How to print 6x6 negatives

[fotch]

Choosing a camera for the rectangular format? Emmm, since I like shooting with a medium size TLR, just what camera choices are there.

Square is for squares! Just kidding. What ever you think is right is what you should do. The rectangle is more common I think, in cameras and paintings, but it really doesn't matter, a particular photo and the way you see it, is what you do.

There is nothing to prevent a person shooting with a 4x5 to crop and make prints, say, 8x8, if they think it makes a better picture.

I don't see this as only one way is right or if you shoot a certain way, you must get a matching camera. Two people may have different composing ideas, neither one needs to be wrong for the other to be right. Silly.

 

[Mark Fisher]

Interesting discussion. I shoot mostly in a 6x9 format (35mm or 645) or 6x6. I mostly print full frame unless I screwed up and ended up with something distracting in the corner of the frame. When I first started, though, I was the one saying that the format shouldn't dictate the print proportion. What changed? In my case, I think I simply improved my compositional skills and I could better utilize the full frame....or it was laziness as I started matting and framing more... I used to shoot 4x5, but I never got the point with that format where I tended to use the entire frame and I still tend to print 4x5 either square or longer and narrower. I think I simply never became skilled in composing in that aspect ratio. I'd be curious to know if I am the only one who followed that progression or whether I am an anomaly.

Oh, and do get a 4 bladed easel if you want to print square. It makes life easier and allows for wider borders.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I compose to the frame: 35mm is rectangular; 6x6 is square; 4x5 is rectangular, almost square.

I print to the composition which is almost always to the format. If a shape format will not work, I use the camera with the format that will.

Steve

 

[AgentX]

Agreed. There's a kind of laziness not composing to the frame, and a lack of artistic confidence as well.

Ian

No, actually, there's not. There's only laziness in neglecting to consider what it is you want in your image, regardless of the particular camera/format you happen to be holding.

There's nothing more or less authentic about a print from a full-frame or with a crop, or more or less lazy. Useless dogma can be extremely limiting, and we shouldn't contribute to giving people some needless complex about cropping to make the image they want to make. Some people might work better with a "full frame only" monkey on their backs, but others might not, and that's FINE.

Everyone can shoot in different ways and it's no less valid-we should focus on result more than process.

(And this is coming from a guy who loves 6x6 and usually prefers a square, and a full-frame at that...I just don't think it has to be this way all the time for me, or for other people.)

Edit: To the point of the thread, I'm firmly with the "square printing gives me a test strip with every sheet of paper" crowd...

 

[fschifano]

I don't start out with any pre-conceived notions of how I'm going to print things. When I use a sqare format camera, sometimes I see things that fit the square nicely, and I'll compose for that. Other times, I see a rectangle; the proportions of which may or may not fit the standard aspect ratios one finds in pre-cut papers. That's ok. I'm not against cropping, nor am I against printing full frame. It all depends on what you see and what looks best. In some respects, the square is perfect. It can go landscape, portrait, or square. That's what 4 bladed easels and paper cutters are for. But yeah, decide what you want first, and this is easily done with a china marker or a sharpie on a contact print - or even something as simple as two "L" shaped pieces of cardboard that you can use to mask off portions of the frame while looking for a good composition to print. Then trim your paper and use the offcuts for test patches or strips.

Bottom line? I don't let the shape of the frame determine the image. I just compose within that frame to get what I want to print..

 

[Wade D]

I have no preconceived notions about what format will produce what type of print. If the vision I had at the time of exposure dictates that I make a square print from a 4x5 negative or a rectangular print from a 6x6 negative then that's what I do. As long as the final print expresses what I desire. Good composition doesn't necessarily mean that every millimeter of film needs to be included in the final print either.

 

[Ian David]

I print square with the paper in portrait mode so that even just in a portfolio it has white space around it and more space below than above.

Me too. I think an unmounted square print generally looks better on a rectangular piece of paper with plenty of white space around the image. Always more space below than above.

And I agree with Wade's last post above. I mostly print square from the Blad, but certainly not always.

Ian

 

[Henry Alive]

I want to thank all of you. There have been many comments, but seems to be clear that a 6x6 negative offers many possibilities, as it can be printed square, portrait or landscape with no problem. I do not think I will make a mistake buying a Hasselblad, even though I have been working mainly with 35 mm so far. Thanks again.
Henry.

 

[eddym]

There's nothing more or less authentic about a print from a full-frame or with a crop, or more or less lazy. Useless dogma can be extremely limiting, and we shouldn't contribute to giving people some needless complex about cropping to make the image they want to make. Some people might work better with a "full frame only" monkey on their backs, but others might not, and that's FINE.

I have been saying that for years! Just because the camera in your hand crops the world to a certain aspect ratio, that does not mean that your vision is limited to it. After all, lenses create an image circle; everything else -square, rectangle, or triangle- is cropping, either in the camera or afterwards!

 

[fotch]

Henry, you got it. The focus should be on the final print. Its the result that counts.
Good luck

 

[Wade D]

Henry, you got it. The focus should be on the final print. Its the result that counts.
Good luck

I agree 100%.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Henry, you got it. The focus should be on the final print. Its the result that counts.
Good luck

Am I missing something here? I though the focus was on the negative, then on the paper. If I am wrong, please advise!

Steve

 

[michaelbsc]

I usually looked at my 6x6 negative that they could be printed in the traditional rectangle either horizontal or vertical. More than enough negative to permit cropping. Same as with any negative in that they may not proportion out exactly to the print paper.

Same here. I put little pencil marks on my TLR screen with horizontal and vertical cropping so I have a guide. Then I can frame any way I want it according tot he scene in front of me. The scene dictates rather than the camera.

 

[Q.G.]

The scene dictates rather than the camera.

And that's the thing: you should dictate, and not have anything else dictate you.

 

[fotch]

Am I missing something here? I though the focus was on the negative, then on the paper. If I am wrong, please advise!

Steve

What is hanging on the wall? Or sitting on your desk? Or carried in your wallet?

 

[michaelbsc]

And that's the thing: you should dictate, and not have anything else dictate you.

And I freely admit that I shoot a lot for square. There's nothing wrong with square. I like square. But I also like 1x2 and 1x3 as well as 8x10. That's why I own a paper cutter.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Am I missing something here? I though the focus was on the negative, then on the paper. If I am wrong, please advise!

Steve

What is hanging on the wall? Or sitting on your desk? Or carried in your wallet?

Have you noticed that one of your legs is longer than the other?

 

[fotch]

Have you noticed that one of your legs is longer than the other?

Oh my, when did that happen? :eek: