If the photo is good there is no waste of anything. No matter what you do or don't crop or trim, the end result is what it is about. If it is about pennies spent on paper or film area not used, this is not the field for you.
Agree to a point, but it’s quite gratifying to be able to explore and utilize the full dimensions of any format and not have to discard anything. Try it sometime. I’ve made full-frame portraits in every format from half-frame 35mm up to 4x5, and it’s very satisfying to be able to use the entirety of every format, from squares to long (6x17) panoramics. Who said anything about cost? That’s a mistaken assumption you made.If the photo is good there is no waste of anything. No matter what you do or don't crop or trim, the end result is what it is about. If it is about pennies spent on paper or film area not used, this is not the field for you.
Agreed...I trim by using the camera lens and format (then contacting full-frame), except for rare occasions...if a square image can out-scream all the incredible full-frame images around me and all I have is the 11x14, then an 11x11 print could be in my future. If one hikes all day with an 11x14 and four holders, one does a lot of editing before even setting the camera up. I almost forgot -- I also trim in the film holders; masking half the neg to put two panoramic images on each sheet (two 5.5x14 or two 4x10).Trim to the composition. Life is not that hard.
Or open your eyes, compose to the format, and you need not waste paper and film.
The white borders around a square image on rectangular (not square) paper are not a waste. Look at Diane Arbus' prints.Or open your eyes, compose to the format, and you need not waste paper and film.
... except the one who was the son of royalty, he could afford a 3 Hasselhoff bodies about 5 lenses and 6 backs (that cost 900$ each). every 6 months lenses and bodies and back were sent to hassy to be worked on, which was like the helicopter rental priced into the cost of doing business. he and his wife ate a baked potato for dinner whenever I was there, and he
so who knows maybe he couldn't afford it and was playing the fake it till you make it game... like they say, one way to be a rich photographer is to be rich before one started. its a nice fantasy to think that everyone could afford top end gear a sweet studio and 2 assistants, its probably tv that propagated these myths.
I do compose for the format, but square paper is rare.
You sure are making lots of assumptions about what I said. I, too, like Diane Arbus. She also tended to use the entirety of the frame. (Although I can’t necessarily say that about her early work, shot on 35mm). But did she save any pennies in doing so? Who cares.The white borders around a square image on rectangular (not square) paper are not a waste. Look at Diane Arbus' prints.
As a long-time shooter of 35mm slides for projection, I tend to do that with every camera and format and film even though I no longer project film slides. I do however make video and slide shows for my 16:9 4K TV. SO I;ve been framing my digital camera to 16:9 when I shoot digital stills and of course digital videos. I still frame to the viewfinder with my RB67 medium format and 4x5 sheet film cameras. Habits are hard to break.Agree to a point, but it’s quite gratifying to be able to explore and utilize the full dimensions of any format and not have to discard anything. Try it sometime. I’ve made full-frame portraits in every format from half-frame 35mm up to 4x5, and it’s very satisfying to be able to use the entirety of every format, from squares to long (6x17) panoramics. Who said anything about cost? That’s a mistaken assumption you made.
All the time.Every time I print from 6x6 I end up with a rectangular crop. Lots of 6x6 negatives and nary a square print.
I've never cropped a 35mm/6x9/4x5 negative to make a square print. Anybody do this?
I don't think I made any assumptions about your statement about wasting paper. Possibly your are assuming something about my reply. Maybe you should clarify.Or open your eyes, compose to the format, and you need not waste paper and film.
Yes (although more from 6x7).I've never cropped a 35mm/6x9/4x5 negative to make a square print. Anybody do this?
Trim to the composition. Life is not that hard.
I thought quantum mechanics was all about never really knowing where anything is, and just statistically predicting it. I'd rather have an image stay put in a rectangular frame on a wall, so I can actually view it.
Otherwise, I can prove Einstein was wrong all along. Gravity is a function of time. Everything gets heavier, slower, and sags more over time. Even the same cameras get heavier. The warp in the time-space trampoline doesn't need any math at all;
and I don't like looking at the weight scale at this point in my life anyway. And every patrol cop around munching donuts is evidence that a hole in something only makes the nearest big object with a corresponding intake hole even bigger over time.
Once you've observed it, it exists in those dimensions at least. However, you can either close your eyes and will it to disappear (doesn't ever work for me), ignore it or turn around and leave. Those last two work for me.That's good news, because there are many times I have wished the picture before me didn't exist, especially with current gallery trends.
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?