Just can't get on with 6x6 Medium Format

[tikkathreebarrel]

I just can't help it, it's the square format output to blame.

I really enjoy the "interface" with my Mamiya TLR cameras and the way they force me to think about composure and exposure.

I just can't settle with square output prints.

Oh I know I could crop them digitally, but I'm without a scanner at the moment.

And sure I could take the scissors to the prints to crop them physically.

But either way, what's the point of a great big negative if I'm immediately going to discard a portion of it?

I much prefer rectangular formats. 6x4.5, 6x7

So that's it then, I should get the lenses together, with the Mamiya case, the flash unit and the C3, C220 and C330S and list them all as for sale. Likewise the Mamiya 6 Folder.

That though punches a hole in what otherwise would be a modest "collection" of MF Mamiyas.

But what's the point of a collection of "cameras I like using but don't like the print format of"?

To keep or not to keep?

 

[RaglanSurf]

The whole format thing really doesn't make sense, I've got a selection of MF cameras and like the 6x6, 6x7 even 6x9 but the 6x4.5 just leaves me a bit cold.

It just doesn't seem to have the impact of the other MF formats.

But I do really enjoy the challenge that shooting 6x6 gives me.

 

[Kev M]

Don't stress about it. There's absolutely no rule that says the film size or sensor size is the ratio you have to print at. Lots of images are cropped and cropping should be done to suite the image, not done to fit into some format that a manufacturer dictates.

One of the benefits of 6x6 is that you can crop to 6x4 (3:2) or 6x4.5 (4:3) if you want to without losing quality. If you wanted to crop a 6x4.5 to square you'd end up with 4.5x4.5 and be giving away a load of quality.

I agree totally that square is tricky, it doesn't suit everything that's for sure. I really struggle with square portraits for example but I rarely print square so I treat the extra space as room around the subject which gives me options when cropping at the printing stage rather than having cropped in camera because of what the manufacturer wants me to shoot.

 

[excalibur2]

I just can't help it, it's the square format output to blame.

I really enjoy the "interface" with my Mamiya TLR cameras and the way they force me to think about composure and exposure.

I just can't settle with square output prints.

Oh I know I could crop them digitally, but I'm without a scanner at the moment.

And sure I could take the scissors to the prints to crop them physically.

But either way, what's the point of a great big negative if I'm immediately going to discard a portion of it?

I much prefer rectangular formats. 6x4.5, 6x7

So that's it then, I should get the lenses together, with the Mamiya case, the flash unit and the C3, C220 and C330S and list them all as for sale. Likewise the Mamiya 6 Folder.

That though punches a hole in what otherwise would be a modest "collection" of MF Mamiyas.

But what's the point of a collection of "cameras I like using but don't like the print format of"?

To keep or not to keep?

Well I came to the same conclusion when doing my own printing as the common paper was 8X10, so if you are going to crop all the time what's the point...also you can turn a 6X7 into sq by chopping off 1cm

 

[Kev M]

But then you're letting the paper size dictate the image, not the image dictate the paper size.

 

[freecom2]

Negatives/images can be cropped to suit, and paper can be cut to suit.

Shoot with what you want, and what you enjoy using, and thanks to the great range of emulsions and minimal grain developers you are almost always guaranteed to have a negative that can be enlarged to a respectable level, whether you are shooting small or medium format.

But either way, what's the point of a great big negative if I'm immediately going to discard a portion of it?

Easy: because you can discard a portion of it and still have a very respectable end result, and one that offers significantly more negative than any small format would.

 

[excalibur2]

But then you're letting the paper size dictate the image, not the image dictate the paper size.

Colour paper was expensive anyway this debate keeps cropping up about formats and I always give the same answer in that TV/computer/cinema/ etc screens are not square, and square was never massively popular with painters as most paintings are rectangle.

 

[Kev M]

TVs were square for years, long before the became rectangular.

I'm sure there's a reason for oblong forms being more predominant, there's probably some aesthetic reason for it. But sometimes, only a square will do

 

[excalibur2]

TVs were square for years, long before the became rectangular.

