Why is 6X6 used over 6X4.5?

[Luckless]

If you use sectional frames you can buy pairs of sections of assorted and sundry lengths, usually in one or two inch increments. With two such pairs you can make about any aspect ratio you want. I occasionally do that for a particular use. Outfits like Frame Dimensions, an APUG sponsor, will supply about any combination with matching glazing.

Custom framing is easy enough to do, but it still isn't as easy or as quick as as unwrapping a ready made matted frame and popping a print in. They're merely a convenience thing to be able to skip fiddling with them. And I kind of like the convenience of being able to walk into a store and pick up a handful of frames to use that afternoon. Less mucking about or having to wait for an order to arrive. As it is I have a shelf in a closet taken up completely by frames I've ordered, and that space could totally be put to better use storing more cameras or something. There is also the issue of online orders and 'surprises' of what you actually get. I have a dozen frames that had a slightly different texture than I was expecting from an online order. They'll get used eventually, but they weren't exactly what I had in mind at the time I ordered them.

Honestly I find the most annoying part of making custom frames myself is doing the mats, but that is easily solved with eventually getting the space and budget for a far better mat cutter jig. For me that is a fairly minor thing that will get solved eventually after a move into a new place. (Work spaces are kind of at the top of the list for the next place I get into.) Paying someone else to do the frames for you isn't really all that annoying, but tends to be rather painful on the wallet.

 

[Marcelo Paniagua]

I'm not sure, but seems to me that square format would bring lazyness to my composition. Normally (and thats what I like to do, not saying is good, right or wrong) I do my composition on my camera, when taking the picture. It feels lazy and dont enjoy it as much if I do otherwise.

Usually when printing the final picture, I crop little, if any, to the original 35mm or 6x6 print. Don't really use much 6x6 (Usually I took them for a stroll when on a picture travel, not for day to day shooting), but when I do, I make the composition to that square. It make no sense for me to waste the additional negative size by cropping to a oblong later. If I expect to take groups of people, I would bring the Mamiya 645. Handling is much better with the hand grip so no problem to take horizontal or vertical shoots. If I expect to do portrait, I take the Rolleiflex 3.5f or SL66.

I suppose that for working photographers, who made a living out of it, they need to be prepared and can't afford to fail, its better to take the best shot possible and work on the composition afterwards, so its make sense to do the composition afterwards. I can afford the time and risk to fail, because I'm amateur.

Just my coffee time rant.

Marcelo

 

[destroya]

I really prefer the 6x7 format when printing, but I shoot all formats. what I found is that forcing myself to shoot out of my comfort zone has made me better at composition. so when Im shooting 6x6, I force myself to think before I shoot. will this work, will i need to crop and so on. I mainly shoot 6x6 for slides as i have a 6x6 projector. but wet printing a square has opened my mind to "what else could i do with this neg". its now not uncommon for me to crop a 6x9 or 6x7 down to a square as Im not limited by what the neg is, all that matters is whats best for the print.

dont be boxed in by what the neg is, open up your printing options. I once took a B&W printing class at my local junior college. the teacher forced us to use 1 neg and crop it in four different sizes, forcing you to really look at what you have. It really helped me

john

 

[narsuitus]

...what your opinions are in the manner of comparing usefulness of 6X6 frame size and 6X4.5.

At one time, I shot 35mm (24x36mm) small format rangefinder cameras, 35mm small format single-lens-reflex (SLR) cameras, and 2 1/4 square (6x6cm) medium format twin-lens-reflex (TLR) film cameras. When it was time to replace my worn TLR cameras, I considered switching to the slightly smaller 6x4.5cm SLR medium format cameras but could not find one that felt good in my hands. I did, however, find a 6x7cm medium format rangefinder that gave me an image that was larger than 6x4.5 and 6x6, an image that was rectangular like the 6x4.5, and a camera that felt as good in my hands as my 6x6 and better in my hands than a 6x4.5.

 

[jvo]

actually i'm bi....

i used to shoot only 645, but found i was printing my images in a square format and noticed that i was "seeing" through the viewfinder and cutting it square. so i got an inexpensive 6x6, so may be in transition!!!

 

[TSSPro]

Personally I compose for the format, but that is not to say that I am unwilling to crop to produce a final print that is better aligned with my goals of that print. I ran into so many staunch students who had been drilled on NEVER EVER EVER cropping anything so much that they felt it was a badge of honor to print with the rebates, sprocket holes, frame lines, film holder lines, etc.

 

[papagene]

I photograph with 6x6, 6x7 and 6x9 cameras (plus an assortment of LF gear) and I compose to the format. Having studied painting and drawing, I find it easy to compose in just about any format. And like many others here, cropping to other formats is another option to consider.

 

[Grif]

better in my hands than a 6x4.5.

