Re: 6x6 - Waste of Space? (WAS: Re: Medium Format-Which one is best?)
Pål, The square format provides valuable versatility. It would be a waste only if it offered little or nothing in return for using more film than 645. In practice, the versatility of 6x6 offers far greater value than the tiny cost of what you say it wastes. I regard it as an *investment* with an especially good pay-off, and I feel sure that most 6x6 users would agree it's worth paying for. Definitely *not* a waste! Tony - Original Message - From: Pål Jensen [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 30, 2002 8:06 PM Subject: Re: 6x6 - Waste of Space? (WAS: Re: Medium Format-Which one is best?) Whether one should worry about it not is another discussion. It is still a waste.
Re: 6x6 - Waste of Space? (WAS: Re: Medium Format-Which one is best?)
John wrote: In practice, the versatility of 6x6 offers far greater value than the tiny cost of what you say it wastes. I regard it as an *investment* with an especially good pay-off, and I feel sure that most 6x6 users would agree it's worth paying for. Definitely *not* a waste! And thats what I'm saying. It is a waste but many find it worth paying for. Pål
Re: 6x6 - Waste of Space? (WAS: Re: Medium Format-Which one is best?)
On Thu, 2 Jan 2003, [iso-8859-1] Pål Jensen wrote: And thats what I'm saying. It is a waste but many find it worth paying for. Then its NOT a waste for them, now is it? Its a waste to you based on how you use your camera. It was a waste to me based on how I used my camera. It makes perfect sense to any number of people who choose to use it, however, and its hardly fair to call it a waste because your personal style differs from it. Just give up, stop calling it a waste, and accept people have a differnt style from you. If anything, the square format in 120 will live on in film longer than 645 because of its very uniqueness, and the 645 format will probably take over in digital than 66 because of its commonality. -- http://www.infotainment.org - more fun than a poke in your eye. http://www.eighteenpercent.com- photography and portfolio.
Re: 6x6 - Waste of Space? (WAS: Re: Medium Format-Which one is best?)
My suspicion is that how things are done is dependent on the specifics of where one works and the type of client. This is due in large part to the apprentice system in getting into professional photography. The NYC studio school may well be different than where you are. The shoots I have been on were for magazine assignments and this can be different than advertising. Are the shooters employees of the agencies, or freelancers on assignment? BR [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I work in advertising. We spend 20 K a day for studio photography. Almost all of the photographers we use shoot large format. In the last year or two, they've been switching to 4x5 with a digital back. However, we also do a lot of location photography. Close to half of the big buck location shooters who work for the major ad agencies shoot Pentax 6x7. Paul Stenquist
Re: 6x6 - Waste of Space? (WAS: Re: Medium Format-Which one is best?)
The shooters we use are freelancers contracted by the agency. But you're correct in that equipment varies depending on the type of client. The shoots I'm speaking of are all automotive where a horizontal format is desirable. I've found that equipment doesn't really vary much by locale, since most top photographers work for clients all over the country. When I worked for New York agencies in the early eighties, we frequently used Broadway Studios in Detroit for car photography. Of course, Hasselblad's are very prevalent among fashion photographers. My point was merely that the Hassy is not necessarily the universal first choice choice of top studio photographers, and Pentax 6x7 is very popular with automotive location shooters. Paul Stenquist Bruce Rubenstein wrote: My suspicion is that how things are done is dependent on the specifics of where one works and the type of client. This is due in large part to the apprentice system in getting into professional photography. The NYC studio school may well be different than where you are. The shoots I have been on were for magazine assignments and this can be different than advertising. Are the shooters employees of the agencies, or freelancers on assignment? BR [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I work in advertising. We spend 20 K a day for studio photography. Almost all of the photographers we use shoot large format. In the last year or two, they've been switching to 4x5 with a digital back. However, we also do a lot of location photography. Close to half of the big buck location shooters who work for the major ad agencies shoot Pentax 6x7. Paul Stenquist
Re: 6x6 - Waste of Space? (WAS: Re: Medium Format-Which one is best?)
- Original Message - From: Pål Jensen [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 30, 2002 1:27 PM Subject: Re: 6x6 - Waste of Space? (WAS: Re: Medium Format-Which one is best?) I argued that the square format has no advantage when it comes to cropping than, say, the 6X7 format, like you claimed. Hi Pål, I have watched this thread with increasing amusement, as those who shout loudest and pronounce the most dogmatic of opinions appear to be those with the least knowledge and experience of shooting with medium format equipment. I shoot a mix of 35mm and medium format and have done so for years. I started with a Rolleicord, graduated to a Rolleiflex and backed it up with a Yashicamat 124G. More recently I invested in a Bronica ETRSi system, mainly because the new PE lenses had been compared with the vastly more expensive Carl Zeiss T* lenses for Hasselblad and found to be very good performers. I also liked the idea of a lighter medium format camera that could be hand held more easily than the Hassy for candid portraits. What a useless format 6x4.5cm is! It seems to be aimed at the 35mm enthusiast who cannot (or will not!) appreciate the virtues of 6x6cm. Unless you tilt the camera for shots in portrait format, you end up with a usable negative that is effectively not much bigger than the 35mm frame. I was grateful for the ETRSi experience. The real virtues of 6x6cm could not have been more clear. With the square negative you fill the frame with the subject and you just *know* that you have made the best use of the negative, whether or not it is cropped into rectangular format (portrait or landscape) for printing. The truth is that the medium format cameras used by people who make their living from photography are not designed to be used tilted through 90 degrees. Yes, it is possible, and this is where amateur shooters get the idea that it is easy. Boy, it is NOT!! Bringing 6x7cm into the discussion merely clouds the issue. If you seek virtue in the only slightly larger negative (larger really starts at 4x5inches!) you should look at the Mamiya RZ67. That camera is designed as a 7x7cm box with a rotating 6x7cm back. Those amateurs who abhor the wastage of one centimetre of film will be delighted to hear that the RZ67 offers the possibility of shooting portrait or landscape modes on one film in one camera. People who shoot for a living will be delighted that they don't need to sacrifice what ergonimics they have by tilting the camera on its side. So will everyone be happy? I doubt it. 6x6cm will remain the medium format of choice for the foreseeable future for those who shoot film for a living, and 6x4.5cm will remain the first choice of 35mm amateur users trading up. 6x7cm will remain the preserve of those of either persuasion who wish to extract the maximum possible benefit from 120 film. 6x9cm and 6x17cm will mainly attract the landscape guys. But one thing is clear. Only an amateur would obsess about wasting a centimetre! Chuckle!! Regards, John.
Re: 6x6 - Waste of Space? (WAS: Re: Medium Format-Which one is best?)
John wrote: I doubt it. 6x6cm will remain the medium format of choice for the foreseeable future for those who shoot film for a living, and 6x4.5cm will remain the first choice of 35mm amateur users trading up. 6x7cm will remain the preserve of those of either persuasion who wish to extract the maximum possible benefit from 120 film. 6x9cm and 6x17cm will mainly attract the landscape guys. Sorry, but the 6X6 format isn't very popular and industrywise it is seen as dying. The new Hasselblad use 6X4,5 and is directly targeted at their core professional buyers. The reson for this move is pretty obvious. I have no problem with the fact that some prefer the square format but the arguments they use doesn't make sense something thats proved by the direction the market is moving in. Pål
Re: 6x6 - Waste of Space? (WAS: Re: Medium Format-Which one is best?)
John wrote: But one thing is clear. Only an amateur would obsess about wasting a centimetre! Whether one should worry about it not is another discussion. It is still a waste. The day you waste similar % of space on an expensive commodity like a digital sensor, then such excess will be seen as totally unacceptable. Pål
Re: 6x6 - Waste of Space? (WAS: Re: Medium Format-Which one is best?)
