Stick with 6x6 or try 645?

[flatulent1]

About cropping - if you're like me and can't see horizontal lines and vertical lines and compose them as straight in the viewfinder, you have to crop. If I printed 90% of my negatives full frame they'd be crooked.

This is exactly my problem with WLFs, I can never get the horizon level. I even have trouble with the 124G, and it has lines in the viewfinder! I've toyed with the idea of getting bubble levels for those two bodies. Oh well, it just takes practice, I suppose. I have no trouble cropping though. Often I'll only see a better composition when I have the negative in the enlarger.

 

[warden]

I'm right there with you, Fred. Photoshop tells me that I apparently lean +/- three degrees or even more on most images - it's like I'm drunk or something, and it makes no difference what camera I use. When I get the horizon level on the negative I almost always print the whole negative just because for once I'm not leaning!

 

[Alan Gales]

I'm right there with you, Fred. Photoshop tells me that I apparently lean +/- three degrees or even more on most images - it's like I'm drunk or something, and it makes no difference what camera I use. When I get the horizon level on the negative I almost always print the whole negative just because for once I'm not leaning!

Which way do you lean?

Go to the store and buy some Doctor Scholls inserts. Put one in the shoe of the foot you lean. If it's not enough put the other one in there too.

 

[warden]

Which way do you lean?

. . . and amazingly the patient didn't know one leg was longer than the other until he took up photography.

 

[ntenny]

I'm right there with you, Fred. Photoshop tells me that I apparently lean +/- three degrees or even more on most images - it's like I'm drunk or something, and it makes no difference what camera I use. When I get the horizon level on the negative I almost always print the whole negative just because for once I'm not leaning!

I thought it was just me, but interestingly, I do it much more with eye-level cameras than with WLFs. Apparently I lean between 1 and 2 degrees to the right when shooting at eye level! Figuring out which way to adjust with a WLF gets a little confusing, but my eye seems to notice the slant easily enough that at least I *do* fix it, even if I wobble the camera in strange directions for a while first.

-NT

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I thought it was just me, but interestingly, I do it much more with eye-level cameras than with WLFs. Apparently I lean between 1 and 2 degrees to the right when shooting at eye level! Figuring out which way to adjust with a WLF gets a little confusing, but my eye seems to notice the slant easily enough that at least I *do* fix it, even if I wobble the camera in strange directions for a while first.

-NT

You guys are lucky. I'm more somewhere between 5 to 15 degrees off with most frames... If a couple of degrees means you're a bit 'under the influence', then I must be completely plastered.

 

[Roger Cole]

I seem to get a lot of crooked shots with my Pentax LX. I thought it was the camera but when I really take my time and pay careful attention it seems to vanish, but that degree of care isn't necessary with my other 35mm cameras. No problem with the Yashicamat though - the grid lines do the trick.

 

[PentaxBronica]

I do it if I think about it too much. If I just stand and shoot it's generally level enough, if I actually worry about it I have to find something vertical to line up on or it'll be eye-hurtingly wonky.

The only problem I have with a WLF is the fact that the image is mirrored, so you instinctively move one way to correct only for the image to go the other way!

 

[Sirius Glass]

6x6 because Hasselblad has been telling us for decades that square is the perfect format for photography. And of course I truly believe that because they told me so.

 

[flatulent1]

Which way do you lean?

Go to the store and buy some Doctor Scholls inserts. Put one in the shoe of the foot you lean. If it's not enough put the other one in there too.

I shot two or three rolls at Shilshole Bay Marina on Puget Sound with the Mamiya 645 Pro and WLF last year, and every single shot had Puget Sound flowing south at a fairly substantial angle.

 

[BrianShaw]

me too.

6x6 because Hasselblad has been telling us for decades that square is the perfect format for photography. And of course I truly believe that because they told me so.

 

[dpt2014]

Well, I skipped the m645 and I ended up finding an rb67 with a 127mm on CL for $250. Absolutely mint. Its weight is beastly, but I think I'm going to have a lot of fun with it!

 

[polyglot]

hehe, it's all downhill from here

 

[Dan Daniel]

hehe, it's all downhill from here

Really- who wants to carry an RB67 uphill??

 

[brucemuir]

Well, I skipped the m645 and I ended up finding an rb67 with a 127mm on CL for $250. Absolutely mint. Its weight is beastly, but I think I'm going to have a lot of fun with it!

Congrats.
6x7 chromes are a sight to behold.
Enlarging 6x7 aint too shabby either.

Happy shooting!

 

[polyglot]

Beware though, it's nearly impossible to find an affordable quality 6x7 projector. I shoot a lot less chrome now because of that.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Really- who wants to carry an RB67 uphill??

The word on the street is that the RB67 makes excellent boat anchors.

 

[markbarendt]

My point is that I rarely find my self shooting portrait orientation. Now, maybe this is something I'll learn to appreciate and do eventually, but not for now.

Sorry, I think there may be some confusion. We're talking about portrait orientation - not portraits.

The problem is that the 645 must be tilted on its side to get portrait orientation, the RB has a rotating back that allows the camera to stay upright. That makes the RB much easier to use than the 645 in portrait orientation.

 

[markbarendt]

The word on the street is that the RB67 makes excellent boat anchors.

Add tire chocks.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Add mass to build jetties at the beach.

 

[BrianShaw]

The problem is that the 645 must be tilted on its side to get portrait orientation...

That is why I got a vintage folding camera -- Kodak Duo. I bought one of those (actually, two... but only one resulted) specifically because it was 645 in portrait-orientation. Besides, it has a mediocre triplet lens that seems quite nice for portraits as long as there is no intent to get close-up.

 

[dpt2014]

The problem is that the 645 must be tilted on its side to get portrait orientation, the RB has a rotating back that allows the camera to stay upright. That makes the RB much easier to use than the 645 in portrait orientation.

I understand, but I rarely shoot in portrait orientation. So I don't value rotating backs very much. That's been a point I've made and I thought I was being clear, guess not.

 

[Roger Cole]

The problem is that the 645 must be tilted on its side to get portrait orientation, the RB has a rotating back that allows the camera to stay upright. That makes the RB much easier to use than the 645 in portrait orientation.

Depends on the 645. I'd much rather turn my 645 Pro with its winder grip on its side for a portrait shot than to hand hold an RB. The Pentax with built in grip and the ETR with a grip are probably as good or better.

 

[Roger Cole]

I understand, but I rarely shoot in portrait orientation. So I don't value rotating backs very much. That's been a point I've made and I thought I was being clear, guess not.

We've been all around this but correct me if I'm wrong - you've been shooting with a 6x6 and you don't like to crop. So of course you aren't shooting portrait, you're shooting square.

Yes, you were clear about that. But the thread ceases being just about the OP. Other people can find views and opinions that might help them as well, and lots of them do shoot in portrait.

 

[dpt2014]

Square isn't all I shoot (hence, I'm a multi format shooter). And so when I do shoot rectangles, it's always in landscape. But point made and fair enough.