Let's see, Pal is saying that 6x6 is a waste of film because it has to cropped to 6x4.5 to fit his idea of a proper format? Now he is saying that it is not a waste to crop 6x7 to 6x4.5, nor 6x4.5 to 4.5x3.5 in reply to Bruce's comment.
Me thinks, Pal is just not willing to admit he is wrong about anything. He would rather come across as being absurd than admit he hadn't thought something through all the way. Ciao, Graywolf http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto ----- Original Message ----- From: "P�l Jensen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, December 29, 2002 8:10 AM Subject: Re: 6x6 - Waste of Space? (WAS: Re: Medium Format-Which one is best?) > Bruce wrote: > > >The square format makes it much easier for fitting > > images to page layouts, since the image can be cropped either, or no, way. > > Nonsense. The 6X7 format contain the 6X6 and is therefore just as easy to crop in any direction. In fact, it is easier as it has more real estate. The idea of having a format that depends on cropping is unsatisfactory for most photographer who prefer to compose and crop in the finder. In addition, constant cropping is a waste of space, which was my point; not whether the square format is aestatically pleasing or not. You won't see a digital format that rely on cropping for the final result as this would be too much of a waste of resources. > > P�l > >