I'm sure there's a reason for oblong forms being more predominant, there's probably some aesthetic reason for it. But sometimes, only a square will do

Indeed some shots are best in Sq format, but how many digital cameras produced are sq, so it would seem to the human eye a rectangle is more practical and pleasing. erm when I look around my room there are very few things that are sq.
And for the sq TV, maybe the technology wasn't there for rectangular tubes and creating a picture on them. :shrug:

 

[mustanir]

Rectangles are nice, but we are also used to seeing rectangles, which means they are more "normal" to us. Our natural field of view is not a rectangle, yet we find it easier to compose on a rectangular field (canvas, paper, negative, viewfinder, whatever) partly because we are so used to seeing images presented that way.

Shooting squares is a bit of a shift in thinking and not everyone gets along with it. That's ok. Nothing wrong with the other formats. Square is flexible, yes, but that doesn't mean anything else isn't. If it doesn't work for you, try something else that does.

That's my view anyway.

 

[s162216]

TVs were square for years, long before the became rectangular.

Actually the original Baird mechanical 240 line TV's and early 405 line TV's from the 1930's were 5:4 or 1.25:1 and later after 1950 the 405 line system changed to 4:3 or 1.33 (incidentally the same AR as 6x4.5) so not quite square and it stayed that way generally until the introduction of the 16:9 standard in the 90's. 1.33 was chosen because it matched up to the sound theatrical ratios where 4 perf film was used and this proved useful when pre-recording content on film and then telecining the film to put on TV because videotapes cost an absolute fortune at the time hence why so much content was live.

It might have looked square but it was actually not quite, although overscan cropping a tiny portion of the sides off might have had something to do with it as well

 

[Kev M]

I shall bow down to your superior knowledge of TV screen ratios Sam. I just remember our old 14" portable TV certainly looked square to me.

 

[joxby]

I don't see what there is to not get on with, shooting square pictures.
Of course some pictures lend themselves more readily to oblong, but I think half of that is pre-programmed, we are conditioned to accept pictures in that format.
Having said that, I think you should use what you find most comfortable, if composing square is holding you back, go 6x9, can't see the point not quite square or a little bit oblong, apart from the convenience of printing 6x7...

645 = big 35mm :thumbsdown:
6x6 = challenging
6x7 = not quite square :thumbsdown:
6x8 = a bit oblong :thumbsdown:
6x9 = blokes oblong

 

[tikkathreebarrel]

Actually the original Baird mechanical 240 line TV's and early 405 line TV's from the 1930's were 5:4 or 1.25:1 and later after 1950 the 405 line system changed to 4:3 or 1.33 (incidentally the same AR as 6x4.5) so not quite square

I remember that mother, who worked for Phillips, had a fruit bowl made of the front of a TV screen. Big heavy thing it was too.

 

[tikkathreebarrel]

The whole format thing really doesn't make sense, I've got a selection of MF cameras and like the 6x6, 6x7 even 6x9 but the 6x4.5 just leaves me a bit cold.

It just doesn't seem to have the impact of the other MF formats.

But I do really enjoy the challenge that shooting 6x6 gives me.

Thanks Nick. In other words, it's a matter of personal preference. Phew, I hope I can sustain that line of thinking.

 

[tikkathreebarrel]

Don't stress about it. There's absolutely no rule that says the film size or sensor size is the ratio you have to print at. Lots of images are cropped and cropping should be done to suite the image, not done to fit into some format that a manufacturer dictates.

One of the benefits of 6x6 is that you can crop to 6x4 (3:2) or 6x4.5 (4:3) if you want to without losing quality. If you wanted to crop a 6x4.5 to square you'd end up with 4.5x4.5 and be giving away a load of quality.

I agree totally that square is tricky, it doesn't suit everything that's for sure. I really struggle with square portraits for example but I rarely print square so I treat the extra space as room around the subject which gives me options when cropping at the printing stage rather than having cropped in camera because of what the manufacturer wants me to shoot.

Good point, good point.

 

[tikkathreebarrel]

Negatives/images can be cropped to suit, and paper can be cut to suit.

Shoot with what you want, and what you enjoy using, and thanks to the great range of emulsions and minimal grain developers you are almost always guaranteed to have a negative that can be enlarged to a respectable level, whether you are shooting small or medium format.



Easy: because you can discard a portion of it and still have a very respectable end result, and one that offers significantly more negative than any small format would.

That's me told.

 

[tikkathreebarrel]

I don't see what there is to not get on with, shooting square pictures.
Of course some pictures lend themselves more readily to oblong, but I think half of that is pre-programmed, we are conditioned to accept pictures in that format.
Having said that, I think you should use what you find most comfortable, if composing square is holding you back, go 6x9, can't see the point not quite square or a little bit oblong, apart from the convenience of printing 6x7...

645 = big 35mm :thumbsdown:
6x6 = challenging
6x7 = not quite square :thumbsdown:
6x8 = a bit oblong :thumbsdown:
6x9 = blokes oblong

Well, it's just a preference thing for me. You wouldn't be indicating that real men only shoot on big negatives by any chance?

 

[Asha]

FWIW i shoot in all different formats...6x6, 6x9, 9x12, 1/4, 1/2 and Whole plate to name most......Without doubt there are times when a specific shot would "fit" better in one of the other formats than the one that I'm perhaps using at the time so either I return another time with what I believe will be a more suitable format or I take the shot regardless and fill the frame as much as possible with the subject then simply do what has already been mentioned...crop.
As for TVs....Perfectly square or not, they did definetly resemble square to me as a youngster....In fact to watch widescreen initially was a little peculiar for me!
I think the "square" screen was actually easier to watch as the focus point was narrower if you get my meaning!

 

[tikkathreebarrel]

Thank you all for your input and helping me to make the decision to let go of two, if not all three square format cameras and their associated lenses. I'm sticking with 645, I'm going to persist awhile with the Mamiya 7 - but it's not very involving - and the Mamiya 6 folder at least to see what I can get out of it. Perhaps in a year's time I'll be banging on about my recently acquired RZ67....

 

[TheBigYin]

at the end of the day, shooting on film is largely about it being fun. If you don't find it fun using a particular format, don't use it. Life's too short to do things you don't like. Sell it on, get something you like, and enjoy it!

 

[tikkathreebarrel]

Just had the C220 out for a walk - better finish off the film if the camera's going on EBay in the New Year - oh I do like the interaction with the camera.

 

[tikkathreebarrel]

Progress in downsizing is slow really but I've grasped the nettle and put the three TLRs and four lenses for slae at this lovely forum together with the Mamiya 7 Rangefinder with two lenses.
So I'm reconciled not to have the complete Mamiya range. I'm keeping my 645 bodies and lenses and will leave the prospect of an RB/RZ67 set up for the future.

Should I keep my almost complete collection of Mamiya 35mm bodies and rangefinders? I don't know.
Should I keep my collection of pre-EOS Canon bodies? I'm not convinced.
Should I keep my Olympus OM 1, 2 and 4 bodies and keep one eye open for an OM3? I can't bring myself to let them go.
It's a tough call: if it was just a matter of cashflow I should probably let the Olympus bodies & lenses go. If it was just a matter of numbers I should lose the older Mamiyas. If it was just a matter of least use the Canons would be going.

Step one has been to put away in a cupboard all bar those few with a film in them. Absence may make the heart grow fonder, so to speak. Perhaps as each film is used up that body will be put away and another one got out, possibly at random.

See? I am trying.

 

[Strapps]

I'm sure there's a reason for oblong forms being more predominant, there's probably some aesthetic reason for it.

I give you the Golden Ratio, which is approximately 1:1.618. Its use in art is summarised by the wiki page as follows:

At least since the Renaissance, many artists and architects have proportioned their works to approximate the golden ratio—especially in the form of the golden rectangle, in which the ratio of the longer side to the shorter is the golden ratio—believing this proportion to be aesthetically pleasing

Plugging a 6 into the ratio as one dimension gives the second as 9.7, so by that measure 6x9 is the format most likely to be aesthetically pleasing.

Nevertheless, having played with a 6x6 folder, I'm now on the lookout for a reasonably priced 6x7 SLR (most likely an RB67) as it's something I'd like to play with more.