OR step back and recompose square and carry a lighter camera.
can anyone explain the math behind the claims in the Mamiya ad that a 6x7 negative is 1/2" longer than 6x6, that 6x7 results in 50% more usable image than 6x6, and that with 6x7 you don't have to crop anything out to get 8x10?
Got it. 6x7 is not 6x7. Do (or did) advertising photographers typically deliver 8x10s to their clients? Are (or were) advertisements typically in an 8x10 format?Aspect ratio isn't 6:7, it's 4:5 (or damn near, 56x67-68 mm), which means you can print 8x10 or 16x20 with virtually no cropping; rebate all the way around and still an even border, if you choose to do so. That means that instead of having to crop off 30% of the 6x6 negative, you get to use all of the roughly 20% larger negative -- which, for advertising purposes, adds up to 50% more negative when printing to 8x10 or 16x20.
Do (or did) advertising photographers typically deliver 8x10s to their clients? Are (or were) advertisements typically in an 8x10 format?
depends on the client what they wanted/needed, and your expertise was. lots of chromes and the e6 labs were pumping them out every 4 hours or whatever it was.. you gotta check the paper work.Do (or did) advertising photographers typically deliver 8x10s to their clients? Are (or were) advertisements typically in an 8x10 format?
OR step back and recompose square and carry a lighter camera.
The square does circles and circular motion very well, but it can be played with a bit
Ad pages used to be 8-3/8"x10-7/8". Usually an art director would need extra image if it was to bleed (that is, go to the edge of the page--it needs to actually print larger and get trimmed) or just to have some leeway for cropping, copy and headline placement. But it is interesting how we ended up with the standard sizes we use today in the US -- I believe Europe is different and maybe Asia, too. For press printing, there are standard "parent" sheet sizes, and everything is cut from there, as well as standard roll widths for web presses. It may all come from when paper making became mechanized and the size of equipment at that time. I will have to ask a friend who makes artist books if there is a reason. Books I have seen from medieval times seem to vary greatly in size, when paper was hand made, so I'm guessing our sizes evolved from industrial paper making. Of course, tintypes and daguerrotypes (which I am not familiar with at all) may have different "standard" sizes as well.I thought that they, whoever they are, standardized on 8x10 because in the olden days pros shot 8x10 and 4x5, and after pros stopped shooting 8x10 and 4x5, they, whoever they are, didn't change the standard, and so now nothing fits 8x10 without cropping, except maybe 6x7 which I learned today is really 56x67-68. Who knows why they picked 5x7 and 11x14 as standards. Nothing fits them. I found out the standard was screwed up about fifty years ago when I was shooting 35mm, and I had to crop my photos to fit the darkroom multi-easel, pre-cut mats, and pre-made frames, and that seemed really stupid. I was working in student darkrooms and one of the first darkroom accessories I actually bought for myself was a 7x10 Speed EZ-EL. I had to cut my own 7x10 mats so they fit in 8x10 frames. So for a while I mostly shot slides so I didn't have to crop, except that the projection screens were square and so your slides ended up being letterboxed. When I wanted a print from a slide, I just printed them myself 7x10 or whatever on Cibachrome. Now I just print full frame in whatever aspect ratio the film or digital format is and cut my own mats and use those metal frames which you can make any size you want.
Next time I go to the doctor I'll look through a bunch of magazines. I bet I won't find a single ad that is in a 8x10 aspect ratio. I never did any professional advertising photography, but always thought that photographers just left room all the way around the image so the advertisers could crop it any way they wanted, which may just have been my imagination.
I understand everywhere else is metric, so they use A sizes. I can never remember what they are so I have to look them up. I don't know how they arrived at standard A sizes.But it is interesting how we ended up with the standard sizes we use today in the US -- I believe Europe is different and maybe Asia, too.
Square is the perfect format for pictures of lemon slices.
It's also the perfect format for pictures of dogs.
Square is the perfect format for pictures of lemon slices.
It's also the perfect format for pictures of dogs.
At one time National Geographic had their own Kodachrome lab, and it was apparently the highest volume still film only Kodachrome lab in the world.National Geographic was well known for accepting only Kodachrome for a longish time, unless that was another myth
What 6x4.8 (bigger than 645!) is too small?The feeling square format creates for me - bored. But I guess if it was the only choice around, I'd either have to go with it or crop it down rectangular into a size too small for my personal standards.
The main feeling it gives me is one of frustration, since a lot of paper is wasted when it's printed. 35mm/6x9 I like just fine, and 6x6 is easy to get a tight and solid composition with, but 6x7 I never got on with. It was neither one or the other.
I’m confused... is square good or not?
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?