I am not in love with the 1:1.5 ratio and I tend not to need to crop in any format because I compose for the format. I agree with you in the last sentence. The RB and RZ are more than a handful and I do not like handling them.
Praising the RB67 Pro S -- Hail the Emperor of Medium Format
-
A
- Thread starter Theo Sulphate
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale Two Graflex 6x9 film backs for Graflex RB 6x9 (2x3)
- Started by Alex Varas
-
For Sale Nokton 40mm f/.14 SC for Leica M cameras.
- Started by Alex Varas
-
For Sale Nikon F2AS + Nikkon 50mm f/1.8 Ai - CLA'd in July 2025.
- Started by Alex Varas
-
Sold Fujica Super Fujica-6 folder, 6x6
- Started by Dan Daniel
-
Want to Buy WTB: "As Maine Goes" by John McKee
- Started by TheTrailTog
Forum statistics
I am not in love with the 1:1.5 ratio and I tend not to need to crop in any format because I compose for the format. I agree with you in the last sentence. The RB and RZ are more than a handful and I do not like handling them.
I'm not in love with 1x1.5 either. In fact I crop some of my rectangular negatives to square. 
The world, and my photographic vision, aren't limited to certain aspect ratios. Some things work better one way and some another way. I try to use as much of the frame as I can just to minimize the degree of enlargement but if cropping will improve the image, either because it looks better a different shape or it cuts out extraneous details I couldn't avoid in the composition or any other reason, I don't hesitate to do it. Just another tool. And you could always crop your 6x7 negatives to 6x6 and not have to rotate the back. 
You'd lose two shots per roll. And it's also hard to file 10 shots of 6x7 in any 120 negative page I've ever seen. And you'd have one big heavy honker of a 6x6 camera, granted.
EDIT: Just noticed in your quote that I called my Mamiya a 645 Super. It's a Pro. Changed in my original post.
The world, and my photographic vision, aren't limited to certain aspect ratios. Some things work better one way and some another way. I try to use as much of the frame as I can just to minimize the degree of enlargement but if cropping will improve the image, either because it looks better a different shape or it cuts out extraneous details I couldn't avoid in the composition or any other reason, I don't hesitate to do it. Just another tool. And you could always crop your 6x7 negatives to 6x6 and not have to rotate the back. You'd lose two shots per roll. And it's also hard to file 10 shots of 6x7 in any 120 negative page I've ever seen. And you'd have one big heavy honker of a 6x6 camera, granted.EDIT: Just noticed in your quote that I called my Mamiya a 645 Super. It's a Pro. Changed in my original post.
Last edited by a moderator:
I use 8"x10" paper for 8" square photographs and 12"x16" paper for 12" square photographs. I do not like wasting paper making 11" square photographs on 11"x14" paper. 4"x5" I print of 8"x10" paper.
I guess it never made financial sense for the paper manufactures to make square paper.
The type setting and book publishing industries, stationery industry and office supply industry has always had a dominant influence on paper sizes. Thomas Edison pushed for round screen movie frames as being more natural but yielded to the more efficient use of resource with the rectangular screen.
I never knew of that. I guess you roll it out in the dark and cut off what you need like when people cut down 8x10 paper for 5x7.
Exactly, I do this with color paper more regularly.
This also allows much larger prints as rolls can be bought fairly wide, say 50 inches...
Dead Link Removed
I think some day when I find the right RB negative it would be fun to do a 48x60ish print.
I probably will in the next six months or so. My finances are in recovery mode after a divorce. (You know why divorces cost so much? Because they're WORTH it!(To be fair it wasn't just the divorce but the preceding 2.5 years that drained both my finances and my energy.)
I ought to start a thread about RB versus RZ. I'm only vaguely aware of the differences (RB mechanical, RZ battery dependant, RZ a bit bigger and heavier, no? some lenses work on both and some don't...) and would need to decide between them.
One reason I've held off is that, while I love working with the view camera, given the PITA factor of sheet film in general and dust problems in particular, I'm afraid if I do I'll all but give up 4x5!
