A very different of viewing the 'advantage' of 6x6 over 645 format is that if you shoot portraits and crop to standard 10" x 8" print size for clients, you only use 44.8 x 56mm of the 6x6 film image... and 645 frame is about 43 x 56mm (depending upon which brand of camera. So the 'size advantage' is a virtual one, unless you always print square (which itself is a handicap to the customer buying the frame in a store)You can crop a 6x6 to 645, but cropping 645 to square results in a relatively small negative.
And now, with the adoption of digital backs, Hassy has abandoned their mantra about the square format. Marketing.
A very different of viewing the 'advantage' of 6x6 over 645 format is that if you shoot portraits and crop to standard 10" x 8" print size for clients, you only use 44.8 x 56mm of the 6x6 film image... and 645 frame is about 43 x 56mm (depending upon which brand of camera. So the 'size advantage' is a virtual one, unless you always print square (which itself is a handicap to the customer buying the frame in a store)
Sirius glass said:What disadvantage? I always pay for custom matting, which is needed if one were to crop, and custom framing. My photographs are always worth at least that.
As the artist, you have a very different perspective on the issue than a customer wanting a frame for his/her shot taken by the studio...square frames are not as readily found in a store you would walk into is a casual search for matte or frame, in as wide a variety of finishes and styles. One is largely forced to use custom frame shops to have both made to order, a great disadvantage from walking around a bazaar and looking through tables full of bargain frames for sale, for example....or even in conventional stores. Find me a plastic square frame so that my wife can add a family photo on top of our grand piano, please.
What disadvantage? I always pay for custom matting, which is needed if one were to crop, and custom framing. My photographs are always worth at least that.
Yes, there are many examples of square photos mounted in rectangular frames.
Think maybe my miscues with 120 cameras have been due to my favoring 6X6 and the resulting weight kind of begs the question "Why not 4X5?" as the "pack" begins to weigh in close to the same. MF lenses can be kind of bulky whereas many LF lenses can be quite small. That conclusion pushed me to the Rollieflex TLR which has worked fine - even within the limitations for most purposes. But maybe a 645 would be modestly smaller and more compact.... push some of the everyday shooter benes into 120?
But I do like the larger negatives I can see without magnification. The risk is that to my eyes, 120 seems to be unique in that roll film seems more vulnerable to mishandling somewherre in the chain than either 35mm or LF 4X5 which are both protected for the most part and easier to handle. I mention this because I find 120 film defects from time to time in the middle of the roll.... the image forms just fine, but it looks as though there's been a twist or a poke from rough handling. I don't think it's me either though I can't rule that out entirely. But I find these things ONLY with 120, so I wonder whether it's something that might happen in the course of slitting, rolling and confecting or whatever. Sounds unlikely to me, but anything is posible and I wonder whether I'm alone in this.... and therefore it really is moi.... but I've not mentioned this to anyone before. At any rate, it doesn't affect the image or the scan per se, but when the film is dried after development and still hanging before cut and sleeved, you see it fairly clearly.
My 35mm Nikon F4 does duty in the SLR category, and don't really need to duplicate that but hasn't got a lot of show lately - replaced largely by digital when needed.... even my iPhone these days. But the question I'm edging toward is whether to dump the TLR and 35mm and use just 4X5 and MF 645... and trade the TLR and 35mm for a Mamiya 645 Super or Pentax 645N. Pentax has Af and that has some utility, but comments about the dark viewfinder for manual focus are a bit of a concern. The Mamiya 645 Super doesn't have AF, but I'm wondering whether about the brightness of the viewfinder. And the risk in this move is that the Nikon F4 is a truly wonderful system... while the Mamiya might not be in the same league.... ergo the net gain minimal.... And if the only net gain were a slightly bigger neg that was less easily made and not of the same quality as the F4's production... than the whole would be a fool's errand just after a ride on another horse that after a brief thrill could soon lead to "Why'd I do that?" The TLR by contrast is just a wonderful piece of hardware... fun to shoot for the challenge of taking it manual... fully... but while I have a set of filters, doesn't really facilitate a yellow-plus-polarizer combo without a lot more futsing. It's a candidate who's served well but might be time to go.
Read over comments on MF collections and one that resonated: "We keep buying MF cameras looking for one that will get it done...." to which I'd add "Yeah we just don't have stores anymore where you could try before you buy" for these beasts, so it's pretty much "Buy-Try-and-_______" where ______ means "hoard" or "dispose". I've takent the hits and disposed using that dummy math that the unused gear is "found money".
So I'm open to suggestions, thoughts - even counsel.
- My favorite MF camera - by a mile - is a Hasselblad.
- My favorite MF format - by a mile - is 6x9.
- My favorite 6x9 options are:
- Mamiya Universal with a G back - Because it has interchangeable backs and lenses. But it's a big beast, especially with a long lens on it.
- Fuji GW690II - Because it's (relatively) portable and has great glass. But ... no lens interchangeability.
- "Baby" 2x3 Speed Graphic w/Graflok back (or a Century Graphic) - Because you can shoot 6x9 sheet film or 120/220 rollfilm. With the appropriate back, you can shoot 6x6, 6x7, or 6x9 on rolls. More importantly, the lenses are interchangeable and there is terrifically sharp glass available that works with this camera. The default 101mm f/4.5 Ektar is an absolutely fine lens, but you can stick modern Schneiders, Rodenstocks, Fujis, and Nikons on it. 2x3 lenses tend to be smaller than their 4x5 counterparts, so a 3 lens kit doesn't weigh in all that heavy.
if only there were more options for 2x3 sheet film--I'd love for Ilford to add that to their ULF sale--Delta 100 and FP4+ especially. I have a couple of 2x3 grafmatics that I use on my Horseman and Linhof--one has Foma 100 and the other has Foma 400.However once I discovered the 2x3 Graflex RB and 2x3 sheet film I find myself using that camera more and more.
if only there were more options for 2x3 sheet film--I'd love for Ilford to add that to their ULF sale--Delta 100 and FP4+ especially. I have a couple of 2x3 grafmatics that I use on my Horseman and Linhof--one has Foma 100 and the other has Foma 400.
- My favorite MF camera - by a mile - is a Hasselblad.
- My favorite MF format - by a mile - is 6x9.
- My favorite 6x9 options are:
- Mamiya Universal with a G back - Because it has interchangeable backs and lenses. But it's a big beast, especially with a long lens on it.
- Fuji GW690II - Because it's (relatively) portable and has great glass. But ... no lens interchangeability.
- "Baby" 2x3 Speed Graphic w/Graflok back (or a Century Graphic) - Because you can shoot 6x9 sheet film or 120/220 rollfilm. With the appropriate back, you can shoot 6x6, 6x7, or 6x9 on rolls. More importantly, the lenses are interchangeable and there is terrifically sharp glass available that works with this camera. The default 101mm f/4.5 Ektar is an absolutely fine lens, but you can stick modern Schneiders, Rodenstocks, Fujis, and Nikons on it. 2x3 lenses tend to be smaller than their 4x5 counterparts, so a 3 lens kit doesn't weigh in all that heavy.
if only there were more options for 2x3 sheet film--I'd love for Ilford to add that to their ULF sale--Delta 100 and FP4+ especially. I have a couple of 2x3 grafmatics that I use on my Horseman and Linhof--one has Foma 100 and the other has Foma 400.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?