"Photography IS Film"

[Theo Sulphate]

... it remains curious to me that the commonest size and format (by a wide margin) in the world today is A4 vertical.

"by a wide margin" - nice.

So, did A4 originate from the era of typed business letters in the office or was a different size used? Maybe that's why.

 

[blockend]

But square is the perfect format

Professionals who shot square format cameras like the Hasselblad and Rolleiflex didn't expect images to be printed square. Most were used in magazines or for portraits and model portfolios. Even wedding shots tended to be cropped slightly. Oblong camera formats on 120 film entered the professional ranks later, though there had long been such sizes in amateur cameras. Square was more of an "art" format than a pro specification. The use of masks was common.

 

[moose10101]

Theorising is cheap so here goes. Because our eyes are placed side by side and not above one another the native format for a picture is wider than high. And the proportions are vaguely similar to our horizontal field of view versus our vertical field of view: 210 degrees horizontal versus 150 degrees vertical or a ratio of 1:1.4.
Given all of that it remains curious to me that the commonest size and format (by a wide margin) in the world today is A4 vertical.

Possibly because what may be the commonest subject (a person) is typically vertical.

 

[jtk]

But square is the perfect format. That is what Hasselblad advertised for years. Besides how many painters over the centuries used the 2:3 format of 35mm?

Many of us shot 120 long before we saw a Hass ad. I shot a Rollei for my college yearbook because a) it was available and b) it was easily cropped. (cropping became uncool a few years later).

 

[Sirius Glass]

Many of us shot 120 long before we saw a Hass ad. I shot a Rollei for my college yearbook because a) it was available and b) it was easily cropped. (cropping became uncool a few years later).

I crop before I fire the shutter.

 

[eddie]

I crop before I fire the shutter.

What do you do if the best image isn't square? Personally, I've never found anything sacrosanct about printing full frame. If I'm out with my Rollei, and come across a scene which I know will work best as a horizontal, I shoot it with the intent to print it horizontal. I do try to use the entire negative area of one dimension of the film, though.

 

[jtk]

What do you do if the best image isn't square? Personally, I've never found anything sacrosanct about printing full frame. If I'm out with my Rollei, and come across a scene which I know will work best as a horizontal, I shoot it with the intent to print it horizontal. I do try to use the entire negative area of one dimension of the film, though.

Agreed. Some folks prioritize images.

 

[Sirius Glass]

What do you do if the best image isn't square? Personally, I've never found anything sacrosanct about printing full frame. If I'm out with my Rollei, and come across a scene which I know will work best as a horizontal, I shoot it with the intent to print it horizontal. I do try to use the entire negative area of one dimension of the film, though.

Then I crop appropriately, but that rarely happens because I compose so that I do not have to crop during printing.

 

[jtk]

Then I crop appropriately, but that rarely happens because I compose so that I do not have to crop during printing.

What if you want to play with your shot later? Is that forbidden ?

 

[eddie]

Then I crop appropriately, but that rarely happens because I compose so that I do not have to crop during printing.

OK. Your earlier statement made it seems as if you never crop. I think we sort of work the same way. I like to use as much of the film's real estate as I can, but sometimes need to sacrifice some of the area to get a better final result. I'm always aware of the camera I have with me which makes me look for compositions appropriate to that camera. If I'm carrying square, I look for square images. I'll see horizontal or vertical images with other cameras. So, my cropping (like yours) is the exception, rather than the rule.

 

[Sirius Glass]

What if you want to play with your shot later? Is that forbidden ?

Your word is "forbidden". I am so good that it is very rarely needed, especially with the large viewing screen. You could fly out here to meet me and I will teach you how to take better photographs which will not need cropping.

 

[Arthurwg]

t doesn't matter what Kenny will use film or digital. He is not photographer, never was, never will be, Rockwell is giftless in photography as art. He is gear reviewer with sometimes moronic conclusions in writing, but useful as gear review source Google finds first.

Not sure why it's necessary to attack KR. He's actually as much a photographer as many other folks here. I guess he's an easy target.

 

[Arthurwg]

asselblad advertrised it that way to get people to buy their cameras, it has nothing to do with how perfect the format is or isn't
the only painters who i know of who painted in a square canvas were theo von doesburgh and piet mondrain .. because of
their believe in theosophy and how they translated the religion into their purity language .. plenty of painters paint in non square formats
portraits were done in non square formats on canvas &c ...

Don't forget Joseph Albers.

 

[removed account4]

Then I crop appropriately, but that rarely happens because I compose so that I do not have to crop during printing.

thank goodness. too many people with some weird orodoxy where they refuse to do simple stuff
for no reason other than they don't do it// i mean i see if there is a dietary restriction imposed by
a religious group or physician but cropping ? when someone says that i just wonder ... "straight print"
is another ... i mean every prints gotta be burned or dodged perfect negatives don't exist.

Don't forget Joseph Albers.

YIKES !!
totally forgot ..
thanks !!

Not sure why it's necessary to attack KR. He's actually as much a photographer as many other folks here. I guess he's an easy target.

EVERYONE is a target
especially if they are an "influencer"
and he reviews and influences ...