I seem to crop everything,,, even digital with a zoom. Have a Nikon Ftn, had a C33 2 1/4 sq, a really nice Pentax 645. The 645 I ended up getting rid of, it just never fit. Format was great, quality great,,, just didn't bond. Really liked the C33 TLR. For what I do, 645 had plenty of quality, the 6x6 ended up being cropped to 8x10 vertical anyway. I seemed to always hold my Nikon sideways, even my DSLR spends a lot of time on its side. Confused answer to say for me, it's Format, not the area of the negative.

 

[Brian Schmidt]

Hello, thanks for all the replies.

It seems that the majority of the advantages for 6X6 are...
-Liking the square format specifically.
-Ease of use for reflex cameras (not having to hold sideways).
-Possibility of capturing a large area and cropping later for speedy work.

Then there is always the personal preference as with anything else.

From what various members pointed out I feel I would be best suited for the 6X4.5 camera as I wouldn't have to worry much about the above and I like the rectangular format. I am mostly thinking of a ~$40 camera that folds out (and probably has the popup frame viewfinder) so the prism issue wouldn't affect it. I may try 6X6 someday but I think the 6X4.5 would be a good direction to head in for now. It isn't like I can't change my mind later.

I really appreciate the input, have a good day everybody.

Brian

 

[paul ron]

i like both. i will also print 6x6 as a square, not crop to fit the paper.

 

[norphot]

I would just add that many medium format users, me included, get stuck on the belief that you have to compose to the film-gate size. In large format and movie-film cameras it seems less controversial to simply crop the viewfinder. I did this on my Rolleiflex, adding red markings for vertical 6x7 and horizontal 16:9, and found it to be a revelation. My Bronica GS-1 6x7 now has markings for 645, 6x6, 6x7, 16:9 and 2:1. The resolution is already very high, even with 645 (more than a baby-Rolleiflex!), so you could easily get the best of both worlds by adding crop-marks for 6x6 on your 645, for the occasion when a square format seems perfect.

Hello, thanks for all the replies.

It seems that the majority of the advantages for 6X6 are...
-Liking the square format specifically.
-Ease of use for reflex cameras (not having to hold sideways).
-Possibility of capturing a large area and cropping later for speedy work.

Then there is always the personal preference as with anything else.

From what various members pointed out I feel I would be best suited for the 6X4.5 camera as I wouldn't have to worry much about the above and I like the rectangular format. I am mostly thinking of a ~$40 camera that folds out (and probably has the popup frame viewfinder) so the prism issue wouldn't affect it. I may try 6X6 someday but I think the 6X4.5 would be a good direction to head in for now. It isn't like I can't change my mind later.

I really appreciate the input, have a good day everybody.

Brian

 

[NJH]

That is one of the nice things about many 6x6 cameras, my Bronica SQ has markings for 4:5 and 5:4 ratios etched onto the focusing screen as standard. No need to guess or mark it up with add ons.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Square is the new cool.

Hasselblad advertised for years that "Square is the perfect format." How can one argue with that and the success that Hasselblad had. Also Rollei, Bronica, Mamiya Cx[xx].

 

[itsdoable]

I find 645 very wasteful. By the time I've cropped it down to ~42x42, you lost all that real estate...

 

[Alan Gales]

i like both. i will also print 6x6 as a square, not crop to fit the paper.

That's fine but you cut her head off, Paul!

 

[spijker]

Even Hasselblad switched to a 4:3 rectangular format so that must be the new perfect format. 20 years ago, it was hip to be square, now it's soooo passé.

I'm of the rectangular school, don't care for square. I find rotating a 645 camera to get the portrait (or landscape for some 645 rangefinders) orientation not a big deal. It's as easy as rotating a 35mm slr or rangefinder. Since I also don't like waist level finders, a 645 slr with a (metered) prism finder was a natural choice for me. But it really comes down to personal taste. The extra 3 negatives on a film can come in handy. I normally print to the 4:3 ratio. By printing with different top/bottom and left/right margins, you get the most out of the standard sizes of paper without wasting much area.

 

[Terry Breedlove]

I have a 6x7 Mamiya RB67 camera and a 6x6 Hasselblad 503 . I have been shooting 6x7 for a couple decades and just now starting with 6x6. I am really starting to like the 6x6. I find it very easy to compose for any crop I need. Another thing I am finding is that my lenses are very adaptable. Keep the image square and my print from the 50mm lens is very wide kind of like a 21-24mm on a 35mm camera and crop it into a 4x5 or 3x2 image and it is more like a 28mm to 35mm lens in equivalence. All from one lens

 

[Sirius Glass]

Even Hasselblad switched to a 4:3 rectangular format so that must be the new perfect format. 20 years ago, it was hip to be square, now it's soooo passé.

Hasselblad changed from square after the family sold it to a corporation and then a scanning company took it over after the corporation screwed up the company by stopping R&D to maximize profits. The scanning company was the ones that changed it from square to sell their own products and to cut the cost of going digital.

