This is a 35mm year!

[Steve Smith]

A rotated circle is still a circle and horizontal square is still a vertical square i.e. I see no point in saying that a square frame can be horizontal or vertical depending on what is on a picture. Square is a square is a square

When I was ten I used to think it was cool when I saw my father hold his Nikon sideways for an upright shot. Sometimes I would do the same forgetting my Agfa Isolette took square pictures!


Steve.

 

[lgrabun]

erm what about Bronica etrs 6X4.5, fit the speed grip on and add the AEII meter and you have a dirty great 35mm SLR with better quality.

Bronica requires battery to operate. Bronica is stuffed with high-end electronics that is susceptible to glitches. Hasselblad, OTOH, can be repaired by a skilled watchmaker.

 

[Excalibur2]

Silly statement!


Cheers


André

Not for me, I found my Bronica and RB67 more useful (for me) than my Tele rolleiflex and Rollei SL66 (oh that 1/30 sec flash sync but appreciated 1/1000 sec top speed and quality).....so you get 10 frames from 6X7 and just two more for 21/4 sq....better still 15/16 for 6X4.5, because who prints sq pics.

 

[Excalibur2]

Bronica requires battery to operate. Bronica is stuffed with high-end electronics that is susceptible to glitches. Hasselblad, OTOH, can be repaired by a skilled watchmaker.

Well it's a common 6v battery, but you get a 1/500 sec backup..........but the argument drifts from cameras using batteries to manual cameras.

 

[André E.C.]

Not for me, I found my Bronica and RB67 more useful (for me) than my Tele rolleiflex and Rollei SL66 (oh that 1/30 sec flash sync but appreciated 1/1000 sec top speed and quality).....so you get 10 frames from 6X7 and just two more for 21/4 sq....better still 15/16 for 6X4.5, because who prints sq pics.

Ok, now it's much better, for you, you correctly say, but not for all.

As far as I'm concerned, my hasselblad syncs at 1/500 and the quality it's there also. The number of frames don't bother me at all, when the film is over, I load a new one. Who prints square you ask? I print square and I like it.


Cheers


André

 

[Excalibur2]

****That's what I have except my prism isn't metering.***

Leave it on "a" and it drains the battery.....:-(

But you can get a non-metering prism...erm but it means carrying around a light meter or a 2nd camera to take the exposure reading..........everyone should carry a 2nd 35mm camera for backup, a slim Olympus OM20 with 50mm lens can be bought for peanuts and fits into a large pocket...........on holiday or somewhere special, I carry three cameras with different lenses and sometimes different asa films....my 3rd camera would be a Konica C35 auto P&S.

 

[Steve Smith]

Who prints square you ask? I print square and I like it.

I also like to print square when I have a square negative. I find that when I am out with a camera, I tend to think in terms of the format I have with me.


Steve.

 

[Excalibur2]

Ok, now it's much better, for you, you correctly say, but not for all.

As far as I'm concerned, my hasselblad syncs at 1/500 and the quality it's there also. The number of frames don't bother me at all, when the film is over, I load a new one. Who prints square you ask? I print square and I like it.


Cheers


André

Well disregarding the quality or battery argument...if the Bronica handles more like a 35mm SLR it is going to be more versatile....the only argument I can see in your favour is Zeiss lenses..... and it's use, like the old days when press photographers could use a 21/4 Rolleiflex (maybe a Hasselblad) by putting the camera above the heads of others and using the viewfinder to take the pic.

 

[Excalibur2]

I also like to print square when I have a square negative. I find that when I am out with a camera, I tend to think in terms of the format I have with me.


Steve.

Well if you did your own printing in a darkroom, you would waste a lot of paper, unless you used them all for test strips to get the exposure right....AFAIK no one sold sq printing paper.

To me, sq pics just don't look right, maybe a subject now and again would work...............but as I said it's just me.

 

[Steve Smith]

Well if you did your own printing in a darkroom, you would waste a lot of paper.

Well, I do both of those things.

AFAIK no one sold sq printing paper.

Ilford do.



Steve.

 

[Tom Kershaw]

To me, sq pics just don't look right, maybe a subject now and again would work...............but as I said it's just me.

This is a rather odd statement. Square format photographs are a compositional choice; one that I happen to make good use of.

Tom.

 

[Excalibur2]

This is a rather odd statement. Square format photographs are a compositional choice; one that I happen to make good use of.

Tom.

Well........ beauty is in the eye of the beholder.....maybe in some portrait shots a square format would work, but in the last 150 years of photography the preference is for the rectangle format.

