Hi, Albano, Remember, maybe 6 months or a year ago, we had a long discussion on this list about rectangular versus square prints?
Some here suggested that somehow rectangular was more "natural" than square, as our eye's field of vision is wider than is is vertical, hence the prevalence of rectangular paintings (there were other reasons given, but that one stuck in my mind). IIRC, it was somehow suggested that therefore, horizontal rectangular prints are more pleasing to the eye (or brain, or whatever). With the greatest of respect, I thought it was hogwash then, and I still do. Of course, that theory doesn't explain why we might find "vertical" (ie: so-called portrait) prints pleasing. I agree with you, Albano. Rectangular prints have no intrinsic or aesthetic superiority over square ones. We've just been conditioned to expect them. Shooting 6x6 is just another way of looking at things, imho. regards, frank Albano Garcia wrote: > Pal: > You really have to have a square mind to say 6x6 is a > waste. Square pictures can be very beautifull, why in > da hell they must be rectangular? The rectangle is > just a cultural convention, hence naturalized, but > it's still a convention. > Open your mind. > Regards > -- "The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true." -J. Robert Oppenheimer
