Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,911   Posts: 1,584,690   Online: 743
      
Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 52
  1. #21

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    127.0.0.1
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    604
    Quote Originally Posted by Peltigera View Post
    The original idea of the 6x6 format was that you cropped the negative to 6x4.5. It was square so you could do both 6x4.5 landscape and 6x4.5 portrait without having to turn the camera on its side. It was never intended that you should keep the picture square and there is no reason why you should.
    This is the first I've heard that 6x6 format was intended to be cropped to 6x4.5, but was only made 6x6 so you wouldn't have to turn the camera on its side. Who's intent was it? Can you provide some historical evidence of this assertion? This is a challenge, but I hope you will consider it a polite one. I am not saying you are wrong, nor do I claim intimate knowledge of the history of film formats. But in my 30+ years of photography, I've never heard such a thing. If I you can back that up, then I will be grateful for the enlightenment.

    I think of square format as liberation from the constrictions of conventional landscape and portrait orientations. Square format lends itself to intimacy. I tend to compose more naturally according to the rule of thirds in square format than in rectangular formats. If I crop a square format image, it is because I flubbed the composition, and have to resort to cropping in order to salvage some interesting part of the image.

  2. #22

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    127.0.0.1
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    604
    Quote Originally Posted by kbrede View Post
    I'm starting to narrow down what I want to shoot, which is found abstracts and closeup scenes. Sometimes I'd need to be on my belly shooting, and sometimes the camera would be on a tripod. I'd be shooting in both urban and rural areas. Currently I'm shooting with a 50mm macro in 35mm. Occasionally I throw on a 28mm for a wider view. I usually like to get as much in focus area into the picture as I'm able.
    If you like the perspective you get from shooting while on your belly, and you like macro, I recommend an MF SLR. An LF camera is very tedious to use while lying on your belly. You could probably do it if you were 12 to 20 years old, but beyond that, you'll find an MF SLR easier to use.

    The RZ67 is a big and heavy MF camera. All 6X7 SLRs are big, and unwieldy. 6x7 rangefinder cameras are big, but you can handle them easily. For practical purposes, 99% of the time you will want a 6x7 on a tripod, just as you would a LF camera. If the ability to handhold is important, a Hasselblad or Bronical square format, or a 6x4.5 will be a better choice. You can't beat a Hasselblad, in my opinion.

    Rectangular format is useful. So is square. Don't worry so much about the format as the handling of the camera under the circumstances you plan to shoot in.

    BTW, the nearest I ever came to shooting a LF camera on my belly was when I set up my tripod in chest-deep water in a slow-moving river. I was able to stand upright, with the 4x5 camera just above the surface of the water, so I had a perspective resembling a belly shot. But aside from being wet, I was much more comfortable standing up than I would have been lying on my belly, and I was able to operate the camera normally. Cleaning all the mud out of my tripod was a bother.

  3. #23
    Peltigera's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Lincoln, UK
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    461
    Quote Originally Posted by SkipA View Post
    This is the first I've heard that 6x6 format was intended to be cropped to 6x4.5, but was only made 6x6 so you wouldn't have to turn the camera on its side. Who's intent was it? Can you provide some historical evidence of this assertion?
    I cannot provide evidence of my assertion and do not have the time to research it. My understanding is that the square format was introduced for TLR cameras that cannot sensibly be used on their side. Whose intent? I suspect Franke & Heidecke came up with the idea. Were there 6x6 cameras before the Rolleiflex? Square is certainly not seen by artists in general as a good format for a picture and I cannot see a camera manufacturer coming up with square on artistic grounds.

  4. #24

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    17
    Quote Originally Posted by kbrede View Post
    In LF I've looked a bit at the Miniature Speed Graphic. This might work, except I don't think with a 120 back, the rangefinder would work for close focus shots.
    No, you have to use the ground glass to focus. If you have the time, though, it works quite well and is not too heavy to shlep around. You might also consider the Pentax 6x7 or 67 series, which is quite convenient to work with "on the fly" and can be obtained quite cheaply in the used market these days. Top speed 1/1000, and there is a choice of viewfinders (eye-level or top down).

  5. #25
    TheFlyingCamera's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Washington DC
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    8,516
    Blog Entries
    51
    Images
    437
    Quote Originally Posted by Peltigera View Post
    I cannot provide evidence of my assertion and do not have the time to research it. My understanding is that the square format was introduced for TLR cameras that cannot sensibly be used on their side. Whose intent? I suspect Franke & Heidecke came up with the idea. Were there 6x6 cameras before the Rolleiflex? Square is certainly not seen by artists in general as a good format for a picture and I cannot see a camera manufacturer coming up with square on artistic grounds.
    That's another sweeping generalization about squares in art. While certainly less common than rectangles, there are plenty of squares out there, and even odder shapes like triangles, circles and ovals. If you're going to make an assertion that squares are not good for art, back it up.

  6. #26
    Aron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Hungary
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    252
    Quote Originally Posted by Peltigera View Post
    Square is certainly not seen by artists in general as a good format for a picture and I cannot see a camera manufacturer coming up with square on artistic grounds.
    I shoot these days mostly 35 mm, 6x6 and 4x5 (and like the 4x5-8x10 ratio the most). To me the square represents an inherent dynamism, and I feel an image that is composed as square instead of more rectangular can often carry a bit more tension in it while for example an 8x10 landscape can be calm and peaceful, image content apart, but this will sound like overgeneralization, too.

    I had a discussion about the square format with a graphic artist the other day after I saw her new series was all on 22x22 cm plates. She loved the square format.

    My preference for the strong square is the reason I'm not getting a 645 camera: I would always miss a little on the sides or the top and bottom.

    It's very easy to find some highly successful square images both in the APUG gallery and elsewhere.
    Last edited by Aron; 08-22-2012 at 11:29 AM. Click to view previous post history.

  7. #27
    Peltigera's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Lincoln, UK
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    461
    It can be very hard to get people to read what you write. I did NOT say no one had ever made a square picture before 6x6 120 film format was invented. I said it was not generally seen as a good format.

    "If you're going to make an assertion that squares are not good for art, back it up."
    Should I ever be moved to make that assertion, young TheFlyingCamera, I will most certainly back it up. In the mean time, learn to read!

  8. #28
    Diapositivo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Rome, Italy
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,844
    A visit to any painting gallery will easily reveal that the rectangular format it's the preferred one by artists of the last centuries. Square format exists, but it is not widespread. Oval and round paintings exist as well, but they are somehow exceptions to the rule.

    The "portrait" and "landscape" orientations probably come from painters parlance. Painted portraits of 1 persons are usually in portrait orientation and landscapes are usually in landscape orientation. Think Monna Lisa or the Supper at Emmaus as just bare examples. Artists seems to have always had a strong preference for some form of "orientation" when painting on canvas even though it would have been quite easy to make a square work. (Paintings on plates are obviously round, and the tondo itself is not a rare form of "orientation", but certainly is not common). This is seen all over the world: Chinese or Japanese prints, for what I recall, also tend to have a rectangular shape (either portrait or landscape depending on the subject).

    Probably painting formats influenced photography formats, although it is much easier to crop a photographic print than a canvas, especially after you painted it .

    So I think it can be said with confidence that when photography reached commercial maturity let's say at the end of the XIX century the LF cameras had a roughly square format but ultimately the final product was normally either a portrait to hang on a wall (probably vertical) or a portrait of several persons, a family group to be hanged on a wall (probably horizontal). Or maybe a landscape (probably horizontal) or architectural work (orientation depending on subject, but normally either landscape or portrait). Portraits though were probably the large part of the photographer's commissioned job, by far. Single portraits (portrait) or group portraits (landscape). Just as it ever was in painting.

    If you commission a portrait of yourself to a photographer - as an alternative to the commission to a painter - you expect somehow a result which is related to the painted portrait. The pose, the composition, the attitude of the photographic portraits are not radically different from those of the painted portraits. Photographers inherited the painters "language" and with it they inherited the sense of orientation, although with photography they could have easily chosen any form or shape.

    It's possible to make a photographic portrait inside a complex leaf shape paper such as an oak leave, but photographers never really exploited this flexibility they have at hand, probably because they remained "bound" to the painting "language".

    Looking at old prints, stamps and paintings one very often see an orientation. The square format in the final product is, if not rare, at least uncommon.

    A LF camera cannot be easily tilted sideway and from LF (with its "roughly square" film formats) to MF the idea that the image on film is square and the final product is probably either portrait or landscape was I think quite natural and instinctive in any photographer of the time.

    Paper is not sold in square format for a reason! If and when you need a square image, you crop the paper. But normally you would need a rectangular paper (which doesn't rule out some further cropping for compositional reasons).

    Oscar Barnack cameras didn't force "orientation" and the need to think in terms of orientation. Orientation was probably in the mind of every photographer since the birth of photography. The small format can be markedly rectangular just because somehow for the first time in photographic history it was very easy to orient the camera without clumsiness.

    I think it's also interesting that cinema, even though probably or possibly begun in square format, soon developed into landscape mode, and even panoramic mode, reinforcing IMO the idea that the square format is not favoured by image creators (unless they have a specific compositional reason to prefer the square format).

    Fabrizio

    EDIT Maybe one of the reasons of the scarce success of the 126 format among advanced amateurs was that in a small camera the square format makes no sense, as it is easy to turn the camera on one side. This could be an indirect "proof" that the photographer normally thinks in terms of "orientation" in any case.
    Last edited by Diapositivo; 08-22-2012 at 01:03 PM. Click to view previous post history.
    Fabrizio Ruggeri fine art photography site: http://fabrizio-ruggeri.artistwebsites.com
    Stock images at Imagebroker: http://www.imagebroker.com/#/search/ib_fbr

  9. #29
    nicholai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Kolding, Denmark
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    294
    Diapositivo: That doesn't explain the insane success of the Diana and Holga that exclusively shoots in squares.
    Nicholai Nissen
    Kolding, Denmark
    nicholainissen@gmail.com

  10. #30
    Peltigera's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Lincoln, UK
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    461
    The "insane success" is very hard to explain to my mind, with or without the square format.

Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin