"J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Pål wrote: >> I didn't dismiss 6X6. I said it was a waste of space. It is. >> Either you crop the film or you crop the paper. Hence, a waste. >> Even Hasselblad are about to abandon the 6X6 format. >> >actually the 6X6 format is the MOST efficient medium format >as it uses the highest percentage of the image circle formed >by the lens. The trick is to compose for square. I seriously >doubt Hassy is going to abandon 6X6 anytime soon.
I think Pål's point was that, if you print rectangular prints (as most people do 99% of the time), then it's a waste in the end. The camera isn't really being efficient if the end result doesn't take advantage of it. I sometimes compose for square shots even when I'm shooting 35mm or 645, which is really inefficient in itself, but it's so rare for me it's no problem. The real advantage of 6x6 medium format like Hasselblad is in studio work on a tripod, where you can compose for either horizontal or vertical shots without rotating the camera 90 degrees. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