 

[Excalibur2]

*****Ilford do.****

...I used to do colour printing in the darkroom?....anyway it's obsolete now for me, but might try B/W again sometime.

Of course not using sq paper.......................

 

[B&Jdude]

Golly, one thing I like about square format is that it gives me a lot of wiggle room on all sides when I want to crop a picture to one of the standard 4x6, 5x7, or 8x10 formats. Although I try to compose my picture when I shoot it, I like to have that extra space around my subject so I can take my time in croping for the final print when I am searching for the best compositional layout. I can, and often do, change the layout of the print after I have had more time to study the image.

 

[PhotoJim]

If paper wastage is a concern, you could argue that you shouldn't shoot 35mm film either. 24x36mm negatives don't fit traditional sizes of photographic paper proportionately. You have to crop the image, or waste some of the paper.

I like square negatives. They don't suit everything (when they don't and I'm using my Bronica SQ-A I shoot accordingly and crop) but I find that square negatives fit some subjects better. When I do use the whole negative, I have considerably more real estate than I would if I used a 6x4.5 camera (6x6 cm square is 1.78 times as large as 4.5 cm square, after all). When I don't, I'm no worse off than the 6x4.5 guy is. I use a little more film, but 120 film is not that costly so it's not a huge issue.

I imagine that if I find I shoot a lot more rectangular 120 images than square, that I might consider getting a 6x7 camera, but so far I haven't found myself all that disadvantaged for not having one.

 

[Excalibur2]

Golly, one thing I like about square format is that it gives me a lot of wiggle room on all sides when I want to crop a picture to one of the standard 4x6, 5x7, or 8x10 formats. Although I try to compose my picture when I shoot it, I like to have that extra space around my subject so I can take my time in croping for the final print when I am searching for the best compositional layout. I can, and often do, change the layout of the print after I have had more time to study the image.

Well I've had/have sq format pics, not because I wanted to but by the time I've cut out the periphery crap, that's what I ended up with.

But it is an interesting topic in why people (well me) prefer the rectangle format...maybe it because our eyes usually scan horizontally or vertically in real life.

 

[PhotoJim]

The rectangle is closer to the eye's natural view (if it's horizontal at least). Also, I think it's easier to compose on the rectangle than on the square.

Still, that doesn't make the square worth ignoring. I think it's harder to use it well, but more interesting when it is done well because of the relative uncommonness of the format.

 

[Tom Kershaw]

I'm not sure paper "wastage" is really that big an issue for black & white or RA-4 prints considering the relatively low cost of a sheet of paper and the added handling, note making etc. convenience. If I were making ILFOCHROME or platinum / palladium prints I imagine I'd take a more cautious approach in this regard due to increased basic material costs.

Tom.

 

[waynecrider]

This last year I mostly shot 35mm, Nikon, Nikkormat and Leica, with just a few sheets of 4x5 to shoot up some old stock. That probably wouldn't change as long as I stay off the largeformatphotography forum. Every time I peruse that site and look at the photos in the various threads I want to drag out the 3x4 or the 4x5. I think now after reflecting on it that it may be a 50/50 split this next year. I enjoy the liberty of walking around with a 35mm camera with 4 or 5 lenses, but I also enjoy the thoughtful nature of shooting the larger format with a single lens. I count my blessings tho that I am able to do either in this economy and when there is so much suffering in the world. We're all very fortunate that we can even discuss such diversions.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

[...]I count my blessings tho that I am able to do either in this economy and when there is so much suffering in the world. We're all very fortunate that we can even discuss such diversions.

This is a marvellous statement rich in humility, and I fully agree with the sentiments on how fortunate we are to be spoilt for and exercise the fundamental right of, choice.

 

[Colin Corneau]

Yes and no...I loved my Xpan when I got it and only love it more as time goes on.

So, yes I'm using 35mm more, but not in the standard 24mmx36mm format.

 

[B&Jdude]

Colin, I too, enjoy shooting in panoramic format, shooting 35mm with a Horizon 202 (24mmx58mm format) and 120 with Kodak Panorams (6cmx18cm).

As for "normal" formats, in addition to standard 35mm I shoot 120 film using 6x6 (Hassy), 645 (Mamiya, Super Ikonta, Zenobia), and 6x7 (Kodak Bo. 2 Brownies and Singer roll back on 4x5 view).

 

[Colin Corneau]

Horizons are very similar to a Widelux, no? I have the F7. Good friend here, thebanana, has a Horizon.

6x18, I'm envious!

On a timely note, I finally finished my first roll of Kodachrome and sent it off. Have half a dozen more and will probably get a dozen more.