Square format, and the feelings it create.

[Sirius Glass]

Anyway you look at it, 50% more image
Mamiya RB67 1973 by Jussi, on Flickr

OR step back and recompose square and carry a lighter camera.

 

[Donald Qualls]

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?

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.

 

[faberryman]

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.

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?

 

[Donald Qualls]

Do (or did) advertising photographers typically deliver 8x10s to their clients? Are (or were) advertisements typically in an 8x10 format?

Apparently @jnantz would know this better than me, since he was there while I was trying to afford a fifteen year old consumer SLR -- but the 8x10 glossy was the standard product of headshots, model portfolios, architectural work, police evidence (remember Alice's Restaurant?) and so forth from the early days of enlargements until digital took over. Much of that time, however, for color the preference was for transparencies, with the original film going to the client (National Geographic was well known for accepting only Kodachrome for a longish time, unless that was another myth). Unlike negative films, the image on chromes could be directly assessed on a light table even by someone inexperienced in photography.

 

[removed account4]

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.

 

[macfred]

OR step back and recompose square and carry a lighter camera.

I do, Sirius - Rolleiflex user here ... Try it - much lighter than the Habla

 

[faberryman]

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, except 5x7 and 11x14 film I guess.

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 an 8x10 "full frame" Speed EZ-EL. I had to cut my own mats. Then 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 printed them myself full frame 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 the advertisers told the photographer what size they wanted, or photographers just left room all the way around the image so the advertisers could crop it any way they wanted. Of course, all that may be my imagination.

 

[Dusty Negative]

The square does circles and circular motion very well, but it can be played with a bit

I really like these, Vaughn!

 

[Pieter12]

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.

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.

 

[faberryman]

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.

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.

 

[removed account4]

the standards are kind of fun and interesting to learn about
some of the american sizes (film and plate ) have to do with the size of glass
others have to do with the sizes of paper
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paper_size
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photo_print_sizes

 

[Pioneer]

Have only read thru about half the posts but had to take a break and walk around the yard with the Rolleiflex and a roll of HP5+. I enjoy working with most formats but 6x6 is probably one of my favorites. I seem to think differently when I am working with squares. The post about being able to ignore the rules rings true for me. It is like I am making things up as I go along. I don't know if it really helps with better photographs but it certainly wakes up my creative juices.

 

[Don_ih]

Square is the perfect format for pictures of lemon slices.
It's also the perfect format for pictures of dogs.

 

[Pieter12]

Square is the perfect format for pictures of lemon slices.
It's also the perfect format for pictures of dogs.

 

[Don_ih]

Exactly.

 

[warden]

Square is the perfect format for pictures of lemon slices.
It's also the perfect format for pictures of dogs.

everyone knows 16:9 is the dog format.

 

[MattKing]

National Geographic was well known for accepting only Kodachrome for a longish time, unless that was another myth

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.

 

[DREW WILEY]

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.

 

[Pieter12]

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.

What 6x4.8 (bigger than 645!) is too small?
The great thing about the square format is if you like, you can crop it to either horizontal or vertical--2 shots in one!

 

[DREW WILEY]

Well, size is all relative. But I often mix 16X20-ish MF prints into the same portfolios as that print size enlarged form 4X5 and 8x10 shots, so even a 6x7 neg is pushing my luck. And in color, I rarely print smaller than 20X24, so that it Realllllllly stretching things. And yes, people do get nose up to my prints. If the detail is there, that's what they do. But why thing square? If you must shoot 6x6, why not shoot at a 45 deg angle and print it as a diamond? That way you have it pointing all four directions of the compass at once. I always get confused why an upside-down image in the northern hemisphere is right-side up in the southern, and sideways on the equator.

 

[gone]

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 painted before photography and still do, and it is much easier to get a strong composition w/ a painting. If it starts to go in a particular direction, you can take the canvas off the stretcher bars and re stretch to a different aspect ratio (to a point). You can also make the canvas any size or shape you wish, even round.

With photography, there's always an effort to print full frame, so you already basically know what your composition will be because you're locked into the film negative's aspect ratio. W/ a painting, the composition develops as you go along, it's always changing as you add color here, or a line there.

 

[NB23]

I’m confused... is square good or not?

 

[radiant]

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.

When I started darkroom printing I was amazed that there wasn't that many square cuts available in papers.

Nowadays I don't give a crap for it. If I waste paper, it is not a biggie. Printing stage is not the place to save pennies .. And usually the cutout is good material for tests. Usually I don't even cut the rest out.

And even if I like to shoot at square, I many times print in 8x10" or 18x24 format from the square negative. I think it is many times easy to find that kind of crop from square. The other way around is much harder.

 

[Don_ih]

I’m confused... is square good or not?

It's neither good nor bad. It's square.

 

[Horatio]

It’s not hip to be square, man.

Well, someone had to say it.