Roger, I'm sorry to hear about your divorce. I've got to admit the comment you made about why divorces cost so much is the funniest thing I have heard in a while.
The RB is actually the heavier camera. The RZ has more plastic parts to it. Both are fine cameras and you wouldn't go wrong with either one. Start your thread when you are ready. There are differences.
Alan
OP
OP
More silliness from Edison. How could he think a round image is more natural? Did he have a defect such as tunnel vision? Human vision favors a wide rectangular swath with lesser peripheral acuity at the extremes and above and below the swath. This is natural for any predator species. Our vision is more like Ultra Panavision 70 than round.
Tesla is The Man!
Same @sshole who stole neighborhood dogs to shock to show that AC current is dangerous.
Now you did it. You have managed to insult every @sshole that ever lived!
Actually percentage wise you lose less printing 11" sq on 11X14 than either of the other sizes. Not much but 22% vs 25%.
Back to the RB silliness. Anyone remember the story about the emperor's new clothes?
I've got to get a life, hard to believe I spent time that I'll never get back to figure that out.:confused::confused::confused::confused::confused:
Edison also electrocuted an elephant to demonstrate the dangers of AC.
OP
OP
To be clear, it is Edison who did that.
Sure. But I don't see the connection - as the RB67 has long proven itself as a highly capable medium format system for professionals.
Last edited by a moderator:
Yep. In fact, at least here, it seems that commercial photography pros (pre-digital) used more Mamiyas than Hassle-blads. It seems the hassies here were more popular with the rich, snobby "art" photographers.
Did you just pull this out from some place in you body or do you have a good source for this claim?
oliceman: Or was it based on what you had for breakfast today? 
OP
OP
Anyone who knows anything about photography knows that Hasselblads and Leicas are high quality cameras that have been used by the best photographers. It's just human nature that there will be a few less talented people who buy those cameras for the status. That doesn't take anything away from the inherent quality of the cameras and the great images people have produced with them. I'm reminded of a remark Stephen Gandy made about screw mount Leicas on his Cameraquest web site: idiots don't use them.
-
- flavio81
- Deleted
Did you just pull this out from some place in you body or do you have a good source for this claim?
That was offensive. I never attacked you.
omg! this turned into mine is better than yours?
well if you are going to bad mouth cameras....
seems today every no talent @sshole has rbs n hassies! hahahahaha why? cuz they're all a bunch of cheap bastards taking advantage of pro equipment at disposable prices!
before they got these cameras, they were playing in the mud with pinhole oatmeal boxes n holgas.
hahahaha just 2ff!
how do i know??? the shift in repairs turned from routine CLAs to salvage jobs in the past 15 years. pros were converting to digital, amatures bought up old equipment from basements n attics, basically fungus fields, at dirt cheap prices.
shutters were badly oxidised, rotten bellows, n gunked up lube as well as seeing more force damaged cameras from the hands of nooobs locking lenses on bodies.
the most popular email i get is asking for the paper clip trick to get the lens off a locked up camera.
well if you are going to bad mouth cameras....
seems today every no talent @sshole has rbs n hassies! hahahahaha why? cuz they're all a bunch of cheap bastards taking advantage of pro equipment at disposable prices!
before they got these cameras, they were playing in the mud with pinhole oatmeal boxes n holgas.
hahahaha just 2ff!
how do i know??? the shift in repairs turned from routine CLAs to salvage jobs in the past 15 years. pros were converting to digital, amatures bought up old equipment from basements n attics, basically fungus fields, at dirt cheap prices.
shutters were badly oxidised, rotten bellows, n gunked up lube as well as seeing more force damaged cameras from the hands of nooobs locking lenses on bodies.
the most popular email i get is asking for the paper clip trick to get the lens off a locked up camera.
oh thats not offensive... i thought it was pretty funny.
laugh n enjoy what we've got! these cameras sold for thoiusand$ and now you get them free for the price of shipping n a cla!
oh thats not offensive... i thought it was pretty funny.
laugh n enjoy what we've got! these cameras sold for thoiusand$ and now you get them free for the price of shipping n a cla!
I agree !
No reason to be offended - it's only about photography (and photography should be fun) ...
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |