed as a 6 x 6 square to eliminate the need
to turn the camera on its side, which was impractical with a waist level
viewing system. By using the 6x6 design, no matter how the camera was held
the result would always be the same - a square image that could be cropped
or not, to suit the photographer's wishes.

So, the 6x6 doesn't exist because it's a particularly desirable format, it
exists because the technology of the day would allow for nothing else. With
the introduction of the pentaprism the reason for its existence was
eliminated but it has lived on, presumably because the makers of cameras in
this format didn't want to obsolete their existing cameras, nor did they
wish to go to the expense of redesigning the camera and retooliing their
manufacturing facilities to accommodate a new  camera. And of course some
people have come to like it even though it probably would never have existed
if the pentaprism had been around at the time 120 film was introduced.

"Rocco Bellantoni" rbellant@yorku.ca> wrote...
> I will be purchasing a medium format camera soon and I'm in the
> process of weighing the pros and cons of each format, make and model.
> Unless I plan to use the square format (I may not) I can't think of
> any advantage to a 6X6 system. It would appear to me that a cropped
> 6X6 image is no different than a 6X45 image. So why spend the extra
> money when you can get practically the same results from a (less
> expensive) 645 camera. Just some thoughts.
>
> rb
>


From: "eMeL" badbatz99@hotmail.com>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: HELP.  Is using a medium format camera the same as a shift lens on 35mm if you use the top half of the image?
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 

loizcren loizcren@erols.com> wrote 
>     Your other question about whether a 24 cropped in would equal a
> shifting 35mm lens...the answer is basically yes, understanding that you
> are going to be enlarging the 24mm shot more so you'll be losing some
> detail, etc.

A popular trick (both words - "popular" and "trick" - are used figuratively
here...) is using a 6x17 cm camera (with a wide-angle lens) vertically for
the same purpose, i.e. avoiding converging lines with the camera angled up.
After cropping out the cobblestones from the bottom of a 6x17 frame, one
gets a nice 6x9 cm or so negative without converging lines.  Using a 24x36
mm camera for the same purpose gives a small. itsy-bitsy-tiny-weenie
negative after cropping out the bottom of the frame.

Michael


From: Tony Polson no.email@please.com>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Getting Started in Medium Format
Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2001 

"Roy L. Jacobs" rljacobs@pipeline.com> wrote:

> This is a real bad idea. If you have never used a medium format camera then
> I do not think you know what you are in for. It is really different than
> using a 35mm.  But if you are going to do it anyway here goes. Get a 6x6.
> The reason is you do not want to be  in a position of having to turn the
> camera and the flash for verticals. You will also need a flash extender to
> avoid red eye. I was at a wedding recently and the photographer used
> Hassys, with flash extenders,  a second pole flash and a variety of lenses.
> He had a second photographer shooting 35mm with a telephoto. They appeared
> to know what they were doing and I can tell you they worked hard. I would
> not have wanted to be him. There was just so much to remember.  Now I do not
> use a 6x6 (Pentax 645 and 67), but for weddings it is essential.  6x6 will
> crop to 645 and this is  more than enough for very sharp pictures shot with
> flash. Also you want leaf shutter lenses, especially if you are shooting
> some portraits outside. This way you can blend the daylight and the flash.
> there is a lot more than doing a wedding than the camera so carefully
> consider this, because if you mess it up it cannot easily be redone.

Excellent advice.  

I started doing weddings commercially earlier this year.  It's about ten
times more difficult than I expected, even though I had done it over 20
years ago.  I invested in two Bronica ETRSi bodies (6x4.5cm) plus 50mm
PE, 75mm PE and 150mm MC lenses, speed grip and two prism viewfinders,
one metered, and five film backs (3x120, 2x220).  

I like using the Bronica system and the results are excellent, but with
the benefit of a few months' experience I now realise I should have
chosen 6x6cm for the reasons you stated.  Shooting in vertical
(portrait) mode is a PITA.

My next medium format camera will be (1) 6x6cm and (2) capable of taking
a 16 megapixel digital back.


From: Glenn Stewart -Arizona- gstewart@inficad.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: What's the advantage of 6X6?
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001

stephen.s.lewis@ope.shell.com says...
(SNIP)
> IMHO you should be getting the framing correct in the camera. Cropping a
> larger neg/slide down in format is a waste of film, a waste of the camera's
> quality and the sign of a lazy approach on behalf of the photographer.
> Steve


Steve,

First, don't take this personally. It's aimed at all "non-croppers". You
just offered an opportunity for me to state the obvious.

Just curious.

Do you actually carry a different camera for each print aspect ratio that
may present itself as the best for composing any particular scene you
encounter? How many do you carry at any particular moment? Do you have
one for each of 6x6, 6x7, 6x8, 6x9 and 6x17? Any others? How many rolls
of film could you have bought for the price of all the cameras you have
in excess of one? How long does it take you to untangle all the neck
straps to get to the one "perfect" camera for the scene at hand? How long
has your orthopedist given you before you'll have to start wearing neck
and back braces to counteract the damage all that weight has done to
your spine?


Or do you only carry one camera and only shoot scenes that will compose
best within that camera's viewfinder shape, while ignoring any other
scene aspect ratio that you may happen upon, regardless of how much
money you might make by shooting the scene with the "wrong" negative
aspect ratio and cropping it later, just because you can't stand to
waste a small portion of a $.40 frame of film?

Or do you pre-stage all your shooting, then only use the particular
camera in which all the pre-staged scenes will exactly fill the frame? Do
you have to fight the urge to doze off while printing 2 dozen photos that
are all composed alike?

While it is important to use as much negative as possible (otherwise we'd
all shoot Minox and there'd be no need for this group) Cropping is not a
sin. It's often absolutely necessary in order to make a scene "sing"
instead of choke in the final print. This photo
(http://www.inficad.com/~gstewart/largegif/summer1998/glenmore2.jpg), if
you ignore the Moire patterns that are unavoidable when mixing corrugated
sheet metal with digital scan lines, is pretty close to a 6x7 aspect
ratio. It is cropped from the full 6x7 neg because there were power lines
sagging across the sky just above the peak of the building roof and
several large power poles on the right. If I had moved the camera closer
so I could shoot under and around them to keep them out of the frame, I
would have ruined the composition of the remainder of the scene. I know
this is true because I tried it. This scene
(http://www.inficad.com/~gstewart/largegif/summer1998/brick_elev.jpg) has
two triangular pieces cropped from it in the upper corners of the neg. I
tilted the easel to reduce the convergence of the structures. Would it
have looked better with all the cylinders tilted heavily toward the
center? Finally, these scenes
(http://www.inficad.com/~gstewart/largegif/intel/color/tumacack.gif
http://www.inficad.com/~gstewart/largegif/intel/color/xavpink.gif
and http://www.inficad.com/~gstewart/largegif/intel/color/xavyello.gif)
were shot with 6x6 cameras. Would they have been better printed square?
Not really. The subjects are rectangular. Forcing a square window around
them would have diminished their impact. The last two were shot 5 minutes
apart. Since I was 100 miles from home, running back for a "rectangular"
camera wasn't an option, even if I had had one at the time, which I did
not.

Forcing all my photos to fit a particular viewfinder is a form of
contortionism I don't really care to practice. Cropping is a tool, just
as different lenses are tools. Film is the photographer's cheapest tool.
Losing a bit of it to improve the presentation of a subject should be
disregarded, just as you disregard the cost of a candy bar wrapper when
you toss it out.

Best regards,

Stew
Photo web pages at: http://www.inficad.com/~gstewart/




from contax mailing list:
From: "Cousineau , Bernard" bcousineau@tmisolutions.com
Subject: RE: [Contax] Medium format
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2001 


> From: Frederic Vaeremans
> Is there a brand who has a 6x6 which can also be converted into 6X4.5 ?

All 6x6 can be converted to 6x4.5. All you need are some scissors :).
Seriously, all modern 6x6 systems with interchangeable backs also offer
6x4.5 backs (AKAIK). Obsolete systems (out of production) may not offer
this, and most fixed-back systems don't. Some old TLR's and folders offer
both 6x6 and 6x4.5.

The cost savings going from square to rectangular pictures in the same
camera are usually minimal (and offset by the cost of the additional back),
but you will get more frames per roll if that is what you want.

> Which system can give similar quality than my Contax system at an
affordable price?


Similar quality: Those that have Zeiss lenses, of course...

Affordable price: I have no idea what you consider affordable, but, as a
general rule, here are your low-cost options:

1) You can choose to go with an obsolete system at very low cost. Older
systems such as the Koni-Omega rangefinders, Graflex rangefinders, Bronica
S2, Mamiya TLR can be had fairly cheap and produce very good results. The
downside is that they are out of production, so you have to rely on the
used market for everything.

2) You can buy into a current system. Used Bronica, Fuji, Hasselblad,
Linhoff, Mamiya, Pentax, Rollei (in alphabetical order) can usually be found
at semi-reasonable prices. The advantage of these cameras is that you can
still get them repaired, and you can order accessories/parts from your local
dealer (no need to wait months for an extention tube to show up on
eBay...).

3) Russian (really Ukrainian) medium format cameras combine the best and
worst of the two categories above. They are cheap and still in production,
but they are also (somewhat) unreliable and unsupported.

Note that I based this answer on the fact that you want a "system." If you
only really want a standard lens, ignore what I wrote and start looking
for a Rolleiflex TLR.

Bernard



Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Pro Wedding Photographers?
From: "The Dark Slide" The Dark Slide
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 


Hello Tony,

I'll address the subject of the 645 format.

>From the results I've gotten, I say YES, 645 can cut the mustard regarding wedding photography.

Especially, since youre accustomed to the 35mm format, the 645 will almost
be second nature to you, I would think.
I hardly shoot my 35mm anymore.

The nice thing about 645 is that there's minimal cropping when you enlarge to 8x10.
I'm sure you're well familiar with how much of the negative you lose when
you try this with 35mm.

With the square format, you have to be aware of how you frame if you're
expecting your customers to order the popular 8x10 size.

I work at a studio where we use 645 format and Kodak's Portra 160.
We achieve enlargements up to 24x36 without any problems (with a properly
exposed negative, of course).

 other nice thing about 645 is that you can get 15 exposures on a roll of
120 (30 on 220) verses 12 with 6x6.

The downside of 645?
Most 645 cameras are designed to shoot horizontally.
Most of the wedding photos I take are shot vertically.
So, with my outfit, I have the camera turn sideways most of the time.
But, I use a Stroboframe Camera-flip model, so it's really not a big deal
for me.

I think another thing you have to consider as well, is how quickly you can
change rolls of film.

I use a Mamiya 645 Super with the film inserts.  I just pre-load a couple of
them to minimize my time.

The problem with the Mamiya 645 Super, is that the motor drive is VERY noisey.
Of course, that doesn't go over well during the quiet part of the ceremony,
so I have to switch to the manual crank and shoot while the pastor is
speaking over the P.A.

If I did it over again, I would definately consider the camera's noise level.

Good luck and let us know what you get.


felix jimenez

Tony Polson tony.polson@btinternet.com wrote:
> My first questions are about the format.
>
> Can 6x4.5cm really cut the mustard?  I know I need to step up from 35mm,
> but is the step to the negative size of 6x4.5cm format really enough?



From: rshepard@salmo.appl-ecosys.com (Rich Shepard)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.marketplace.medium-format
Subject: Re: what's the advantage of 6X6?
Date: 4 Apr 2002 

H. David Huffman craptalk@lvcm.com wrote:
>    I much prefer the rectangular format.

  This, in my opinion, sums it all up. I traded in my old Nikons (35 mm) for
an equally old Bronica S2A, and I'm back to really enjoying photography
again. About 40-45 years ago, I shot 120 roll film on my father's Plaubel
Makina, then went to 35 mm.

  I like the square format much better, and the prints are quite impressive
and different. My "trial" prints are 5" x 5", and this is the size I give as
gifts (matted and in 11" x 14" frames). The ones we hang on the wall here
are 8"x8" prints in 16"x20" mats and frames.

  So, it's all a matter of personal preference. Just like the religious
arguments over which linux distribution is superior to all the others and
whether vi is superior to emacs. In both cases there is no "best" one. Same
with photograph format.

:-)

Rich


From leica topica mailing list:
Date: Wed, 1 May 2002 
From: Darrell Jennings darrell_jennings@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: Leica/RF645 comparison?

 I agree.  It took me several months to get used to shooting rectangular when I
got my Leica.  Shooting in 6X6 is a different way of thinking and seeing.  It's
hard to describe, but I like to be able to change back and forth between the
two formats (square and rectangle).

  Jim Brick jim@brick.org wrote: 

My personal opinion, from experience, is that you will be sorry that you
didn't go square. If you go Hasselblad, you can get a 16 or 32 back and you
instantly have a 645 camera, as well as a 6x6 camera. The same may be true
if you get a 6x6 Bronica.


But not true if you get a 645 camera. No way to use the wonderful 6x6 format.

Jim

Grant Heffernan wrote:
>All,
>Can anyone here compare apples to oranges for me and let me know what
>they think of the Bronica 645? I've got two M's now, and was thinking of
>losing one to try my hand at medium format, and the 645 seems like the
>best way to go in terms of both handling and price.
>TIA
>-Grant


From leica topica mailing list:
Date: Wed, 01 May 2002 
From: Jim Brick jim@brick.org
Subject: Re: Leica/RF645 comparison?