Photos are rectangular because that is easiest, cheapest, and least wasteful shape to mass produce.

yes, this ...

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Not sure why it's necessary to attack KR. He's actually as much a photographer as many other folks here. I guess he's an easy target.

Show me his photography to prove it then. As for HERE, no comments.

But I went to collective exhibition this year. It was worth it.

 

[Arthurwg]

KR has lots of pictures on his website. I like many of them. As for your pictures.....

 

[CMoore]

I thought "Photography" required a camera. I did not realize it went passed that.....

 

[removed account4]

I thought "Photography" required a camera. I did not realize it went passed that.....

hi ..
why does it require a camera ?
i thought a photograph was a drawing made with light ( like the name implies ) ...

 

[Jim Jones]

I could crop well enough in the viewfinder of a Leica iiif to shoot Kodachromes for projection, but now welcome the opportunity to let the subject, not the camera viewfinder, dictate optimum cropping.

 

[Vaughn]

thank goodness. too many people with some weird orodoxy where they refuse to do simple stuff
for no reason other than they don't do it// i mean i see if there is a dietary restriction imposed by
a religious group or physician but cropping ? when someone says that i just wonder ... "straight print"
is another ... i mean every prints gotta be burned or dodged perfect negatives don't exist.
...

Ninety-nine percent of the time I print without burning, dodging or cropping...showing or not showing the film rebate, depending on the image and photographic process I am using to make the print. Why? Because I greatly enjoy the challange and learning experience of creating images that do not need those three actions (burning, dodging or cropping) in order to acheive the best image/print possible. This approach meshes with the way I approach and understand the light on the landscape. I hesitate to call my images straight because there is nothing 'straight' about the way I approach making an image or the work I do to make the materials I make my prints out of.

My negatives are not perfect -- but then neither is any print that has been (or not been) burned, dodged or cropped. But it is worth trying..

An example. Redwood and Vine Maples, 8x10 carbon print (no burning, dodging or cropping)

 

[faberryman]

Ninety-nine percent of the time I print without burning, dodging or cropping...showing or not showing the film rebate, depending on the image and photographic process I am using to make the print. Why? Because I greatly enjoy the challange and learning experience of creating images that do not need those three actions (burning, dodging or cropping) in order to acheive the best image/print possible. This approach meshes with the way I approach and understanding the light on the landscape. I hesitate to call my images straight because there is nothing 'straight' about the way I approach making an image or the work I do to make the materials I make my prints out of. My negatives are not perfect -- but then neither is any print that has been (or not been) burned, dodged or cropped. But it is worth trying..

Burning and dodging are pretty much out of the question (although physically possible) if you are using a film negative and doing carbon or platinum printing. Using digital negatives for those processes is an entirely different matter. I want to print larger than 8x10 and so use digital negatives for carbon and platinum printing, and never hesitate to tweak such negatives in LR/PS, both to better reflect my original vision and to compensate for certain quirks in the process.. At one portfolio review, my work was criticized as therefore being inauthentic. So be it. It is the resulting image that is important to me.

 

[Vaughn]

That was pretty harsh critique! Most of the people taking my workshops are using digital negatives these days.

The one percent of the time where I do burn is usually when taking the contact printing frame from under the BL bulbs (pt/pd prints) and I might give a corner or edge a little more time before pulling the frame all the way out. Using masks (analoge or digitally made), one can have fine control when contact printing. I just have not felt the need to go that way, but a couple times I have used a Sharpie on the glass of the contact printing frame mid-exposure!

 

[faberryman]

That was pretty harsh critique! Most of the people taking my workshops are using digital negatives these days.

It wasn't intended as a critique; it was intended as an explanation of how and why I print the way I do, which is different than your method.

 

[removed account4]

Ninety-nine percent of the time I print without burning, dodging or cropping...showing or not showing the film rebate, depending on the image and photographic process I am using to make the print. Why? Because I greatly enjoy the challange and learning experience of creating images that do not need those three actions (burning, dodging or cropping) in order to acheive the best image/print possible. This approach meshes with the way I approach and understand the light on the landscape. I hesitate to call my images straight because there is nothing 'straight' about the way I approach making an image or the work I do to make the materials I make my prints out of.

My negatives are not perfect -- but then neither is any print that has been (or not been) burned, dodged or cropped. But it is worth trying..

An example. Redwood and Vine Maples, 8x10 carbon print (no burning, dodging or cropping)

thanks vaughn ! yeah i get it
... but its not an orthodoxy you practice because if you
did those 3 things your photographs would be less,
like because photography isn't real if you crop of burn or dodge..
i saw a photographer's work at a show IDK 6 summers ago nice stuff
and when i asked him about his technique, he said
full frame straight print nothing else, because if he crops
burns or dodges his work loses some sort of "realness"..
i shrugged my shoulders and said " cool "
sounds like a nice way of working .. get the image done well in the viewer and on the film
less time and less of a hassle in the dark ..

 

[Vaughn]

It wasn't intended as a critique; it was intended as an explanation of how and why I print the way I do, which is different than your method.

I was referring to your portfolio review!