Bt. Sorry.. no washer dryer for you Pal ;-) Many on the Blad list (HUG) feel that the 6x4.5 is a good idea but far from what Hasselblad is aiming for with respect to film formats. It adds autofocus to a smaller rectangular format and is aimed mainly at Wedding photographers - those who use 6x4.5 the most. Not all Hasselblad buyers or their core professional buyers are Wedding Photographers. Many, yes, but not the larger percentage. This combined with the fact that the camera is really a FUJI product (yes, it's designed and made in conjucntion with Fuji - even the lenses are Fuji lenses and not the Zeiss glass that most Blad users revere) makes the H1 decent but not earth shattering and does not signal whatsoever the death of 6x6. The only other benefit to the H1 is the digital back by Kodak. Cheers, Dave Original Message: - From: Pål Jensen [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 21:04:22 +0100 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: 6x6 - Waste of Space? (WAS: Re: Medium Format-Which one is best?) John wrote: I doubt it. 6x6cm will remain the medium format of choice for the foreseeable future for those who shoot film for a living, and 6x4.5cm will remain the first choice of 35mm amateur users trading up. 6x7cm will remain the preserve of those of either persuasion who wish to extract the maximum possible benefit from 120 film. 6x9cm and 6x17cm will mainly attract the landscape guys. Sorry, but the 6X6 format isn't very popular and industrywise it is seen as dying. The new Hasselblad use 6X4,5 and is directly targeted at their core professional buyers. The reson for this move is pretty obvious. I have no problem with the fact that some prefer the square format but the arguments they use doesn't make sense something thats proved by the direction the market is moving in. Pål mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ .
Re: 6x6 - Waste of Space? (WAS: Re: Medium Format-Which one is best?)
David wrote: Many on the Blad list (HUG) feel that the 6x4.5 is a good idea but far from what Hasselblad is aiming for with respect to film formats. It adds autofocus to a smaller rectangular format and is aimed mainly at Wedding photographers - those who use 6x4.5 the most. Not all Hasselblad buyers or their core professional buyers are Wedding Photographers. Many, yes, but not the larger percentage. This combined with the fact that the camera is really a FUJI product (yes, it's designed and made in conjucntion with Fuji - even the lenses are Fuji lenses and not the Zeiss glass that most Blad users revere) makes the H1 decent but not earth shattering and does not signal whatsoever the death of 6x6. The only other benefit to the H1 is the digital back by Kodak. That has really not much to do with it. The new Hasselblad is not a 6X6 camera because thats not where the money is. If the majority of Hasseblad users, and not to forget potential users, wannted the square format, all Hassel need to do is to carve a square shutter opening on the new H1. The lenses covers the same image circle. 6X6 is format destined to die with film. In digital the need for stndardisation is paramount in order to achieve effective sensor production. Nobody can afford to make sensors for weird formats; particularly when in 90% of the cases the image will be cropped down to a format that fit standard sensors. It doesn't make sense. In spite of what been stated before in this thread, the overwhelming sucess of the latest AF medium format cameras has eroded the sales of Hasselblad and the like more than anything else. Whereas the likes of Pentax and Contax breaks sales records Hasselblad sales are down up to 60%. Most have figured out that they crop 6X6 down to 6X4,5 anyway and that the new features are worth turing the camera for verticals for. Pål
Re: 6x6 - Waste of Space? (WAS: Re: Medium Format-Which one is best?)
Original Message: - From: Pål Jensen [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 21:29:19 +0100 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: 6x6 - Waste of Space? (WAS: Re: Medium Format-Which one is best?) That has really not much to do with it. The new Hasselblad is not a 6X6 camera because thats not where the money is. If the majority of Hasseblad users, and not to forget potential users, wannted the square format, all Hassel need to do is to carve a square shutter opening on the new H1. The lenses covers the same image circle. 6X6 is format destined to die with film. Do you have a predicted time frame for this death? Is it similar to the death that film will have once it is overtaken by digital? (as so many have also predicted) In digital the need for stndardisation is paramount in order to achieve effective sensor production. Nobody can afford to make sensors for weird formats; particularly when in 90% of the cases the image will be cropped down to a format that fit standard sensors. It doesn't make sense. Just out of curiosity, why haven't we seen a decent amount of Pentax 645 digital sensors? There are a number of digital sensors and backs made for the 6x6 format - also for the 645 format - it seems that what you're saying is that in order to standardize for effective sensor production that there should only be one or the other format. If this is the case, and we know that there are a lot of 35mm digital SLRS available currently (and maybe even Pentax will produce one in the near future) then why isn't the standard the 35mm sensor? Why even bother with Medium Format sensors? In spite of what been stated before in this thread, the overwhelming sucess of the latest AF medium format cameras has eroded the sales of Hasselblad and the like more than anything else. Whereas the likes of Pentax and Contax breaks sales records Hasselblad sales are down up to 60%. Most have figured out that they crop 6X6 down to 6X4,5 anyway and that the new features are worth turing the camera for verticals for. Pål With respect to sales records - wouldn't happen to be the fact that Pentax 645 (I'm not talking the 6x7) or Contax is what people wading into MF are looking at is it? The 6x4.5 format is what I first tried when going into MF. Guess what, I hated it. So what did I do? I sold my Pentax 645N on the used market. Since we are talking sales - have you also investigated how many Pentax and Contax AF 645 cameras show up on the used market vs Hasselblads? Probably at least as many I would gather but I have no stats to back it up. Just as you have no stats to back up your current claims. I'm not so sure why you can't just accept the fact that there can be more than one MF size - why you feel that 6x6 has to die - why you feel that everyone wants to enjoy rotating their cameras to go from landscape to portrait. Curious, Dave mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ .
Re: 6x6 - Waste of Space? (WAS: Re: Medium Format-Which one is best?)
??? Let's see? 24x36mm film or sensor, 8x10 or 8-1/2x11 print or media image. 24x6mm = 144 sq mm or 13% waste. Or for a Golden Mean sized image 36x2mm = 72 sq mm or 8% waste. For a CD cover 24x12 mm wasted. 1 usable shot from 36, 24x36x35 = 30240 sq mm wasted. I don't think we have to worry too much about square negatives. where we still have a 56x42 usable negative compared to a 24x30 usable negative. 3 rolls of 35mm @ $10 per roll compared to 2 sheets of 4x5 at $5 per sheet. Come on let's really compare waste. La Di Da! Ciao, Graywolf http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto - Original Message - From: Pål Jensen [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 30, 2002 3:06 PM Subject: Re: 6x6 - Waste of Space? (WAS: Re: Medium Format-Which one is best?) John wrote: But one thing is clear. Only an amateur would obsess about wasting a centimetre! Whether one should worry about it not is another discussion. It is still a waste. The day you waste similar % of space on an expensive commodity like a digital sensor, then such excess will be seen as totally unacceptable. Pål
Re: 6x6 - Waste of Space? (WAS: Re: Medium Format-Which one is best?)
David wrote: Do you have a predicted time frame for this death? Is it similar to the death that film will have once it is overtaken by digital? (as so many have also predicted) No. I don't know when film dies. I believe it will be around for the foreseeable future and that 6X6 will still exist as long as roll film can be bought. Dying is relative here. Just out of curiosity, why haven't we seen a decent amount of Pentax 645 digital sensors? There are a number of digital sensors and backs made for the 6x6 format - also for the 645 format - it seems that what you're saying is that in order to standardize for effective sensor production that there should only be one or the other format. If this is the case, and we know that there are a lot of 35mm digital SLRS available currently (and maybe even Pentax will produce one in the near future) then why isn't the standard the 35mm sensor? Why even bother with Medium Format sensors? The digital market are now in a chaotic state. The industry is talking to each other regarding sensor standards; everyone agrees that sensors need to be standardised in order to get prices down. What has emerged for slr's is a below full frame 35mm sensor; the Olydak format is one of those and will perhaps be the standard; the 35mm size is another and also the 6X4,5. The problem with the 6X6 format for digital is that for sensors prices increases exponentially with area. It is possible that a 6X6 sensor will cost twice the amount of a 6X4,5. This will be a waste if you end up with an image using a 6X4,5 area anyway. Besides, 6X6 is far less popular as well to start with. Another obvious point is that Hasselblad wouldn't have made the H1 6X4,5 if the users really wanted a 6X6. 6X6 users are about to die like Cadillac owners. Todays photographers grew up with Nikon and Canon AF and most of them won't be attracted to a square format; a format that was far more popular when their grandfathers grew up. I'm not so sure why you can't just accept the fact that there can be more than one MF size - why you feel that 6x6 has to die - why you feel that everyone wants to enjoy rotating their cameras to go from landscape to portrait. It is a fact and the writing on the wall is that Hasseblad, who has constantly touted the virtue of this format, doesn't have enough faith it in to make their new camera system use it. Square isn't the hottest thing anymore. Just to set the record straight. I never said that square format was waste of time or money. Nor did I say it wasn't worth pursuing if you like the stuff. What I said was that it is waste of space and by this I mean that you either waste film area or paper area. Whether this waste is acceptable or not is really down to the individual users but it is fact of life that most people don't want a format where they end up routinely cropping the image down to a smaller format. Pål
Re: 6x6 - Waste of Space? (WAS: Re: Medium Format-Which one is best?)
It's a good thing you've never shot 35mm. You'd have slit your wrists long ago from having to crop all that film to fit standard aspect ratio rectangles (for 8x10, 5x7, 11x14), or magazine covers. BR [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ... it is fact of life that most people don't want a format where they end up routinely cropping the image down to a smaller format. Pål
Re: 6x6 - Waste of Space? (WAS: Re: Medium Format-Which one is best?)
- Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: 6x6 - Waste of Space? (WAS: Re: Medium Format-Which one is best?) Do you have a predicted time frame for this death? Is it similar to the death that film will have once it is overtaken by digital? (as so many have also predicted) I have an inside track that Hasselblad will announce the demise of the 6x6 format from their perspective at the next Ulan Bator show. William Robb
Re: 6x6 - Waste of Space? (WAS: Re: Medium Format-Which one is best?)
- Original Message - From: Raimo Korhonen Subject: Vs: 6x6 - Waste of Space? (WAS: Re: Medium Format-Which one is best?) The 24x36 format usually wastes at least 11% of the area. Yup, and that is in what is referred to as a full frame print. William Robb
Re: 6x6 - Waste of Space? (WAS: Re: Medium Format-Which one is best?)
On 30 Dec 2002 at 18:31, William Robb wrote: - Original Message - From: Raimo Korhonen Subject: Vs: 6x6 - Waste of Space? (WAS: Re: Medium Format-Which one is best?) The 24x36 format usually wastes at least 11% of the area. Yup, and that is in what is referred to as a full frame print. Yup, I regularly have 5x7.5 prints made from my 35mm films. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html
Re: 6x6 - Waste of Space? (WAS: Re: Medium Format-Which one is best?)
- Original Message - From: Pål Jensen Subject: Re: 6x6 - Waste of Space? (WAS: Re: Medium Format-Which one is best?) . What I said was that it is waste of space and by this I mean that you either waste film area or paper area. Which is just not true, Pål. Photo labs (where most photographic prints are made, by a HUGE margin) use roll paper, not cut sheets. Therefore, no waste with square prints, no waste with rectangular either. Want an 8x8, then take an 8 paper advance from an 8 roll. Of course, anyone using a square format camera with the intention of making 8x10 prints has probably bought the wrong camera. No accounting for foolishness. William Robb
Re: 6x6 - Waste of Space? (WAS: Re: Medium Format-Which one is best?)
Brad wrote: I believe he is referring to your tendency to come up with numbers with little support. The number was a joke. It illustrated the fact that only a miniscule fraction of all the images shot and published are square. The square cameras has significantly less than 1% marketshare, and I can print that number without backing it up as it is obvious, proving it's lack of popularity. A square film format can survive as long as the medium is cheap and doesn't have to be square, like film. However, in the future nodody would invest in a format that is unpopular to such an incredible extent. It doesn't matter what Bruce R is trying to stay; those photographers are so few and far between that nobody cares; if they wanbt square images - crop it like many are already doing. Sure the square is important in photography, but so is the triangle. How about triangular shutter opening? Pål
Re: 6x6 - Waste of Space? (WAS: Re: Medium Format-Which one is best?)
Frantisek wrote: from purely technical standpoint (I won't diverge into aesthetics and all), square is the format that wastes _the least_ of a lens field of view. I believe I made that point a couple of days ago... It is probably where the idea of a square format comes from. Pål
Re: 6x6 - Waste of Space? (WAS: Re: Medium Format-Which one is best?)
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: Pål 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. Pål
Re: 6x6 - Waste of Space? (WAS: Re: Medium Format-Which one is best?)
It is obvious that you can understand nothing outside of the perspective of an amateur nature photographer. Professional studio/commercial/wedding photographers are the market for MF cameras, including 2 1/4. Companies that make these cameras don't care about hobbyists. In a studio, photographers aren't screwing around rotating cameras for horizontal and vertical shots. Same thing for wedding photographers using 2 1/4. Time costs more than film. Final cropping is determined by the client, and not the photographer, no matter how he fills the frame. The vast majority of photographers using this format never give a though to what Pal is obsessing over. BR [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote 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.
Re: 6x6 - Waste of Space? (WAS: Re: Medium Format-Which one is best?)
Well, this is clearly true. A square format will make the camera orientation independent, and most of us are going to crop our photos to some degree anyway. Regards, Bob Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy! - Benjamin Franklin From: Bruce Rubenstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] [caustic remark deleted] In a studio, photographers aren't screwing around rotating cameras for horizontal and vertical shots. Same thing for wedding photographers using 2 1/4. Time costs more than film. Final cropping is determined by the client, and not the photographer, no matter how he fills the frame. [caustic remark deleted]
Re: 6x6 - Waste of Space? (WAS: Re: Medium Format-Which one is best?)
When I'm shooting a rapid sequence of various shots, I sometimes use my 6x7 as though it were a 6x6, shooting both horizontals and verticals with the camera in the horizontal position. Perhaps this is the result of having used a 6x6 for many years. In any case, I'm pleased that I now have the option of using the camera as a 6x6 or as a 6x7. Paul Bob Blakely wrote: Well, this is clearly true. A square format will make the camera orientation independent, and most of us are going to crop our photos to some degree anyway. Regards, Bob Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy! - Benjamin Franklin From: Bruce Rubenstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] [caustic remark deleted] In a studio, photographers aren't screwing around rotating cameras for horizontal and vertical shots. Same thing for wedding photographers using 2 1/4. Time costs more than film. Final cropping is determined by the client, and not the photographer, no matter how he fills the frame. [caustic remark deleted]
Re: 6x6 - Waste of Space? (WAS: Re: Medium Format-Which one is best?)
Tom wrote: 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. No I'm not. I'm saying its a waste to use a format you end up cropping anyway and that the 6X6 format has no advantage over, say, the 6X7 format when it comes to cropping. 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. Me thinks you don't understand what I'm saying. Pål
Re: 6x6 - Waste of Space? (WAS: Re: Medium Format-Which one is best?)
Bruce wrote: In a studio, photographers aren't screwing around rotating cameras for horizontal and vertical shots. Same thing for wedding photographers using 2 1/4. Time costs more than film. Final cropping is determined by the client, and not the photographer, no matter how he fills the frame. reread what I was saying. Since the 6X7 format contains the 6X6 format it is no easier to crop the 6X6 than the 6X7. You don't have rotate the latter either. You get a 6X6 regardless on how you rotate the 6X7. This is bogus argument promulgated for years but still don't make any sense. Why not just admit that one likes the square argument instead of creating irrational arguments? Pål
Re: 6x6 - Waste of Space? (WAS: Re: Medium Format-Which one is best?)
Have you ever been in a studio? Most photographers already have their gear it's 2 1/4 square and says Hasselblad on the front. Why would they buy a 6x7 to replace it? They certainly aren't going to buy a Pentax 6x7, because it doesn't have a removable back. Regardless of what people here think the merits are of a removable back, every studio I've been in, that wasn't direct digital, shoots a Polaroid first. Of course, Pal have never been in the US, let alone a NYC studio. He thinks all Hasselblad users, like Ansel Adams, are wasteful jerks, since the great Pal has never wasted a single mm of any film he has ever shot. After all the money he's spent on Pentax gear hs is an expert on waste. BR [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: reread what I was saying. Since the 6X7 format contains the 6X6 format it is no easier to crop the 6X6 than the 6X7. You don't have rotate the latter either. You get a 6X6 regardless on how you rotate the 6X7. This is bogus argument promulgated for years but still don't make any sense. Why not just admit that one likes the square argument instead of creating irrational arguments? Pål
Re: 6x6 - Waste of Space? (WAS: Re: Medium Format-Which one is best?)
Unless it was Rocks and Reindeer Monthly, Pal doesn't care, and knows more than you do anyway. Don't try to confuse the issue with real life examples. BR [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In practice, it's not particularly easy to anticipate a particular crop in the viewfinder. In the studios I've worked in, when a specific crop was needed, for instance for a magazine cover, we use a view camera, draw the final proportions precisely on acetate, and tape the acetate to the ground-glass. For most photographers, when they look at a 6x7 viewfinder, they will tend to compose to a rectangular frame. --Mike
Re: 6x6 - Waste of Space? (WAS: Re: Medium Format-Which one is best?)
The photographer I've been working for uses a Fuji 618 as his main camera. It's native format is 6x8. It can be changed to other formats (6x7, 2 1/4 and 645) by changing inserts in the film back. Since the camera has lots of electronics it knows, based on the insert, which format it is and how much to advance the film. BR [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: When I'm shooting a rapid sequence of various shots, I sometimes use my 6x7 as though it were a 6x6, shooting both horizontals and verticals with the camera in the horizontal position. Perhaps this is the result of having used a 6x6 for many years. In any case, I'm pleased that I now have the option of using the camera as a 6x6 or as a 6x7. Paul
Re: 6x6 - Waste of Space? (WAS: Re: Medium Format-Which one is best?)
Albano: Thanks for that suggestion. It was great to look at the square, in use. --- Albano Garcia [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, Steve Congratulations. First, if you want to see how to use a square very well go to www.marktucker.com. This guy knows what he does. Regards and enjoy the square waste!!! ;-) Albano --- Steve Pearson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As the originator of this thread, all of you will be happy to know that I did purchase the Yashica Mat LM to begin my journey into MF. I have really enjoyed everyone's comments about the 6x6 format (and others). Although it is not a Pentax (hopefully it will be someday soon), I would appreciate any ideas or suggestions on the 6x6 format. It sounds like many of you out there currently use this format. Are there any recomendations out there for reference books, specific to the 6x6 format? Also, what is your favorite 120 film, in both BW and color negative, for portraits? How about for landscapes? Thanks again all! --- T Rittenhouse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Humm? Didn't I just read somewhere about a 4096x4096 sensor? Maybe in a Photokina report? Ciao, Graywolf http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto - Original Message - From: Pål Jensen [EMAIL PROTECTED] JCO wrote: Are you saying there isnt a pro digital SQUARE sensor in a back made for the Hassleblad? I said digital camera, not back. Hasselblads digital camera is going to have a rectangular image like everybody elses. Thats because there won't be a square digital standard format; 6X6 or otherwise. __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com = Albano Garcia El Pibe Asahi __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
Re: 6x6 - Waste of Space? (WAS: Re: Medium Format-Which one is best?)
Absolutely! But they were also responsible for some of the most spectacular pieces of art ever created. However, by proclaiming that an 'oblong' of certain proportions is better, in any way, than an 'square' you are creating an artificial situation - some kind of an 'ideal' that is restrictive and simply not supported by what we see about us. Where is the golden ratio 'seen' in nature by the way? Please explain. Some examples would help. But please don't find 'numbers' in nature from snail shells, or sea creatures, patterns on leaves, or in the arrangement of flower parts, or any other 'golden' patterns in biology, or 'magical' numbers in mathematical series and then convert them into 'magical' ratios for rectangles. That's artificial. You might just as well convert them to ellipses, spirals or other much more complicated, even folded, surfaces or shapes. The 'golden' proportions are simply one idea about what is pleasing to the eye. Squares can be too. Making rules about them is silly. Great art throughout history has been about breaking those rigid, stultifying, rules. Just look at some of the greatest pictures. You can't make rules about art. I'm sure Picasso wouldn't have made his timeless contribution to art if he'd followed the 'rules.' What about Van Gogh's unconventional use of colour? I've just removed a paragraph here that would have set the cat among the pigeons. Don Dr E D F Williams http://personal.inet.fi/cool/don.williams Author's Web Site and Photo Gallery Updated: March 30, 2002 - Original Message - From: frank theriault [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, December 27, 2002 11:55 PM Subject: Re: 6x6 - Waste of Space? (WAS: Re: Medium Format-Which one is best?) The Ancient Greeks also thought that there were only four elements, only allowed men to vote and called it democracy, had no problem making captured enemy warriors into slaves, believed there were dozens (if not hundreds) of gods, and thought you could tell the future by looking at the guts of dead chickens or steam coming out of holes in the ground (such as at the Oracle of Delphi). Telling me that the Greeks liked rectangles doesn't impress me too much vbg. regards, frank Bob Blakely wrote: Golden ratio. Said by the ancient Greeks to be the most naturally pleasing four sided shape. The golden ratio is found everywhere in nature. -- The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true. -J. Robert Oppenheimer
Re: 6x6 - Waste of Space? (WAS: Re: Medium Format-Which one is best?)
Hi, Keith, I agree with both you and Dr. Williams. But, (it must be that I'm a Libra - hey aren't the zodiac signs Greek?) let me play devil's advocate here. The Golden Ratio, or whatever one chooses to call it, is indeed some arbitrary mathematical ratio that the human mind imposes over certain objects, and then says, well, isn't that pleasing. But isn't that the point? It isn't, I suppose, that it's found in nature, but that the human mind will impose ~it's~ structures (for lack of a better term) on what it finds in the world, and judge certain things to be more satisfying than others.. If that's the way some people want to look at and interpret the world, so be it. Personally, I think it's poppycock. And I still think that the prevalence of rectangular photographic paper is due to the overwhelming dominance of 35mm in the marketplace over the last 50 years or so. But, what do I know? g As I said before, it's fun to ponder... -frank Keith Whaley wrote: Regardless of who said it, or who believes it, I propose the so-called Golden Rectangle is more an observational circumstance, hardly any formal rule promulgated by anyone. Absent proof of it being someone's rule for the wonderfulness of any given composition, that will remain my belief. Yes, I've seen all the books and articles that draw lines over the master's painings and sketches, thereby proving the work was purposefully laid down with the Golden Rectangle in mind. I contend it's something that if you're really obscessed with, you can find that pattern almost anywhere in a good composition... Quote any old-time artist's writings that set forth such a plan with respect to the generation of his or her composition, and I'll consider changing my mind. Until then, I'll simply believe it's an observation, overlaid on a pleasing scene. -- The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true. -J. Robert Oppenheimer
Re: 6x6 - Waste of Space? (WAS: Re: Medium Format-Which one is best?)
Bob wrote: The proportions of photographic paper are determined by the historical proportions of ordinary paper. This isn't about the format of paper but format of film (which hardly ever fit the paper). One possible reason why there may be more (non-square) rectangular compositions than square ones is that there is only one square, and there are infinitely many possible rectangles. Nope. It is because we don't observe the world square. It is also because the square format project less tension and look more static. Some controlled psychological eperiments have apparently suggested that there is no preference for the golden section over other proportions, and this appears to be borne out by statistics gathered about the proportions used by European painters historically. Not true. Controlled psychological test have confirmed that almost all humans prefer the golden section or something close to it. Totally symetrical, or square images are observed with less interest as it contains less visual tension. Pål
Re: 6x6 - Waste of Space? (WAS: Re: Medium Format-Which one is best?)
Keith wrote: I contend it's something that if you're really obscessed with, you can find that pattern almost anywhere in a good composition... Good composition, yes. Perhaps thats whats makes it good. Pål
Re: 6x6 - Waste of Space? (WAS: Re: Medium Format-Which one is best?)
Frank wrote: But isn't that the point? It isn't, I suppose, that it's found in nature, but that the human mind will impose ~it's~ structures (for lack of a better term) on what it finds in the world, and judge certain things to be more satisfying than others.. If that's the way some people want to look at and interpret the world, so be it. Personally, I think it's poppycock. Poppycock? But isn't this what photography is all about? Arranging the world so that it pleases our senses? Making images that fail to please is pointless. Everyone who ignories this is doomed to a lifetime of failed photography. How many square images to you see in print? Not many? How come if they are so visually powerful? Mind you, I'm not saying square images won't work. They do sometimes. However, it makes more sense to crop a rectangle to a square than the other way around. Also, the square format was not made for any artistic purposes whatsoever but simply a way to capture as much of the light from the lens as possible. Pål
Re: 6x6 - Waste of Space? (WAS: Re: Medium Format-Which one is best?)
If 35mm is so dominant, why don't we see paper readily available in the same 1:1.5 proportions? frank theriault wrote: Hi, Keith, I agree with both you and Dr. Williams. But, (it must be that I'm a Libra - hey aren't the zodiac signs Greek?) let me play devil's advocate here. The Golden Ratio, or whatever one chooses to call it, is indeed some arbitrary mathematical ratio that the human mind imposes over certain objects, and then says, well, isn't that pleasing. But isn't that the point? It isn't, I suppose, that it's found in nature, but that the human mind will impose ~it's~ structures (for lack of a better term) on what it finds in the world, and judge certain things to be more satisfying than others.. If that's the way some people want to look at and interpret the world, so be it. Personally, I think it's poppycock. And I still think that the prevalence of rectangular photographic paper is due to the overwhelming dominance of 35mm in the marketplace over the last 50 years or so. But, what do I know? g As I said before, it's fun to ponder... -frank Keith Whaley wrote: Regardless of who said it, or who believes it, I propose the so-called Golden Rectangle is more an observational circumstance, hardly any formal rule promulgated by anyone. Absent proof of it being someone's rule for the wonderfulness of any given composition, that will remain my belief. Yes, I've seen all the books and articles that draw lines over the master's painings and sketches, thereby proving the work was purposefully laid down with the Golden Rectangle in mind. I contend it's something that if you're really obscessed with, you can find that pattern almost anywhere in a good composition... Quote any old-time artist's writings that set forth such a plan with respect to the generation of his or her composition, and I'll consider changing my mind. Until then, I'll simply believe it's an observation, overlaid on a pleasing scene. -- The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true. -J. Robert Oppenheimer
Re: 6x6 - Waste of Space? (WAS: Re: Medium Format-Which one is best?)
Um... I dunno. -frank Lon Williamson wrote: If 35mm is so dominant, why don't we see paper readily available in the same 1:1.5 proportions? -- The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true. -J. Robert Oppenheimer
Re: 6x6 - Waste of Space? (WAS: Re: Medium Format-Which one is best?)
- Original Message - From: Steve Pearson Subject: Re: 6x6 - Also, what is your favorite 120 film, in both BW and color negative, for portraits? How about for landscapes? Ilford FP4+, Kodak Portra 160NC. William Robb
Re: 6x6 - Waste of Space? (WAS: Re: Medium Format-Which one is best?)
We did. Postcard sized paper was very popular. Don Dr E D F Williams http://personal.inet.fi/cool/don.williams Author's Web Site and Photo Gallery Updated: March 30, 2002 - Original Message - From: frank theriault [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, December 28, 2002 4:06 PM Subject: Re: 6x6 - Waste of Space? (WAS: Re: Medium Format-Which one is best?) Um... I dunno. -frank Lon Williamson wrote: If 35mm is so dominant, why don't we see paper readily available in the same 1:1.5 proportions? -- The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true. -J. Robert Oppenheimer
Re: 6x6 - Waste of Space? (WAS: Re: Medium Format-Which one is best?)
For many decades the standard snapshot print size was the deckle edged N print (3.5 x 4.5) (look in your old family photo albums) it is only since about the 70's when 35mm became the default that 3.5 x 5 and now 4 x 6 have become the norm. Back in the fifties if you shot with your brownie you got 3.5 x 3.5 prints back. Even today, pro-labs return 4 x 4 proof from square negatives. Very few mini-labs can handle 120 film so you don't see any square prints from them, but than they won't develop your square negatives either. Some of the strongest images I have seen have been squares, the photographer has to do his work to create a dynamic image because the format itself is rather static, but when he does the image can be spectacular. Ciao, Graywolf http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto - Original Message - From: frank theriault [EMAIL PROTECTED] Personally, I think it's poppycock. And I still think that the prevalence of rectangular photographic paper is due to the overwhelming dominance of 35mm in the marketplace over the last 50 years or so.
Re: 6x6 - Waste of Space? (WAS: Re: Medium Format-Which one is best?)
The golden ratio is not some arbitrary mathematical ratio that the human mind imposes over certain objects. It is an irrational number, as is pi, for which only an approximation may be calculated. From http://www.gi.alaska.edu/ScienceForum/ASF7/716.html , Geometrically, it can be defined as the ratio obtained if a line is divided so that the length of the shorter segment is in the same proportion to that of the longer segment as the length of the longer segment is to the entire line. Mathematically, these ratios are such that the longer segment is 1.618054 times the length of the shorter segment, while the shorter is 0.618054 times the longer. (to 6 decimal places) There are a multitude of other references, but the point is that the ratio is not arbitrary. The ratio is found all through nature as it provides efficiency in the growth of living organisms and systems. As to saying well, isn't that pleasing, beauty is still in the eye of the beholder. Even if on average folks find this ratio most pleasing in most circumstances, I'm sure many great exceptions will abound - no doubt because of breaking the rules. I am not a revolutionary, hell, I can't master the basics. For me, I think I'll try to make the rules work first. Then I'll try the weird stuff. Regards, Bob Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy! - Benjamin Franklin From: frank theriault [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hi, Keith, I agree with both you and Dr. Williams. But, (it must be that I'm a Libra - hey aren't the zodiac signs Greek?) let me play devil's advocate here. The Golden Ratio, or whatever one chooses to call it, is indeed some arbitrary mathematical ratio that the human mind imposes over certain objects, and then says, well, isn't that pleasing. But isn't that the point? It isn't, I suppose, that it's found in nature, but that the human mind will impose ~it's~ structures (for lack of a better term) on what it finds in the world, and judge certain things to be more satisfying than others.. If that's the way some people want to look at and interpret the world, so be it. Personally, I think it's poppycock. And I still think that the prevalence of rectangular photographic paper is due to the overwhelming dominance of 35mm in the marketplace over the last 50 years or so. But, what do I know? g As I said before, it's fun to ponder... -frank Keith Whaley wrote: Regardless of who said it, or who believes it, I propose the so-called Golden Rectangle is more an observational circumstance, hardly any formal rule promulgated by anyone. Absent proof of it being someone's rule for the wonderfulness of any given composition, that will remain my belief. Yes, I've seen all the books and articles that draw lines over the master's painings and sketches, thereby proving the work was purposefully laid down with the Golden Rectangle in mind. I contend it's something that if you're really obscessed with, you can find that pattern almost anywhere in a good composition... Quote any old-time artist's writings that set forth such a plan with respect to the generation of his or her composition, and I'll consider changing my mind. Until then, I'll simply believe it's an observation, overlaid on a pleasing scene. -- The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true. -J. Robert Oppenheimer
Re: 6x6 - Waste of Space? (WAS: Re: Medium Format-Which one is best?)
Tom wrote: Some of the strongest images I have seen have been squares, the photographer has to do his work to create a dynamic image because the format itself is rather static, but when he does the image can be spectacular. True. Although some seem to have mixed up the rectangular format with the rule of thirds or golden section in this discussion, it is more important than ever if composing for square format to abide to the golden section, or somethig like it, in order to make a strong image. Pål
Re: 6x6 - Waste of Space? (WAS: Re: Medium Format-Which one is best?)
Bob wrote: The way you're dismissing the square seems rather simplistic to me. 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. Pål
Re: 6x6 - Waste of Space? (WAS: Re: Medium Format-Which one is best?)
- Original Message - From: Pål Jensen Subject: Re: 6x6 - Waste of Space? (WAS: Re: Medium Format-Which one is best?) Bob wrote: The way you're dismissing the square seems rather simplistic to me. 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. I suspect the only way for this is that there won't be film cameras. I think that is what it will take for Mamiya, Bronica, Hasselblad and Rollei to drop the format. All of the square format photographers that I have known have made square pictures, eschewing the entire rectangular picture concept as being a waste. William Robb
Re: 6x6 - Waste of Space? (WAS: Re: Medium Format-Which one is best?)
Bob wrote: Since the square is such an important shape in composition It isn't. It is extremely unimportant and hardly 2.7% of images shot or published use this format. Pål
Re: 6x6 - Waste of Space? (WAS: Re: Medium Format-Which one is best?)
Bob wrote: where did you get this ridiculous statistic? You obviously know absolutely nothing about composition if you believe the square is unimportant. I'm talking about square images, not the role of the square in composition... Square images are rare. Pål
Re: 6x6 - Waste of Space? (WAS: Re: Medium Format-Which one is best?)
I believe he is referring to your tendency to come up with numbers with little support. - Original Message - From: Pål Jensen [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, December 28, 2002 5:59 PM Subject: Re: 6x6 - Waste of Space? (WAS: Re: Medium Format-Which one is best?) Bob wrote: where did you get this ridiculous statistic? You obviously know absolutely nothing about composition if you believe the square is unimportant. I'm talking about square images, not the role of the square in composition... Square images are rare. Pål
Re: 6x6 - Waste of Space? (WAS: Re: Medium Format-Which one is best?)
I think Pål 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
Re: 6x6 - Waste of Space? (WAS: Re: Medium Format-Which one is best?)
PJ 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 PJ will crop their images into squares instead of cropping their squares into rectangles. Pal, from purely technical standpoint (I won't diverge into aesthetics and all), square is the format that wastes _the least_ of a lens field of view. All rectangular formats are more or less a waste of space. Best regards, Frantisek Vlcek
Re: 6x6 - Waste of Space? (WAS: Re: Medium Format-Which one is best?)
Game, Set and Match!! Now I can go watch the hockey game, as this discussion is now over. Thanks, Frantisek. g cheers, frank Frantisek Vlcek wrote: from purely technical standpoint (I won't diverge into aesthetics and all), square is the format that wastes _the least_ of a lens field of view. All rectangular formats are more or less a waste of space. Best regards, Frantisek Vlcek -- The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true. -J. Robert Oppenheimer
Re: 6x6 - Waste of Space? (WAS: Re: Medium Format-Which one is best?)
- Original Message - From: Pål Jensen Subject: Re: 6x6 - Waste of Space? Bob wrote: where did you get this ridiculous statistic? You obviously know absolutely nothing about composition if you believe the square is unimportant. I'm talking about square images, not the role of the square in composition... Square images are rare. I'm aware that some stare at my square. In fact, to be fair Some really despair of my square. They see squares everywhere, Say beware!! And go off on a tear. But they're not aware, Nor are they debonair. In fact, they are square. I say no fair. The square is so there. And not at all rare. I once new a man with no square. No square is no fair. And quite unaware. So be fair with your square. Use it with flare. And you too will be there. Sorry George. William Robb
RE: 6x6 - Waste of Space? (WAS: Re: Medium Format-Which one is best?)
I really wasn't going to inject this but Will's poetry pushed me over the edge. If you think about it, you'll see that all lenses provide a circular image, therefore any image less than a full circle wastes part of the lenses field of view. I have a true fisheye lens that does produce a circular image which uses 100% of the field of view. Square format comes in second place to that. Len --- -Original Message- From: Frantisek Vlcek [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Saturday, December 28, 2002 5:45 PM To: Pål Jensen Subject: Re: 6x6 - Waste of Space? (WAS: Re: Medium Format-Which one is best?) PJ I'm not dismissing square images, but square film. The camera makers PJ seem to be doing the same. In the future there won't be square PJ cameras I suspect because it is such a waste. Photographers will PJ crop their images into squares instead of cropping their squares PJ into rectangles. Pal, from purely technical standpoint (I won't diverge into aesthetics and all), square is the format that wastes _the least_ of a lens field of view. All rectangular formats are more or less a waste of space. Best regards, Frantisek Vlcek
RE: 6x6 - Waste of Space? (WAS: Re: Medium Format-Which one is best?)
Message text written by INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED] If you think about it, you'll see that all lenses provide a circular image, therefore any image less than a full circle wastes part of the lenses field of view. rectangular lenses don't. all sorts of reasons why they are not common. Herb...
Re: 6x6 - Waste of Space? (WAS: Re: Medium Format-Which one is best?)
I think that the individual sensor elements are oblong so the sensor will be a rectangle, (I could be wrong however). At 09:09 PM 12/27/2002 -0500, you wrote: Humm? Didn't I just read somewhere about a 4096x4096 sensor? Maybe in a Photokina report? Ciao, Graywolf http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto - Original Message - From: Pål Jensen [EMAIL PROTECTED] JCO wrote: Are you saying there isnt a pro digital SQUARE sensor in a back made for the Hassleblad? I said digital camera, not back. Hasselblads digital camera is going to have a rectangular image like everybody elses. Thats because there won't be a square digital standard format; 6X6 or otherwise. Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. --Groucho Marx
Re: 6x6 - Waste of Space? (WAS: Re: Medium Format-Which one is best?)
5x7 comes very close. At 09:11 AM 12/28/2002 -0500, you wrote: If 35mm is so dominant, why don't we see paper readily available in the same 1:1.5 proportions? frank theriault wrote: Hi, Keith, I agree with both you and Dr. Williams. But, (it must be that I'm a Libra - hey aren't the zodiac signs Greek?) let me play devil's advocate here. The Golden Ratio, or whatever one chooses to call it, is indeed some arbitrary mathematical ratio that the human mind imposes over certain objects, and then says, well, isn't that pleasing. But isn't that the point? It isn't, I suppose, that it's found in nature, but that the human mind will impose ~it's~ structures (for lack of a better term) on what it finds in the world, and judge certain things to be more satisfying than others.. If that's the way some people want to look at and interpret the world, so be it. Personally, I think it's poppycock. And I still think that the prevalence of rectangular photographic paper is due to the overwhelming dominance of 35mm in the marketplace over the last 50 years or so. But, what do I know? g As I said before, it's fun to ponder... -frank Keith Whaley wrote: Regardless of who said it, or who believes it, I propose the so-called Golden Rectangle is more an observational circumstance, hardly any formal rule promulgated by anyone. Absent proof of it being someone's rule for the wonderfulness of any given composition, that will remain my belief. Yes, I've seen all the books and articles that draw lines over the master's painings and sketches, thereby proving the work was purposefully laid down with the Golden Rectangle in mind. I contend it's something that if you're really obscessed with, you can find that pattern almost anywhere in a good composition... Quote any old-time artist's writings that set forth such a plan with respect to the generation of his or her composition, and I'll consider changing my mind. Until then, I'll simply believe it's an observation, overlaid on a pleasing scene. -- The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true. -J. Robert Oppenheimer Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. --Groucho Marx
Re: 6x6 - Waste of Space? (WAS: Re: Medium Format-Which one is best?)
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 Albano On 12/22/02 2:26 PM, Pål Jensen 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. = Albano Garcia El Pibe Asahi __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
Re: 6x6 - Waste of Space? (WAS: Re: Medium Format-Which one is best?)
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
Re: 6x6 - Waste of Space? (WAS: Re: Medium Format-Which one is best?)
Golden ratio. Said by the ancient Greeks to be the most naturally pleasing four sided shape. The golden ratio is found everywhere in nature. Regards, Bob Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy! - Benjamin Franklin - Original Message - From: frank theriault [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, December 27, 2002 1:39 PM Subject: Re: 6x6 - Waste of Space? (WAS: Re: Medium Format-Which one is best?) 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
Re: 6x6 - Waste of Space? (WAS: Re: Medium Format-Which one is best?)
The Ancient Greeks also thought that there were only four elements, only allowed men to vote and called it democracy, had no problem making captured enemy warriors into slaves, believed there were dozens (if not hundreds) of gods, and thought you could tell the future by looking at the guts of dead chickens or steam coming out of holes in the ground (such as at the Oracle of Delphi). Telling me that the Greeks liked rectangles doesn't impress me too much vbg. regards, frank Bob Blakely wrote: Golden ratio. Said by the ancient Greeks to be the most naturally pleasing four sided shape. The golden ratio is found everywhere in nature. -- The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true. -J. Robert Oppenheimer
Re: 6x6 - Waste of Space? (WAS: Re: Medium Format-Which one is best?)
Hi, Bob, Not to belabour the point, but I'm also not sure where the Golden Ratio is found in nature. Trees, oceans, rocks, animals of all sorts, mountains, molecules, atoms, sub-atomic particles; I could go on, but I can't think of anything natural that fits the Golden Ratio - unless what you're saying is that you can impose such a rectangle over an object, and say that it therefore fits that definition. The Greeks had great imaginations (tell me that Ursus Major looks like a bear!), and I don't mean to belittle what they contributed to Western thought and philosophy, but I just don't see it (the Golden Ratio thing, that is). cheers, frank Bob Blakely wrote: Golden ratio. Said by the ancient Greeks to be the most naturally pleasing four sided shape. The golden ratio is found everywhere in nature. -- The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true. -J. Robert Oppenheimer
Re: 6x6 - Waste of Space? (WAS: Re: Medium Format-Which one is best?)
Albano 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. In stead of accusing people of having square mind, maybe you should open your own. I didn't say a word about the square format being pleasing or not, just that it is a waste of space: it is. You either waste film or waste paper; hence a waste of space. I never said it couldn't be beautiful or effective. The rectangular format has nothing to do with convention but with what the human mind find pleasing. That the way we are wired; lots of research has been done on this. If the square formate is so appealing, why isn't there any square photographic paper and when do you expect the square sensor digital camera? Perhaps the waste of a digital image sensor area will be too much of an excess to be viable? Pål
Re: Re: 6x6 - Waste of Space? (WAS: Re: Medium Format-Which one is best?)
Nice wrap up of your point Frank.Until i started shooting 6x6 late last year,this was not even on my mind.Now that i have run several colour and a fair amount (meaning more than:)) BW in this format and having some enlarged to 8x8 i can really see what i have been missing all these years.The square format is very appealing to my eye,especially rural shots,fences etc.This seems to be made for square. Dave(spent the better part of the day looking at MF eq at Henrys,man that stuff is BIG)Brooks Begin Original Message From: frank theriault [EMAIL PROTECTED] Shooting 6x6 is just another way of looking at things, imho. regards, frank Pentax User Stouffville Ontario Canada http://home.ca.inter.net/brooksdj/ http://brooks1952.tripod.com/myhorses Sign up today for your Free E-mail at: http://www.canoe.ca/CanoeMail
RE: 6x6 - Waste of Space? (WAS: Re: Medium Format-Which one is best?)
If the square formate is so appealing, why isn't there any square photographic paper and when do you expect the square sensor digital camera? Perhaps the waste of a digital image sensor area will be too much of an excess to be viable? Pål Are you saying there isnt a pro digital SQUARE sensor in a back made for the Hassleblad? JCO
Re: 6x6 - Waste of Space? (WAS: Re: Medium Format-Which one is best?)
JCO wrote: Are you saying there isnt a pro digital SQUARE sensor in a back made for the Hassleblad? I said digital camera, not back. Hasselblads digital camera is going to have a rectangular image like everybody elses. Thats because there won't be a square digital standard format; 6X6 or otherwise. Pål
Re: 6x6 - Waste of Space? (WAS: Re: Medium Format-Which one is best?)
Hey, Tom, If I can't say anything of substance, I'll fall back on (attempted) humour everytime! thanks, frank T Rittenhouse wrote: That got a small belly laugh, Frank. I agree. -- The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true. -J. Robert Oppenheimer
Re: 6x6 - Waste of Space? (WAS: Re: Medium Format-Which one is best?)
The golden ratio aka golden section also see (Fibonacci Numbers or sequence) is the exact rate at which snail shells, Nautilus's expand. May I suggest you simply type golden ratio nature - with the quotes into your search engine. Regards, Bob Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy! - Benjamin Franklin From: frank theriault [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hi, Bob, Not to belabour the point, but I'm also not sure where the Golden Ratio is found in nature. Trees, oceans, rocks, animals of all sorts, mountains, molecules, atoms, sub-atomic particles; I could go on, but I can't think of anything natural that fits the Golden Ratio - unless what you're saying is that you can impose such a rectangle over an object, and say that it therefore fits that definition. The Greeks had great imaginations (tell me that Ursus Major looks like a bear!), and I don't mean to belittle what they contributed to Western thought and philosophy, but I just don't see it (the Golden Ratio thing, that is). cheers, frank Bob Blakely wrote: Golden ratio. Said by the ancient Greeks to be the most naturally pleasing four sided shape. The golden ratio is found everywhere in nature.
Re: 6x6 - Waste of Space? (WAS: Re: Medium Format-Which one is best?)
Yeah, I know. I was mostly pulling your leg, Bob. I certainly realize that Socrates, Plato, Aristotle and that bunch didn't go in for all that dead chicken guts stuff. Seriously, those guys had a great love of numbers and mathematics. Pythagorus, Archimedes: geez, all that, and no computers! g My little diatribe didn't have anything to do with the validity of the Golden Ratio. If I remember correctly from my course in Logic, I was only setting up a straw man...which makes for an invalid argument, IIRC. All in the interests of humour, of course. cheers, frank Bob Blakely wrote: Sometimes, in my more pissed moments, I think the Greeks had it right. :~) -- The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true. -J. Robert Oppenheimer
Re: 6x6 - Waste of Space? (WAS: Re: Medium Format-Which one is best?)
Seriously, Bob, I will. thanks, frank Bob Blakely wrote: snip May I suggest you simply type golden ratio nature - with the quotes into your search engine. Regards, Bob Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy! - Benjamin Franklin -- The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true. -J. Robert Oppenheimer
Re: 6x6 - Waste of Space? (WAS: Re: Medium Format-Which one is best?)
I study Graphic Design at University, and I saw what's called dynamic canons (sorry, hard translation). It's the relations you can find between two sides of an object, 1:2, 1:3, 2:3, etc, etc, and when the relation meets certain parameters (mathematic relations raices in spanish.) it is a dynamic canon, and it's supposed to be better to design respecting this golden structures. They are several, not just one, the more common is phi. And I saw a lot of examples in a book on how this canons are present in nature (flowers, insect bodies, etc) Stop of the rant Regards Albano --- frank theriault [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, Bob, Not to belabour the point, but I'm also not sure where the Golden Ratio is found in nature. Trees, oceans, rocks, animals of all sorts, mountains, molecules, atoms, sub-atomic particles; I could go on, but I can't think of anything natural that fits the Golden Ratio - unless what you're saying is that you can impose such a rectangle over an object, and say that it therefore fits that definition. The Greeks had great imaginations (tell me that Ursus Major looks like a bear!), and I don't mean to belittle what they contributed to Western thought and philosophy, but I just don't see it (the Golden Ratio thing, that is). cheers, frank Bob Blakely wrote: Golden ratio. Said by the ancient Greeks to be the most naturally pleasing four sided shape. The golden ratio is found everywhere in nature. -- The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true. -J. Robert Oppenheimer = Albano Garcia El Pibe Asahi __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
Re: 6x6 - Waste of Space? (WAS: Re: Medium Format-Which one is best?)
There is no rant here. Frank, others and I are all having a friendly discussion surrounding possible best ratios for photos. I have no special beliefs concerning this. I know not why you're starting this rant stuff. Regards, Bob Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy! - Benjamin Franklin From: Albano Garcia [EMAIL PROTECTED] Stop of the rant --- frank theriault [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, Bob, Not to belabour the point, but I'm also not sure where the Golden Ratio is found in nature. Trees, oceans, rocks, animals of all sorts, mountains, molecules, atoms, sub-atomic particles; I could go on, but I can't think of anything natural that fits the Golden Ratio - unless what you're saying is that you can impose such a rectangle over an object, and say that it therefore fits that definition. The Greeks had great imaginations (tell me that Ursus Major looks like a bear!), and I don't mean to belittle what they contributed to Western thought and philosophy, but I just don't see it (the Golden Ratio thing, that is). cheers, frank Bob Blakely wrote: Golden ratio. Said by the ancient Greeks to be the most naturally pleasing four sided shape. The golden ratio is found everywhere in nature.
Re: 6x6 - Waste of Space? (WAS: Re: Medium Format-Which one is best?)
Humm? Didn't I just read somewhere about a 4096x4096 sensor? Maybe in a Photokina report? Ciao, Graywolf http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto - Original Message - From: Pål Jensen [EMAIL PROTECTED] JCO wrote: Are you saying there isnt a pro digital SQUARE sensor in a back made for the Hassleblad? I said digital camera, not back. Hasselblads digital camera is going to have a rectangular image like everybody elses. Thats because there won't be a square digital standard format; 6X6 or otherwise.
Re: 6x6 - Waste of Space? (WAS: Re: Medium Format-Which one is best?)
As the originator of this thread, all of you will be happy to know that I did purchase the Yashica Mat LM to begin my journey into MF. I have really enjoyed everyone's comments about the 6x6 format (and others). Although it is not a Pentax (hopefully it will be someday soon), I would appreciate any ideas or suggestions on the 6x6 format. It sounds like many of you out there currently use this format. Are there any recomendations out there for reference books, specific to the 6x6 format? Also, what is your favorite 120 film, in both BW and color negative, for portraits? How about for landscapes? Thanks again all! --- T Rittenhouse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Humm? Didn't I just read somewhere about a 4096x4096 sensor? Maybe in a Photokina report? Ciao, Graywolf http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto - Original Message - From: Pål Jensen [EMAIL PROTECTED] JCO wrote: Are you saying there isnt a pro digital SQUARE sensor in a back made for the Hassleblad? I said digital camera, not back. Hasselblads digital camera is going to have a rectangular image like everybody elses. Thats because there won't be a square digital standard format; 6X6 or otherwise. __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
Re: 6x6 - Waste of Space? (WAS: Re: Medium Format-Which one is best?)
BW - Kodak Tri-x Color (portraits) - Kodak Portra 160 NC On Saturday 28 December 2002 05:56 am, Steve Pearson wrote: Also, what is your favorite 120 film, in both BW and color negative, for portraits? How about for landscapes? -- Ken Archer Canine Photography San Antonio, Texas Business Is Going To The Dogs
Re: Re: 6x6 - Waste of Space? (WAS: Re: Medium Format-Which one is best?)
I had Aaron(yep he's still aroundg)make 4 enlargments this summer from the Y-M and they looked great printed at 8x8.I find i am trying to frame the shot so as to be able to print whats on the neg.ie no neg crop. The Y-M's do not have extra lenses wereas the Mamyia C220 and 330 do.I may look into that system(along with the other three othersg) You are correct in paper waste but i seem to waste a lot more getting digital right somedays:) Dave Begin Original Message From: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] If you want an 8x10, you are cropping the neg, if you want to print full frame and are using single sheets of paper, you are trimming the print. Most labs now use roll paper, so they just advance the amount of paper they need to make the print as ordered. William Robb End Original Message Pentax User Stouffville Ontario Canada http://home.ca.inter.net/brooksdj/ http://brooks1952.tripod.com/myhorses Sign up today for your Free E-mail at: http://www.canoe.ca/CanoeMail
Re: Framing 6x6 (WAS: Re: 6x6 Waste of Space? WAS: Re: Medium Format-Which one is best?)
I kept this in mind as I was shopping for Christmas presents this year. I found that Ikea carries frames that are square, almost specifically for 6x6 images. As you know, Ikea isn't that pricey, so if you need frames for the images, head to Ikea. Cheers, Dave P.S. No, I don't work for Ikea :) -Original Message- From: David Brooks [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, December 23, 2002 7:32 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Re: 6x6 - Waste of Space? (WAS: Re: Medium Format-Which one is best?) I had Aaron(yep he's still aroundg)make 4 enlargments this summer from the Y-M and they looked great printed at 8x8.I find i am trying to frame the shot so as to be able to print whats on the neg.ie no neg crop. The Y-M's do not have extra lenses wereas the Mamyia C220 and 330 do.I may look into that system(along with the other three othersg) You are correct in paper waste but i seem to waste a lot more getting digital right somedays:) Dave Begin Original Message From: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] If you want an 8x10, you are cropping the neg, if you want to print full frame and are using single sheets of paper, you are trimming the print. Most labs now use roll paper, so they just advance the amount of paper they need to make the print as ordered. William Robb
Re: 6x6 - Waste of Space? (WAS: Re: Medium Format-Which one is best?)
On Sun, 22 Dec 2002, Timothy Sherburne wrote: I'm not quite sure I'm following you here. Can you elaborate a bit more? Unless you enlarge them to a square print, you'll be losing a portion of the negative as you make ideal enlargments which the 645 would otherwise enlarge to with no wasted negative. -- http://www.infotainment.org - more fun than a poke in your eye. http://www.eighteenpercent.com- photography and portfolio.
Re: Framing 6x6 (WAS: Re: 6x6 Waste of Space? WAS: Re: Medium Format-Which one is best?)
Hey, Dave, If Manulife is successful with their hostile takeover bid for Canada Life, you may soon be working for Ikea!! vbg regards, frank David Chang-Sang wrote: P.S. No, I don't work for Ikea :) -- The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true. -J. Robert Oppenheimer
Re: Framing 6x6 (WAS: Re: 6x6 Waste of Space? WAS: Re: Medium Format-Which one is best?)
Why do you feel sorry for the little lamp? It has no feelings. You must be crazy! vbg Seriously, I'm sure you're not worried, Dave. I've seen the people at Manulife. I think they'll still need the likes of you. g cheers, frank David Chang-Sang wrote: Oh jeez... that's just what I need.. might as well start by boning up on my Swedish... Dave -Original Message- From: frank theriault [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, December 23, 2002 5:29 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Framing 6x6 (WAS: Re: 6x6 Waste of Space? WAS: Re: Medium Format-Which one is best?) Hey, Dave, If Manulife is successful with their hostile takeover bid for Canada Life, you may soon be working for Ikea!! vbg regards, frank David Chang-Sang wrote: P.S. No, I don't work for Ikea :) -- The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true. -J. Robert Oppenheimer -- The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true. -J. Robert Oppenheimer
