Depends on the cameras you own. The number is not infinite, you know. With my Rolleiflex 3.5F I have to start with a square slide or negative and I can crop two rectangles out of it. But like I wrote earlier - much, much, earlier - I started photography with an extremely basic Yashica A TLR (that was really long ago), for me the square is a natural format, everything seems to compose itself into squares. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder - so if you have learned to compose in rectangles or stick to the golden section or the rule of thirds or whatever - it is only natural that you think that it is the only way to do it. Now, thinking of waste of film, the 24x36 mm frame does waste quite a bit - the better format would have been 24x32 or even 24x34 - both of which Nikon used early on but discontinued because of the pressure from the occupation authorities, with Kodak supposedly in the background. All the best! Raimo Personal photography homepage at http://www.uusikaupunki.fi/~raikorho
-----Alkuper�inen viesti----- L�hett�j�: Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Vastaanottaja: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> P�iv�: 29. joulukuuta 2002 0:36 Aihe: Re: 6x6 - Waste of Space? (WAS: Re: Medium Format-Which one is best?) I think P�l wrote this, but I'm getting confused: > > I'm not dismissing square images, but square film. The camera > makers seem to be doing the same. In the future there won't be > "square cameras" I suspect because it is such a waste. > Photographers will crop their images into squares instead of > cropping their squares into rectangles. Exactly. With a 6x7, one can crop into 6x6 when that's desirable. And I do that with some frequency -- perhaps ten to twenty percent of the time. With 6x6, the rectangluar crop brings you back to 645 format. That's okay, but why not start with the rectangle? Paul
