Square format, and the feelings it create.

[Donald Qualls]

Of course, with Mamiya RB67, you have a choice.

You certainly do. Mamiya sold film backs for the system in 6x4.5 as well as 6x7 and 6x8 (not sure I see much if any advantage to the latter), and any 2x3 Graflok back will fit, so you can shoot 6x6 as well if you choose. I can well see why this was the system of choice for so many professionals when it was current.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I think my motto for it was snappier.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

You certainly do. Mamiya sold film backs for the system in 6x4.5 as well as 6x7 and 6x8 (not sure I see much if any advantage to the latter), and any 2x3 Graflok back will fit, so you can shoot 6x6 as well if you choose. I can well see why this was the system of choice for so many professionals when it was current.

Most magazines need vertical portrait shots as well as landscape formats like for double spread. Many pros would always shoot two shots of each subject - one in portrait mode and one in landscape mode, just in case the portrait mode was selected for the mag cover. It gave the editors flexibility. An RB67 rotating back made that easy to do. You didn't have to rotate the camera on its tripod. The RB67 was a great advertiser's camera cranking out photos of stuff to be sold from close-ups of cuff links to dresses and cars.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Yep. And with the built-in bellows, you can get pretty close with the 90, 140, even the 250 mm lens. Handy bellows factor tool on the side makes exposure correction easy even at macro distances.

 

[warden]

Anyway you look at it, 50% more image

I like that ad!

 

[Cholentpot]

Square makes my work stand out. I like it. It's unique and interesting. Filling up a square on a shot is a challenge but when done right it can be a treat to look at.

 

[removed account4]

naaa. 6x6 and 6x7 and 6x8 and 6x4.5 and .. were the film manufacturer's dream because the rolls were short. ... whole thing is a sham. square does look good though LOL. sham or not.

 

[Donald Qualls]

the rolls were short

There were 220 backs (6x7 and 6x8) for the RB67 as well. Either 18 or 20 exposures, depending. Or just have two backs and an assistant to load and unload.

 

[removed account4]

I know dan, still 220 backs were a drag too. SSDD
do you have any idea how much film backs costs "back in the day"
they weren't like 20-50 bucks like they are now. have a squad of assistants loading multiple
backs, LOL. you're funny... like Annie L. I guess
( you forgot helicopter in to meet the client . )

 

[Donald Qualls]

If you could afford an RB67 and a reasonable range of lenses, viewfinders, grip, etc., you could almost certainly afford two or three film backs. AND an assistant, perhaps two! Naturally, the helicopter charter is priced into the shoot, so the client is paying that...

 

[removed account4]

If you could afford an RB67 and a reasonable range of lenses, viewfinders, grip, etc., you could almost certainly afford two or three film backs. AND an assistant, perhaps two! Naturally, the helicopter charter is priced into the shoot, so the client is paying that...

Donald
not every commercial / assignment shooter could afford the things you have suggested were commonplace for everyone to most certainly afford.
most all the people I assisted when I was starting out certainly could not afford all those things, 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.

 

[Donald Qualls]

one way to be a rich photographer is to be rich
before one started.

I won't argue with that and I never claimed most photographers of the day could afford stuff like that (although, those were the days when "equipment is free" became a thing; you could buy, use it for five years or so, and sell it for what you paid; your only cost was maintenance). I just said if someone could afford a reasonably complete RB67 kit, an extra film back wasn't that much of an extra expense, and if you arrived at the shoot by helicopter, that was something the client had paid for, not the photographer. Of course not every photographer, even among professionals, was in that category, just like not every professional golfer owns his own private jet to get from tourney to tourney and not every professional author can spend thousands a month on cocaine as some have done for years at a time...

 

[removed account4]

although, those were the days when "equipment is free" became a thing; you could buy, use it for five years or so, and sell it for what you paid; your only cost was maintenance)

I have never heard of that before, and I have been a working in the field for years.

 

[cramej]

6x7 always left me wanting....either for a little bit wider or a little bit taller. It was nice for portraits and I like 11x14 and 16x20 as print sizes but I found that I rather like a square print on those sizes or a square print on square paper. It really annoyed me trying to get 10 exposures to fit nicely in negative pages.

Square feels complete. You can have it all - dynamic compositions, movement, space, leading lines, symmetry, asymmetry, isolation. Plus it fits nicely in pages. Cropping really isn't an issue for any size of print you might hang in a house. If you're really concerned about cropping and grain/resolution, why aren't you using something bigger anyway?

 

[Donald Qualls]

I have never heard of that before, and I have been a working in the field for years.

I wasn't in a position to buy new anything above point and shoot level before digital took over, but I've heard that both here and on photo.net.

 

[Donald Qualls]

why aren't you using something bigger anyway?

If the question starts with "why" the answer is probably money. I can shoot a roll of 120 and be confident I've loaded it right, and get 10, 12, or 16 frames -- or for the same film cost (and a good bit more hassle in processing) I can load three film holders with 4x5 and never be completely sure I got the film into the right groove. Yeah, I know, lack of practice -- but even though it's heavy, my RB67 is both more portable and faster to use than my Speed Graphic, never mind my Graphic View...

 

[removed account4]

but I've heard that both here and on photo.net

huh. .. I'd love to read that thread. LOL... to me at least it sounds like wishful thinking that after 5 years of professional use gear would be able to be sold for what it sold for new when purchased
but what do I know. I'd love to read who said / suggested that cause from personal experience and association and knowing people who worked in pro shops it sounds like bunk, but what do I know...

 

[Pieter12]

Donald
not every commercial / assignment shooter could afford the things you have suggested were commonplace for everyone to most certainly afford.
most all the people I assisted when I was starting out certainly could not afford all those things, 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.

This is from my experience a half-dozen years ago: It all depends, whether the assignment is editorial or advertising. Advertising clients usually paid much higher fees and covered all expenses, crew, talent, food, transportation and rental fees for equipment. Many photographers would (and still do) charge equipment and studio rental fees, even when they already had a fullty-equipped studio and are not renting gear. Some would only charge for extra gear or if they needed a larger space than what the had. Editorial really depended on the assignment and the budget, how much the magazine could get for free (like location and talent), but was (and probably still is unless you're a star photographer) much, much less than what was paid for a national print ad. Small clients, advertising locally, with limited budgets paid very little and had to make do with much less. And although some photographers had a lot of money, they commonly charged fees commensurate with their experience, quality and demand for their work, and how well-known they were. Unless it was a favor for and existing client or trying to get a new, lucrative client or fancy business, they never gave anything away or reduced their fees by much. In the 90's, cost consultants became more common, hired by clients to scrutinize estimates and final invoices to make sure fees and charges were in line with the current market.
As far as gear was concerned, it was pretty much expected that the photographer would be equipped with high-end pro cameras, lenses and lighting equipment. And that nothing would fail during a shoot--most would have back-ups for everything that could fail.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Well, don't forget five years of inflation, too. And that shouldn't be taken to imply you could buy current equipment as a replacement for that same money -- you'll be buying more expensive stuff and the guy who buys from you is on a budget.

 

[removed account4]

and I guess. after they'd tell them they look great in those "skinny jeans" ...

 

[Pieter12]

huh. .. I'd love to read that thread. LOL... to me at least it sounds like wishful thinking that after 5 years of professional use gear would be able to be sold for what it sold for new when purchased
but what do I know. I'd love to read who said / suggested that cause from personal experience and association and knowing people who worked in pro shops it sounds like bunk, but what do I know...

I doubt very much you could get anything near new prices for 5-year-old gear. Especially today, when 5-year-old digital gear is so out of date as to be practically worthless compare to new prices. A working pro can depreciate the equipment for tax purposes (in the US at least). But even then, I don't think photo gear depreciates totally over 5 years.

 

[faberryman]

So, we've gone from the pros and cons of the square format to who could charge for what forty years ago. Not unexpected. Every thread ultimately devolves into an discussion of equipment. But now that we are here, 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?

 

[radiant]

can anyone explain the math behind the claims in the Mamiya ad 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 and 16x20?

Yes.

 

[removed account4]

I doubt very much you could get anything near new prices for 5-year-old gear. Especially today, when 5-year-old digital gear is so out of date as to be practically worthless compare to new prices. A working pro can depreciate the equipment for tax purposes (in the US at least). But even then, I don't think photo gear depreciates totally over 5 years.

I know. LOL. that is why I wanted to read the thread where somebody who was a working pro suggested that in the 1980s you could use your high end gear for 5 years and sell it for what you bought it for. I mean its not like digital gear is today but still, ... maybe if they sold it themselves in shutterbug a dealer certainly wouldn't buy anything back for what it originally cost unless the photographer was someone fancy and it was being sold to somebody who wanted some gear to worship thinking the fame and image love would make their image making that much more fun makes absolutely no sense but what do I know I wasn't a high liner assignment person in the 80s maybe things changed by the time I was booking the helicopter and then again all those 8x10 film holders from playboy went for a fortune.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Well, rather self-serving of them to say that. Of course, with Mamiya RB67, you have a choice. "Landscape or portrait for the discriminating photographer" Don't know what their motto was but this one would have been pretty good.

Using Hasselblad 6x6 means that one does not need to tip the camera over.