 

[Arklatexian]

Hello.

I was wondering what your opinions are in the manner of comparing usefulness of 6X6 frame size and 6X4.5.

It seems to me that when I use 6X6 I tend to expect to use only a narrow band of the negative to make a print with. This is due to not only the nature of the subject matter but making a decently composed image on a 5X7 paper(or such cut into two, four). Square papers aren’t easily available and I don’t want to cut paper down to 5” square just to make a square print. Due to this I feel I might as well be using a 6X4.5 size frame as that seems to be where the majority (or all) of the image ends up anyway.

Then there is the advantage of saving the film and being able to make four more images on a roll from the film I would be effectively cropping away.

Does anybody see an inherent advantage to the square format over a rectangular one? Reason being is that I am thinking of buying a 6X4.5 folder (Zeiss Nettar, Welta, etc.) to carry around in my coat pocket. I already have a Zeiss Contina folder (135) but I quite like the 120 format, along with the advantages of larger negative area. 6X6 folders tend to be cheaper but I figure the savings on 1/3 more frames would quickly make up for it.

Thanks for the thoughts in advance,

Brian

In my opinion you are missing the whole point on using 6x6 format. There are times, not so very often I agree, when the subject calls for a square format, and if you are using a square format camera, there should be no problem. On the other hand, there are many times when the subject calls for a rectangular format but doesn't tell you whether you should use vertical or horizontal (portrait or landscape for those who started taking pictures in the last 20 or 30 years). If you have a developed square negative to work with, this decision can be made using test prints in the darkroom. Which one looks best? You aren't really forced to use the center of the square negative either. Also consider we are more or less forced into using rectangular paper formats by most all paper manufacturers.........Regards!

 

[Ai Print]

I suppose that for working photographers, who made a living out of it, they need to be prepared and can't afford to fail, its better to take the best shot possible and work on the composition afterwards, so its make sense to do the composition afterwards. I can afford the time and risk to fail, because I'm amateur.

Nah, that is just a misconception, a lot of us get to enjoy a *ton* more creative freedom than most would imagine. I shoot what I shoot and they take what they get, hire me for my style and approach, not to have me re-compose it later.

I am willing to bet many successful pros actually have a lot more day to day freedom to the enjoy the craft than a lot of amateurs will because amateurs have day jobs to answer to that are not photography.

 

[piu58]

6x6 ist the poor mans shift lens. If you shot in landscape you may move the subject to the upper edge of the frame and you get less converging lines.

If you plan to tilt during the enlargement you need enough space at the sides of the object. 6x6 give you that. If you, in comparison, "scheimpflug" a 35 mm negative, you come from "narrow" to "very narrow", which is not always what you want.

 

[wiltw]

I find 645 very wasteful. By the time I've cropped it down to ~42x42, you lost all that real estate...

I got intrigued by the question: If I had to start with 6x6 or 645 to take five photos, and then print one 8x10, one 5x7, one 11x14, one 20x24, and one 10x10, which format would have to trim off less percentage of the frame, in total?
A: 6x6 loses 17.8% of the image to make the 5 prints, while 645 loses 8.5% of its image to make the same 5 prints. 645 is less wasteful as a whole.

 

[Soeren]

Hasselblad advertised for years that "Square is the perfect format." How can one argue with that and the success that Hasselblad had. Also Rollei, Bronica, Mamiya Cx[xx].

Mamiya 645, 7 and RZ/RB67
Pentax 645 and 67
Fuji 645, 670 and 690
Contax 645
And Bronica also made both 645 and 6X7
So your point is? Always believe in sales and marketing People?
I like 6x6 for squares but i find my Mamiya 645 Pro a lot more practical and 6X7 from either my P6x7 or Mamiya RZ67ProII much more interesting. Id like to have a Bronica SQ-AI again some time but for now Im satisfied.

 

[yosamuel]

I recently bought a 6x6 SLR to accompany my 35mm rangefinder.

I discounted 645 because I wanted to use a WLF and didn’t want to be force into landscape orientation. I discounted 6x7 because the additional size and weight of something like an RB67 wasn’t worth it for the larger negative.

For me, 645 makes a lot more sense when you’re using a prism.

At this point medium format cameras are so cheap that it’s reasonable own multiple formats and play to each format’s strengths. If I am honest I have always had difficulty composing for square format but its contrast to 35mm makes it a lot of fun to learn.

 

[etn]

Even Hasselblad switched to a 4:3 rectangular format so that must be the new perfect format. 20 years ago, it was hip to be square, now it's soooo passé.

It's still hip in 2016: http://instax.com/square/

Coming back to topic, I too think it's a personal preference. I realized that my "instincts" (so to speak) go for square and I have more difficulties composing with 2:3 or 3:4 aspect ratios. Why shouldn't it be different for different people? The world would be so boring if we all had the same opinion!