But if a marketing department tells lies, they can go to jail. If you or I say it, it is personal opinion, even though it is the truth. Isn't that correct Sirius?.............Regards!
But if a marketing department tells lies, they can go to jail. If you or I say it, it is personal opinion, even though it is the truth. Isn't that correct Sirius?.............Regards!Because some people know better than to take the word of a marketing department trying to sell them a product line with limited options as an unquestionable truth? ...
...
...
Yeah, I totally do about 95% of my work in square format now, but that doesn't make other formats any less valid, just less used.
Unless you're marketing politicians!But if a marketing department tells lies, they can go to jail. If you or I say it, it is personal opinion, even though it is the truth. Isn't that correct Sirius?.............Regards!
Some 'landscapes' work better shot vertically (waterfalls etc), some will suit a square format, others are best as cropped panoramas (or 6x17 if you've got the option). If you have a 6x6 and can't create a good shot of a landscape (cropped or uncropped), the format isn't your limiting factor.
Actually I'm working with the Rolleiflex Pano Head to to add several square frames to a polyptychon.
Macfred, how are you presenting this photo's, printed pice by pice next to each other, or merged into one print, digitally ore traditional?
I scan the negatives, merge them digitally to a polyptychon (maybe 3,4 ore more single frames in line) and -mainly- present them online.
I also tried to arrange traditional printed photographs to a polyptychon by using self-made passe-partouts / mounts with quite good results but this is more complicated.
Edit
There's a flickr group with some nice inspirations
https://www.flickr.com/groups/2030649@N23/pool/with/39197015365/#photo_39197015365
Yes Johnha, 6x17 (Linhof Technorama 617 II) is gorgeous:
Bronica made native pano film backs for its ETR 6x4.5 and SQ 6x6 cameras. They use 35mm film. No additional work is needed. This photo is taken with its 135 W film back on the ETR-Si camera.
Meh. 6x6 can be good for landscapes. But then again, so can 4x5, 2x3 or any other aspect ratio. It just depends on the scene and what you want to compose.
You can also manually do it. This from a Bronica GS-1 6x7.
Snake River Overlook, Grand Teton National Park by Tony, on Flickr
My preference in MF for landscape photography is 6x9 format and my preference in MF 6x9 cameras is the Mamiya Universal with his 50mm spectacular lens. It's inexpensive compared to Fuji and other mentioned options, you get interchangeable lenses, interchangeable backs with 6x4,5 6x6 6x7 and 6x9 formats, a groundglass and some back movements (for macro work). 50mm on 6x9 is quite wide.
I will just speak to the square "universality" myth, so as the saying goes ... you can crop later.
Any format requires carefull framing to take advantage of either its form factor or overal negative size. If the intention is to get square only to crop it to some sort of rectangle, you better be very tedius at getting your framing right as there may not be much left to crop into a greater image, short of cutting out most of what was recorded.
Whatever the format, it helps composition thinking along the same margins. Shooting square for an intended rectangle can really make one miss a great shot.
To me any format can be used successfully for any subject matter, none will automatically improve your skills. Some cameras feel better for one type of work over another and that is probably a better way to pick it from the crowded field of great tools that are ... ever getting more expensive now.
I like 6x6 for square landscapes, but another way to think about it is that with 6x6, you can crop the frame any way you want, so it’s like having a view camera with rear rise, fall, and shift, but without the apparatus. If you want the camera level, so all your trees are nice and parallel, but you don’t want the horizon in the boring middle of the frame all the time, then level the camera to keep the verticals straight, and crop for a horizontal image to put the horizon where you want it—top third, bottom third, wherever it looks right.
If you use a 35mm insert or 645 back on a 6x6 SLR, to me, that’s like losing the option of moving the horizon while keeping the camera level.
Your last point is key. You wind up cropping off feet or heads or other important subject matter. It's one of the reasons I shoot 16:9 digitally since I want to display on my UHDTV or monitor or cellphone which has that format. If I shoot 4:3 or 3:2, I wind up cropping out things to get it to 16:9. Visualizing 16:9 took me about a day to get use too. Your brain automatically adjusts to frame correctly at whatever format you shoot in. But it will get lost often when you try to change it later. I also use 16:9 to match video clips I shoot when making slide shows for my TV.All well and good, and we all do some cropping in the end a lot of times irrespective of frame factor , but film length is limited and so far not getting any cheaper. Great shots can be taken withing smaller available frame and going from 12 frames to 15/16 on same roll (66 vs. 645), gives 3 or 4 opportunities of far different framing options than the square would allow. And when we think of reaching a difficult shooting spot after a long hike, switching to smaller frame factor might be more of a blessing.
Then, looking at 35 mm, as of this writing, there are more film choices. We can only hope film production will continue to grow and eventually all formats will be again available in most film types produced.
And when we start discussing shooting first - cropping later (like the digital has been teaching everyone to do) why not take it to 67 or 69 frame factor and get even more area covered in a single shot?
My point about composing for the given frame factor is how what is seen in the finder drives visualization and the extra care needed. Somewhat different approach to composing is needed, if the final image is to be vastly different from what was shot.
I find the Hasselblad with it's square format and beautiful selection of High-quality optics ideal for landscapes; something Victor Hasselblad successfully convinced Ansel Adams of by the way,.Althou as an amateur I do a bit more, I think I am more into landscapes and cityscapes. I have upgraded to medium format a few years and I really enjoy it. RB67 with a Hasselbald 500CM. Been doing thinking now as the weather here is starting to warm up ... and maybe due to age that I might see things more efficient or aligned.
I enjoy these cameras however ... both of them were not that popular with landscapes even back in the film days. The Pentax 67 would be more common?
I clearly see that the RB67 is such a nice camera to use say indoors or outside if they had assistants, super large viewfinder and it is cheap. Maybe it is cheap that many people see it as not user friendly. The Hasselblad is a more more manageable but I find the square format is more towards abstract and fine art and maybe lifestyle, portraits, documentary type, or just the amateur having some off work time with a camera he likes expressing their creativity.
One could use the RB67 is they were not walking around too much or staying outside that long but it may not be that suitable as a travel / landscape camera ie you might be away from home living in a hotel / motel for a few weeks kinda thing.
What is more clear is an 617 system for those wide sweeping views but those are so expensive.
Like to hear your thoughts. Cheers.
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?