i guess now i can ask it
Originally Posted by LMNOP
not to cause trouble, but why crop at all ?
when you compose the image, do you use the whole view if so
why crop out part of what you composed to be part of the image?
you suggest you are stingy about maximizing your negative, doesn't cropping it
defeat the whole purpose ?
whenever i use a 2x3 back i usually compose full frame and don't crop, that rectangle
always looks nice on 5x7 and 8x10 with a border ......
Maybe I was not clear about this, but I personally scan my negatives, so there is a slight bit of cropping involved just to get rid of the edges of negative itself. The way a negative scans in is not perfectly clean, usually an nonuniform black border, with small divots on the corners. You need to crop very slightly to get a clean image. This thread is about which ratio to use in order to get a rectangle that meets all four sides perfectly.
Originally Posted by jnanian
Originally Posted by wiltw
And we can see that Mamiya is apparently not CONSISTENT even within the RB67/RZ67 models!
Originally Posted by Ian C
The reason that the 6 x 7cm format is referred to as “Ideal Format” is that its aspect ratio is about the same as the popular precut enlarging paper sizes: 8” x 10” and 16” x 20”, and isn’t greatly different than 11” x 14” (1.27), and 20” x 24” (1.2).
Thus all or most of the on-film image can fit the print from edge to edge.
For those who insist upon making enlargements that fit the paper with no more than slight edge overlap, continuous roll paper can be cut to length to suit any format.
Last edited by Ian C; 08-17-2014 at 11:44 AM. Click to view previous post history.
This may not be useful info, but I personally don't expose with the intent of printing the entire contents of the negative. I leave all doors open for creativity. I try to leave as much "working space" within the frame to accommodate a change of direction. When I expose and while looking at the focusing screen, I try to visualize any number of cropping and framing possibilities. And it's not uncommon to end up with a vertically oriented print from a negative that was originally exposed on the horizontal. And, if you are serious about the outcome of your efforts, you wouldn't hesitate for a moment to take multiple shots of the subject from multiple positions. When I read about those who say they only print "full frame", I tend to ask "why?". That would be akin to writing a book and not allowing yourself to edit the text that you have already written. Why lock yourself into box? Granted, you must work within the restrictions of the cameras design, but the camera manual doesn't state that you can't be creative before and after the exposure.
6X4.5cm, 6x6cm/6x9cm, 6x7cm, 5x4, 4x5, Half-Plate, 5x7, Full-Plate, 8x10, 12x10
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
If you are going to scan, include the edges, and then crop afterwards.
“Photography is a complex and fluid medium, and its many factors are not applied in simple sequence. Rather, the process may be likened to the art of the juggler in keeping many balls in the air at one time!”
Ansel Adams, from the introduction to The Negative - The New Ansel Adams Photography Series / Book 2
Yes, of course. When scanning, I custom drag the field of capture to include black frame on all sides. I crop within the negative in PS.
Originally Posted by MattKing
nope, you weren't clear about this ( or at least i didn't get it )
Originally Posted by LMNOP
if what you do works .. thats all that really counts ...
RE 4x5in, 8x10in or 6x7cm having "ideal" ratios: It's only my opinion, and not to derail this thread, but I prefer narrower ratios because 4:5 feels >>>squeezed in<<< to me... at least for horizontal images. With vertical compositions it doesn't matter as much to me. My favorite ratios are 2:3 or 1:2. I've made prints with 4:5 ratios because that was the film format I used and composed the images to use every millimeter. At the time I was a stickler for squeezing every bit of quality I could from every grain of film so I seldom allowed myself the luxury of cropping. That was a long time ago though and film quality is far superior to what was available back then.
My point is, there's no reason to not crop unless the subject fits the format perfectly. I doubt I'll ever pay much attention to ratios ever again.
But.... maybe this is off-topic. Sorry if it is.
Linhof introduced the phrase "ideal format" in the late 1950s. The attraction was that it not only printed to 8x10" approximately, but also suited vertical magazine formats of the day. Linhof 6x7 backs are actually 56x72mm.
I'd say it's the rollfilm format I most often shoot, but 6x9 has its attractions (same proportions as the 35mm frame), as do all the others.