Enh, I suppose it screws up those who like to print the rebates as a border, but I feel enlarging easels have adjustable blades for a reason!
That said, after 50 or so years of various rectangular formats, my latest toy is a 6x6 format and I find it has energized me a bit; a sort of new perspective on the old familiar. I have occasionally cropped, but have found quite a few where I believe the square works well as-is.
But this is probably just a point favoring variety!
Originally Posted by Nick Zentena
Actually, I use it on 12x15 inch...
Originally Posted by DWThomas
Nah, just some other useless control to fiddle with. Fully-auto digital is all you need; everyone knows that.
i fall into 2 camps. i only include things that i want to photograph
in the frame when i photograph it, it doesn't matter the format - small or large.
i don't crop, enlarge/contact print the whole negative-frame ...
but only when i am in "mode - 1".
the other side of the coin is that when i am "mode-2 "
i don't care and i crop liek a fiend - to the aspect ratio
that fits the image. sometimes it is square,
sometimes a lozenge (thanks piet m. ! )
and sometimes a rectangle.
maybe this is just a phase/ lesson plan to help me see behind the camera better?
... i dunno, i just enjoy myself and don't worry about it too much
It must only be a matter of time before someone introduces the A4 format.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
For a couple of decades almost all of my photography was 35mm landscape mode Kodachrome for smooth slide shows. By cropping before tripping the shutter it worked well. Subjects that didn't fit the format could be composed until they did, or bypassed entirely. There are enough subjects to keep a photographer busy for a lifetime in any single format.
Okay screw you guys!! Now you're starting to actually convince me that I DON'T like 6x12!!! I think there's something there... but I was trying to 'settle' on 6x12 as an ideal pano format since it maxes out my enlarger (4x5 enlarger). But I agree with jstraw on the cropping issue I think. I DON'T MIND it - and I DO it... but I really would prefer getting the most 'clarity' (let's call it) out of my film and using as much neg as I possibly can. But I believe wholeheartedly in the supremacy of content over 'the technical'.
As for comparing 6x7 and 4x5/8x10... it's pretty much the same thing in my book vis-a-vis aspect ratio.
I guess I think of 8x10" as my home format when I want to make a serious photograph, but I definitely shoot more 4x5", just because it is usually more convenient, and I'm not always making serious photographs. 11x14" is still falling into place for me after using it occasionally for a couple of years.
5x7" and 6x6cm I use because I have SLRs in those formats. 5x7" is about as large an SLR as is practical, and produces a nice contact printable image. I like the square format of 6x6cm and find it handy for studio portraits.
I'm getting more and more comfortable with 6x17cm as a small panoramic format. I don't have a 5x7" enlarger, so I can't enlarge them, but on the other hand, it's not a bad small contact print size. It can be mounted to a card and sent in a business size envelope.
6x12cm has never attracted me that much as a panoramic format. If I really want to do it, I have masks for my 6x17cm back for it, but I've only done that a few times.
Between 56x72, 6x9 rollfilm, and 2-1/4x3-1/4 sheet film (which is really narrower and a hair longer than 56x72) I suppose I gravitate more toward 56x72. The film flatness on the Linhof Super-Rollex backs is really noticably good.
I've been restoring the bellows of my new 7x17" camera, which is a format that's been attractive to me for some time. I've just made a couple of test shots, still to be processed so far, but images that I've seen in this format are very appealing, and it's a more manageable camera than an 8x20".
David! You're SO spoiled! Just pick one format and stick with it!!! LOL.
So you like the Rollexes? I have 70mm 6x7 Rollex and some Graflexes, which are actually supposed to be QUITE superb in terms of flatness, etc... I was looking into having one of them re-machined for 6x12 (well - you can always crop to 5x12 which might be better...) but the rollers look like a real problem to me. Someone on Robert Monaghan's site (doesn't seem to be up anymore) suggested that conversion of an RH8 to 6x12 is a walk in the park... I've been looking into it. Doesn't look like any walk in the park that I've ever seen! Walk in the alps, maybe! But if there's a good candidate - I'd say it's probably the horseman - only because it was designed with a manufacturing option for 6x12 anyway - but at that point - you might as well just pay up the 500 and buy one. Oh well - maybe I'll just stick to sheet film. But it's a dream of mine to have a small pano I can use just as easily as my blad or my 6000 rollei (don't ask me why I have both - I can't part with either!!).
I like the Super-Rollexes with the lever wind. They're really better than the Graflex backs I've owned, and older ones with the tan leatherette are usually reasonably priced.
The older Rollex backs with the knob wind also have excellent film flatness, but they don't meter the film travel directly, and they were designed around films on a thicker base or perhaps with a thicker backing than modern films, so they have frame overlap problems with some modern films (there are various kludges like starting the film past the usual start point to deal with this).