My personal opinion, from experience, is that you will be sorry that you
didn't go square. If you go Hasselblad, you can get a 16 or 32 back and you
instantly have a 645 camera, as well as a 6x6 camera. The same may be true
if you get a 6x6 Bronica.

But not true if you get a 645 camera. No way to use the wonderful 6x6 format.

Jim


From rollei mailing list:
Date: Mon, 06 May 2002 
From: "John A. Lind" jlind@spitfire.net
Subject: RE: [Rollei] Re: slight OT DOF in MF vs. 35mm

Austin Franklin wrote:
>John,
>
>YOU are assigning one of the dimensions "relevant", and that is purely an
>arbitrary decision.  One could easily just take area, or...the diagonal.  I
>believe the diagonal is a better dimension than one of the sides, as it
>takes in to account both height and width of the format.

It is what I use for screen projection to a square screen.  There is
rationale and logic behind it, so I assert it's NOT purely
arbitrary.  Since the CoC dimension is its diameter, a linear measure, any
comparison between film formats *must* be between their linear
measurements, whether it's one of the edges or a diagonal.  In practical
application, the inherent problem with using diagonals, most especially for
the 6x6 square format, is the different aspect ratios of common film
formats, none of which match common print sizes:
   Film
     35mm     2:3  = 1:1.50
     645      3:4  = 1:1.33
     6x6      1:1  = 1:1.00
     6x7      6:7  = 1:1.17
   Print
     3.5x5    7:10 = 1:1.43
     5x7      5:7  = 1:1.40
     8x10     4:5  = 1:1.25
     11x14   11:14 = 1:1.27

More definitively, for common print sizes, the shorter 24mm dimension for
35mm small format must be considered as it is the edge which must be
magnified the most to fill the shorter dimension of the print.  The longer,
36mm dimension is cropped.  In order to fill an 11x14 print (the size used
most for my exhibition work) the 35mm film frame must be enlarged:
   (11*25.4)/24 = 11.64X
Medium format frames must be enlarged:
   645:  (11*25.4)/41.5 = 6.73X
   6x6:  (14*25.4)/56   = 6.35X
   6x7:  (14*25.4)/69.7 = 5.12X

These are linear magnifications, not areal, and can therefore be used in
considering the CoC for a MF film frame to make it equivalent to one used
for a 35mm film frame.  The relevant dimensions for magnification required
to make an 11x14 print are the short ones for 35mm and 645, and the long
one for the 6x7.  Take your pick of either one for the 6x6.  :-)

Now take the ratios of the magnifications required for 35mm to each medium
format magnification to find how much more a 35mm frame is being magnified
compared to each of the three MF frame sizes:
  645:  11.64/6.73 = 1.73X
   6x6:  11.64/6.35 = 1.83X
   6x7:  11.64/5.12 = 2.27X

These are how much larger each MF frame size CoC diameter can be, on film,
to make it the same size as a 35mm CoC when any of them are enlarged to an
11x14 print.  If a CoC of 0.025mm is used for 35mm, then the following are
the equivalent CoC's for each MF frame size:
   645:  1.73 * 0.025mm = 0.043mm
   6x6:  1.83 * 0.025mm = 0.046mm
   6x7:  2.27 * 0.025mm = 0.057mm

This is the basis of my complaint about models that do not allow adjusting
the CoC to be used.  The max. CoC diameter for the film format should be
based on what is desired for the max. CoC diameter that will be on a print
or projection screen.


-- John



From: kevin_i@my-deja.com (kevin_i)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Beware of the man who trashes Blads and praises Kievs.
Date: 7 Jul 2002 


I agree.  6x6 diagonally produces some interesting "diamond shaped"
images.  Sometimes it actually works quite well.

But then I get people saying things like, "I wish you didn't crop the
corners like that."

-Kevin


"Q.G. de Bakker" dqnu@worldonline.nl wrote 
> David J. Littleboy wrote:
>
> > I take very few pictures diagonally.
>
> You should try sometime. ;-)


From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 
From: Bernard Ferster b.ferster@worldnet.att.net
Subject: Re: [HUG] Hasselblad Format


The history of art enshrines two size ratios, the square and it's
derivative, the Golden Mean. In fact the Golden Mean is found in nature. It
is apparent the arrangement of pine cone, the growth of branches on a
flowing plant, the chambers of the nautilus and the growth of a snail. The
ancient Egypians and Greeks recognized it as the basis of beauty and order.
They employed it in the design of temples. Leonardo da Vinci and George
Seurat based the proportions of their paintings on the Golden Mean.
Molecular biologists have shown that the genetic code is a Golden mean
determined system. The Golden mean is driving force of protein biomolecular
machinery.

What is important to us is that the Golden Mean is NOT the ratio 6 by 4.5
although closer than the 6X6. The Golden Mean is defined as a rectangle
where the small side is to the larger, what the larger is to the whole.
Artimetically, the ratio of 1 to 1.618 is close. (Shades of High School,
0.618..., is pi!) The Golden Mean for a rectangle with a short side of 4.5
units would require a long side of 7.281 units, not 6! With a long side of
6 units, the short side would be 3.7 units. Cropping is still required.

But do not despair of the square! At its theoretical, geometrical center,
the Golden Mean is constructed from and based on the square. (I leave it to
you and Google to search out the geometry involved.) In 25+ years of
shooting square (not the same, alas as being a square shooter) I have found
great value in the versatility of framing that the square format allows,
especially in the "olden" days before the development of film material with
almost non-existent grain, when the extra size of the negative was so
important. In searching for the Golden Mean in the larger negative there is
much more latitude with the 6X6.

B.F.


From: "Tim Ellestad" ellestad@mailbag.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: New Hasselblad
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 

...
>>> Look at www.hasselblad.com they have a new camera!
>>>
>
>Please lets not even compare 35mm with 645 as if the difference is not
>significant. If you crop 6x6 into a rectangle you are then using 645
anyway.

OK if you are making prints in the 5x7 aspect ratio. But if you are making
prints in the 8x10 aspect ratio you are really loosing ground with 645. The
645 offers only a little less than 82% of the area of 6x6 to make 8x10's
from. 645 frame dimensions are 40.5x56. I have both and you can definitely
see the difference in 8x10 prints.

>E.T.
>for7@aol.com


From minolta mailing list:
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 
From: ake.axenbom@bigfoot.com
Subject: When the VC.s and PC lenses becomes obsolete

When the CCD/CMOS chips become so cheap and so large, that the DSLRs are
equipped with quadratic (e.g. 36x36mm) chips, that's when the vertical
control grips as well as the perspective control (shift) lenses become
obsolete. Insted of shifting and tilting and swivelling and turning the
camera, you select what area on the chip is going to be used.

Hee hoo lives will see
regards/ake


From Bronica Mailing List:
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 
From: budd gottesman dophotography@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: 6x6 vs 645 - the secret shift lens trick ;-)

 There is another problem(?) with the 645 format that I have encountered.
First off, know that I used this formate from roughly 1976/77 thru 1990, so I
actually have no further experience after that.  If you will be using a lab
making machine prints (usually proofs would be an 'E' crop or #3 crop).  The
'full negative' crop (#3 or E) is actually NOT the size of the negative.  They
would actually have to go down to the next crop #4 or 'D' as the full negative
IS actually slightly narrower than a 4x5 proportion.  I don't know if any of
this has changed in the last 12 years or so; or not; but it's something else to
consider.  If you're doing candids (weddings, Bar Mitzvahs, etc.) as well as
portraits, it gets to be an annoyance (minor at least) that you'll have to keep
in mind a slightly tighter crop.  You might want to check on this.  I have no
idea if this is also a problem on the 645 backs for square.  I know it was on
Mamiya (I started with that) and later on the ETR (before any additional
letters).  I remember hearing that this was NOT the case on Hassy (you should
pardon the expression) as that was a full, true 645 (4x5 proportion) and have
NO idea on SQa - 645 backs.  I think also the 'nameless "H" brand'  gives you
16 frames on a 120 roll.  It's really not a big thing but was an annoyance.

Budd


From: John Halliwell john@photopia.demon.co.uk
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Advice for a Medium Format Newbie
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003

Robert Monaghan rmonagha@smu.edu writes
>keep in mind that tripod mounted cameras are not always easy to "flip"
>between horiz and vertical (e.g., some ballheads..), so this is a benefit

Interesting that both Bronica and Mamiya offer (presumably expensive)
'swivel brackets' as part of the accessories for their 645 cameras.
Pentax put a second tripod bush on the side for vertical mounting.

--
John
Preston, Lancs, UK.
Photos at http://www.photopia.demon.co.uk



From: "Q.G. de Bakker" qnu@tiscali.nl
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: diamond (diagonal) shots Re: Anyone ever shoot 6x6 diagonally?
Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2003 

Bob Monaghan wrote:
> The biggest use (pun intended) of diagonal shots is for cityscapes, where
> you can't backup, and you still can't get the entire building in even with
> your SWC/M used horizontally. Flip and shoot, and you at least have it all

I remember how out on a trip i once upset a fellow photographer by getting
more in frame horizontally using a 24 mm lens on my 35 mm camera (yes, i
occassionaly can't be bothered to schlepp my MF) than he got using his SWC.
He discovered diagonal shooting then and there, just not to be outdone. I
must say, the pictures worked great. Odd to look at at first, but even the
"diamond"-format can be composed, "filled" very succesfully.



From: rabbitbert@aol.com (Rabbitbert)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 04 Jul 2003 
Subject: Re: diamond (diagonal) shots Re: Anyone ever shoot 6x6 diagonally?

I occasionally do diagonal shots with my Polaroid SX-70 camera. It works
pretty well with this format. One of my favorite photo montages is a series of
eight Time Zero prints arranged three across, three down, with one print placed
on the diagonal in the center, that kind of ties them all together, both in
overall composition and in subject matter.

= = =
= x =
= = =

R.


From: "headscratcher@nospamforme.net"
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: oh, the joy of the square
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 

"redcat" gtg768c@prism.gatech.edu wrote:
>Got my first color 120 film developed and printed today. i cant believe my
>40 year old TLR (acquired 20 days ago) can produce such vibrant colors and
>tones! it sure knocks out my N80.
>am so glad i blew all my meagre tax returns into getting this mamiya c330.

Good call. You'll love the images you get from the Mamiya TLR
lenses. I had a C33...I replaced it with a Pentax 645 system but I
really miss the old bomber.

>hmm, i really like the square. can anybody recommend book(s) that talk about
>or showcase square composition?

Someone already mentioned "The Medium Format Advantage" by Ernst
Wildi. Two others intro books I know of are "Medium format
photography" by Lief Ericksenn and "Medium and large format
photography: moving beyond 35mm for better pictures" by Roger Hicks
and Frances Schultz.

As far as artists, three that come immediately to mind are Richard
Avedon, Diane Arbus and Robert Mapplethorpe. Avedon used Rollei TLRs
when he wasn't using the large format protrait cameras. Arbus loved
the Mamiya TLRs and presented most of her classic images in square
format. If you can deal with the controversial subject matter,
Mapplethorpe is a lesson is dymanic and immaculate composition.

>also, with a 80 lens set at infinity, and aperture at say around f3, what is
>the minimum distance beyond which i will get everything in sharp focus? i
>thought i left 7 feet, but didnt get foregrounds sharp enough.

This question goes beyond medium format or square pictures. If your
lenses do not have depth of field or hyperfocal graphs, you'll have to
consult some charts. Besides, there really is no need to work at f2.8
or to focus on infinity. I'm assuming you're trying to do landscapes,
so stop the lens to f8 or f11 draw the focus back from the infinity
mark.

headscratcher


From: "Jeremy" jeremy@no-spam-thanks.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: oh, the joy of the square
Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2003 

> hmm, i really like the square. can anybody recommend book(s) that talk about
> or showcase square composition?

You might like this--it is oriented toward the Rolleiflex, but the
principles of the TLR will apply equally to your situation:

http://www.foto.no/rolleiflex/Kapittel_1.html


From: Laurent Wirmer news@wirmer.de
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: oh, the joy of the square
Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2003 

redcat wrote:
> hmm, i really like the square. can anybody recommend book(s) that talk about
> or showcase square composition?

I love it too, look at my homepage...
--
Laurent Wirmer
Homepage: http://www.photo-square.com


From: "McLeod" wmcleoa910@rogers.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Anyone ever shoot 6x6 diagonally?
Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 

Wedding photographers rely on proof prints. Unless they are going to pay
more for reprinting to get the effects they want they have to produce them
on film to be machine printed. So any wedding photographer, unless they
have a laser/photographic printer in house will use filters in front of the
lens, turn the camera if they want an angled square proof, and use vignettes
instead of producing the same effect in Photoshop. You can't sell what the
customer can't see.


"Jim Phelps" Jim.Phelps@MI.com wrote
>
> "Mxsmanic" mxsmanic@hotmail.com wrote...
> > Just curious if anyone has ever tried shooting 6x6 or other square
> > frames diagonally (that is, rotated 45 degrees). Seems like it might
> > make an interesting effect for, say, portraits or something, with a nice
> > frame.
> >
> > --
> Other than the obvious; wider field of view or for slides (?), would there
> really be a need? You only gain approx 1.6cm in the corners.
>
> What I mean is, regardless of whether in front of a CRT you scan and print
> digitally or in the darkroom and print wet, you can always rotate the final
> image or the easel to get the same visual effect. I believe only half the
> creativity comes when you're behind the camera. The other half in the
> darkroom (both varieties, please).
>
> Jim



From: "Q.G. de Bakker" qnu@tiscali.nl 
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format 
Subject: Re: Considering a change 
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2003

David J. Littleboy wrote: 
> > So how do 8.25 x 11.5 645 shots look compared to 11.5 x 11.5 6x6 shots? 
> > ;-) 
> 
> If I had an 11.5" width printer, the 11.5x11.5 would look puny compared to 
> 11.5 x 16.5. 
So how do 11.5 x 16.5 645 shots look compared to 16.5 x 16.5 6x6 shots? 
Etcetera. ;-) 
> > Well, no. Not at all. 
> > You seem to have glossed over the important bit: cropping "the negative to 
> > fit the beautiful square format". 
> 
> No, I ignored it. My landscapes aren't square. If anything, they're wider 
> than 1:1.414, at which point I need to stitch in Photoshop and use roll 
> paper... 
You're landscapes aren't rectangular either. And they're not just wider than 
1:1.414, their taller too. So what's the point? 
I thought the whole pictoral "art" in photography is to arrange elements in 
a given frame. Isn't that what's called "composition"? 
But what was it that made you think a logic completely foreign to the thing 
i said would be my logic? 
> If 645 won't hack it for the print sizes I'm targeting, 6x6 won't get me any 
> closer, so I'd want to shoot 6x8 or 6x9. 
The (fallacious) assumption being that only rectangular formats can be 
filled in a pleasing manner, and that 6x6 is no more than a means of 
extending 6x4.5. Again: "The important bit... [etc.]" ;-) 
> Somewhat seriously, though, I'm actually quite surprised how seldom I find 
> an image that I want to crop to anything other than 1:1.414. I had one that 
> I decided looked more interesting cropped to a longer aspect ratio, but  when 
> I rescanned it again, I found that it worked fine at 1:1.414. 
That's because you learned to use the 1:1.414 format, and got accustomed to 
it so much that you can't imagine that other formats work too. And sometimes 
even work better. 

Maybe it would be a good idea to work in different formats, having different 
aspect ratios, to free yourself from this constraint? After all, no format, 
no aspect ratio is the perfect one for all subjects. So always working to a 
1:1.414 aspect ratio must be to some certain degree be limiting your 
photography. 
> Of course, when I shoot with my Rolleiflex, everything's square. Yuck. 
> there's no way to print them without them being smaller than they would have 
> been had I used a sensible rectangular format. 
Again: "Say i want to print my best 6x6 negative, and decide to [...] How's 
that making my 40x40 print smaller?" 
> I don't dislike square as a shape, and have no trouble finding square  things 
> to shoot if the camera at hand is square. But rectangles are bigger. 
Composing square things in a square format gets tired real soon. Just as 
composing oblong subjects in oblong formats. 

Now don't be lazy and avoid indulging in the art of composition a bit. 
And squares are bigger than rectangles, of course. 


From: "Q.G. de Bakker" qnu@tiscali.nl 
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format 
Subject: Re: Considering a change 
Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2003 

R.W. Behan wrote: 
> remember that 6x6 formats turn out to be 6 x 4.5, after you've cropped the 
> negative to fit standard print sizes. [...] 

It never ceases to amaze me how people don't (want) to know that you can 
crop paper to fit your negative size too. 
The rebates are perfect for test strips too. 

So remember that 6x6 is 6x6, and 6x7 format turns out to be 6x6 too after 
you've cropped the negative to fit the beautiful square format. 
;-) 


From: Laurent Wirmer news@wirmer.de
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: question about mf aspect ratio
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 

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


From: "David J. Littleboy" davidjl@gol.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: question about mf aspect ratio
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 

"Bill Mcdonald" morongobill@yahoo.com wrote ...
> rmonagha@engr.smu.edu (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/articles.htm#artikelen

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan



[Ed. note: a reminder that different angles can yield fun and useful imagery...]
From: Andy Buck [buckwiet99@yahoo.com] 
Sent: Wed 2/11/2004 
To: panorama-l@sci.monash.edu.au 
Subject: Re: New Web Photo Gallery Open for Comments (Siracusa and the Baroque Valley of Noto)

As far as using a panoramic camera 'at an angle', Alan Zinn, maker of the Lookaround camera, has done some 
wonderful things with the technique, some of which are at 
http://panoramacamera.us/m_recentwork.html 
Andy
...


From: john@xyzzy.stafford.net (jjs)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: question about mf aspect ratio
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 

Stacey fotocord@yahoo.com wrote:
> Bill Mcdonald wrote:
> > My question is , what format is similiar to 35,
>
> All of them? :-)
>
> There is plenty of film to crop as you need/want.

You can crop the Square Anywhere! (Wish I could remember who first said
that. David Vestal?)

> Just -one- of the cool
> things about 6X6 is you don't have to bother holding the camera sideways.

Aw crap. There goes my new product: The Custom Hasselblad Tripod Head Flipper.



Date: Sun, 16 May 2004 
From: Gordon Moat moat@attglobal.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Omega 120 surprise Re: convertible lens RF? Re: Focal vs. leaf

"Q.G. de Bakker" wrote:
> Gordon Moat wrote:
> . . . . . . . . . . .
> > 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.

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

> > > 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.

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. 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.

> "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.

However, here is the interesting part about this, the closest focusing on the
100 mm is 1.2 metre, while the Bronica SLR 150 mm only close focuses to 1.5
metres. The reason this is relevant is that Bob M. and I were discussing this
exact scenario, and reference to the Bronica RF 645. To the credit of the
ETRSi, there are longer lenses, and there are some extension tubes available to
get an even tighter head shot on the full frame of film, so I still think the
SLR is a better choice for head (and shoulders) photos, and this only shows
that it is possible to do the occasional head shot using the RF645. It might be
possible to find other 645 SLR systems that can focus closer using a 150 mm,
and without resorting to extension tubes, making them even better choices. If I
had many tightly framed head shots to do, the RF 645 is probably the last
camera I would choose.

The Mamiya 7 II is the other current model medium format rangefinder, and
offers a 150 mm lens, though it is a 6x7 camera. The RB/RZ 67 would be the
obvious comparison, though the focusing mechanism on these SLR cameras already
allows for very close range photos, and tight compositions. Clearly, either an
RB67 or RZ67 will allow for tighter head shots. The close focus ability of the
Mamiya 7 150 mm f4.5 is only 1.8 metre, which is not really very close in
comparison to the .82 metre closest focus ability of the RB 150 mm. Even here,
some slight cropping would be needed to match the SLR lens at closest distance,
though much more (in area and percentage) than in the 645 example above. Again,
I think a Mamiya 7 is a poor choice for tightly framed head shots.

>
> 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???

Why ask a question when you already know the answer? I expected better of you.

Obviously, if you want to use longer lenses, then an SLR is the only answer.
Cannot get close enough to the subject, but still want a tight shot, then SLR.
Want a really tight framing of a subject, or even a macro image, then use an
SLR. In fact, nearly every photographer desiring these types of shots is better
served by an SLR, and when I do tight head shots, guess what . . . I use an
SLR. Want to use long lenses, or really feel the need to use long lenses . . .
. . get an SLR.

My photography is not only tight head shots. I also have the "luxury" of being
able to get close to my subjects, making my longest lens a 300 mm, and that one
rarely gets used. In fact, short telephoto and normal focal ranges are my most
used lenses, in medium format, large format, and in 35 mm gear. The type of
imagery I do could be done only on rangefinders, and I do own a few, but most
of my photography is done using SLR cameras.

The discussion Bob M. and I were having brought up medium format rangefinder
cameras, since they are often more compact and light weight than medium format
SLRs. Tight head shots are an obvious shortcoming of rangefinder systems,
unless you ad weird devices like goggles and rangefinder magnifiers. Within
reason, one can get closer to a tighter shot by cropping a little, and even
with cropping, starting off with a larger film frame would be better. There are
some slight advantages to rangefinder cameras, and those few advantages are the
only reason to use them instead of using an SLR. All rangefinder cameras sell
poorly in comparison to SLR cameras, so the best choice for most photographers
seems to be . . . get an SLR.

If you are interested in some wonderful software, that I used for doing the
comparisons, there is a camera and lens calculation program called "pCAM" for
the PalmOS. I have version 1.95, available from .
You can use it to compare several lenses, and many film frame sizes, including
DOF, FoV, distance computations, image preview, etc. Easy to use too.

Ciao!

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





End of Page