Neither Fish Nor Fowl

Old-N-Feeble · Sep 29, 2016

I haven't shot 135 format in a very long time but I remember liking 35mm lenses every bit as much as any other focal length. I'm not sure why some don't but that's okay. Actually, 35mm lenses are just as close to 'normal' focal length with this format as 50mm is and much closer to normal if one crops to 8x10 (1:1.25 ratio). Even if printing full bleed, 'normal' focal length for 24x30mm (cropped from 24x36mm full frame) is 38.4mm... and it's probable that at least 1mm will be cropped from both sides so the usable film image is closer to 23x29mm which indicates that a 37mm lens is considered normal (using common standards). If one crops to 23x29mm film image then a 50mm lens is considered slightly long and by a fair margin of 35 percent. That's like shooting with a 200-210mm lens on 4x5 and calling that normal focal length.

frank · Sep 29, 2016

For me, I like the isolating power of the 50 and the not too extreme wide angle of the 28 (that's what 20 is for). The 35 is neither here nor there in its coverage. Likewise, 24mm doesn't do it for me either. My favourite lens progression is 20-28-50. I rarely use longer focal lengths. I'm perfectly happy with those 3 focal lengths (and their equivalents in MF. Hasselblad: 38-50-80

Old-N-Feeble · Sep 29, 2016

That's fine, Frank, we all have our preferences. But do you crop 56x56mm to 45x56mm or print FF square? If cropping to 645 do you consider 97mm (100mm) 'normal' FL? If printing FF square do you consider 108mm (110mm) 'normal'? Do you prefer slightly longer than 'normal' when shooting 135 format vs. 6x6 or 645 format? Do you print 135 FF or crop to 1:1.25 ratio? Do you shoot different subject matter with 135 than you do with 6x6cm (disparate needs)?

Sirius Glass · Sep 29, 2016

Soeren said:
Oh and 6x6. All that cropping. Why not just shoot 645 from the start when that's the amount of negative size youll end up using anyway

There is no need to crop 6x6 to 645 if one is competent enough to crop before taking the photograph.

Old-N-Feeble · Sep 29, 2016

Not everyone likes square format especially 'all' the time. Nothing wrong with it... just many don't care for the format.

Theo Sulphate · Sep 29, 2016

Old-N-Feeble said:
Not everyone likes square format especially 'all' the time. Nothing wrong with it... just many don't care for the format.

Yes. I've realized this recently - when I frame my subject in a square format, one side is either too long or too short. I suppose I just "see" my subjects fitting into a 6x7 or 6x9 perspective.

My favorite lens progression (35mm format) is: 35-50-85. I'm rarely outside that focal length range.

Old-N-Feeble · Sep 29, 2016

That's a reasonable progression of FL of approximately 1.5X. I just prefer going wider and longer resulting in more FL available for use... not that I care about beginning with 'normal' as a starting point.

Are you adjusting your focal lengths according to the final cropping ratios?

Theo Sulphate · Sep 29, 2016

Old-N-Feeble said:
...
Are you adjusting your focal lengths according to the final cropping ratios?

What I see in the viewfinder from 35-50-85 is what I plan to have in the print - no cropping.

Sirius Glass · Sep 29, 2016

Soeren said:
Oh and 6x6. All that cropping. Why not just shoot 645 from the start when that's the amount of negative size youll end up using anyway

Sirius Glass said:
There is no need to crop 6x6 to 645 if one is competent enough to crop before taking the photograph.

Old-N-Feeble said:
Not everyone likes square format especially 'all' the time. Nothing wrong with it... just many don't care for the format.

Theo Sulphate said:
Yes. I've realized this recently - when I frame my subject in a square format, one side is either too long or too short. I suppose I just "see" my subjects fitting into a 6x7 or 6x9 perspective.

My favorite lens progression (35mm format) is: 35-50-85. I'm rarely outside that focal length range.

Did anyone besides me notice that there was not great out pouring of love for the 645 format?

Antonio Marques · Sep 29, 2016

620 film is an example of something which is identical to a standard only that it's incompatible with it. As such, I don't even think it belongs in this thread, which is about things that are actually different from their neighbouring alternatives.

I haven't seen any affronted reply in this thread yet, I don't get the comment about peeps taking it too seriously.

Soeren · Sep 30, 2016

Sirius Glass said:
Did anyone besides me notice that there was not great out pouring of love for the 645 format?

No, it's your wivid imagination playing you.

baachitraka · Sep 30, 2016

I wish we would have,
3x3
6x6
9x9

Soeren · Sep 30, 2016

We do have 6x6 , did? have 4x4 (127film) and the good old Plaubel Makiflex could do 9x9? or what about the old 126 film giving you 26.5x26.5mm negs

baachitraka · Sep 30, 2016

Agfa Rapid: 24x24mm

Neither Fish Nor Fowl

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency