Why is 6X6 used over 6X4.5?

[Jim Jones]

In decades of projected 35mm Kodachrome, 1:1.5 was an obvious standard. Now one size of rectangular prints makes neat exhibits. It seems like an artistic cop-out, but no photograph is a perfect representation of its subject. If we must compromise, why not go a bit further for convenience and economy?

 

[NJH]

At this point medium format cameras are so cheap that it’s reasonable own multiple formats and play to each format’s strengths.

This is me. Bronica SQ-B and lenses with its waist level finder, ETRSi with the AEIII prism + speed grip and some lenses. There both quite different to work with I am finding, in compositional terms I much prefer the 1:1.29 in the viewfinder of the ETRSi its close to a WYSIWYG type gig. However I came from rangefinders so working with 6x6 and trying to imagine the end result is not that difficult, also holding a camera in the famous Hasselblad way, propped against your chest and looking down into the finder is a pleasure all its own. Its like your cuddling the image, sorry if that sounds cheesy. I really can't decide between these two approaches so I could only recommend buying into both and trying them, if anything the prices are drifting up slightly so its unlikely one is going to loose a lot of money.

 

[NJH]

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

Don't forget Instagram as well. Its a bit of an oddity that in an ecosystem where the cameras increasingly take very oblong photographs one of the primary means of sharing such images is based around a square presentation. Some may find their blog post on support for landscape/portrait amusing, especially the last statement.
http://blog.instagram.com/post/127722429412/150827-portrait-and-landscape

 

[mweintraub]

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.

In addition to your list don't forget:

RZ67 can also shoot 6x6 and 645
Bronica SQ series can also shoot 645 and 35 pano and normal with supplied backs
Bronicas GS-1 can also shoot 6x6 and 645 (I hear this is super difficult to find)

 

[hsandler]

I was in the rectangle camp. I had a Bronica ETRSi. But I liked the waist level finder and hated always shlepping the prism with me to use the camera for verticals. I also did not have a heavy tripod or an L bracket, so rotating the camera for verticals on the tripod was not too steady. So I changed to an SQ-A, planning to crop. Well, I now just compose for the square in most cases and I think it gives a unique look. I carry a lighter kit, with just waist level finder in most cases and no speed grip or heavy tripod. And I can use the excess vertical room on the negative in architectural horizontal shots to get the equivalent of vertical shift by composing at the top of the frame with less tilt of the camera back.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Learn to think square and compose square. Life will be wonderful. Otherwise shoot 645 and put up grumpy posts.

 

[Brian Schmidt]

Learn to think square and compose square. Life will be wonderful. Otherwise shoot 645 and put up grumpy posts.

Grumpy posts don't make a very good fence!

 

[John Wiegerink]

I'm just a tad Dutch and never like wasting anything. I was also taught (in Photography 101) only crop if you absolutely have to. We were taught to do all the "so called" cropping in camera for printing later, which was of course on rectangular paper. I shot my very first wedding in 35mm. Why? Because that's all I had and all I could afford at the time. After a few weddings I pickup a Koni-Omega 6X7 and the wedding business took off. 6X7 was so nice for printing on the paper formats offered by the lab I was using that I almost never buggered a shot. Then I made a switch to a Bronica S2A and then later to a Hasselblad square system. Then the fun started! I had to mark my screens for "in camera cropping" just to make sure the lab would be able to get everything on the paper. No more shooting "full frame" it was a headache for me and something I had to constantly be aware of. That 6x7 old Koni-Omega might have been a clunker, but it made weddings easier for me anyway. Now that I am retired and shoot for MY pleasure and not the brides mother, I can shoot almost anyway I want. But, like I said, I'm Dutch and still do not like wasting either film sq.in. or paper sq.in.. So, I prefer 6X7 to 6X6. I will still use a Rolleiflex or my Hasselblad on occasion, but almost never print square. I guess it's just and old habit and old habits die hard for this old dog. Hmmm, I'll have to see if Ansel Adams printed square with his Hasselblad toward the end of his later years of shooting? Not that it makes any difference to me, but I'm just curious now.

 

[MattKing]

That extra space on a negative isn't wasted, its just keeping good company with the part that you end up printing.

I like it when I can print the entire negative on to the paper, without depending on the easel's arms, but I certainly don't mind using them either.

 

[ME Super]

6x6 reminds me of the pictures my parents shot with their Kodak Instamatic. They shot the slide film that used the complex K14 process in their Instamatic! I loved slide shows when I was a kid, and so now sometimes I shoot my 6x6 and then have the resulting negative printed onto 35mm slide film for projection as it's like a trip down Memory Lane.

And some pictures just scream to be shot square, it's nice to have that option instead of being forced to shoot 1:1.5 with 645 or 35mm and then crop.

 

[wiltw]

6x6 reminds me of the pictures my parents shot with their Kodak Instamatic. They shot the slide film that used the complex K14 process in their Instamatic! I loved slide shows when I was a kid, and so now sometimes I shoot my 6x6 and then have the resulting negative printed onto 35mm slide film for projection as it's like a trip down Memory Lane.

And some pictures just scream to be shot square, it's nice to have that option instead of being forced to shoot 1:1.5 with 645 or 35mm and then crop.

Back in the day, the 127 format had images 4cm x 4cm, but some 127 film cameras shot 4cm x 6cm...surprisingly close to 645 rectangle or even 645 cropped to square aspect ratio!
127 color transparencies could be mounted in standard 2” square slide mounts, and projected in an ordinary 35 mm projector. Popularly called “Superslides”, this was a name once reserved for 4x4 cm slides cut down from 120 film.

 

[klownshed]

I like square photographs and enjoy composing with a square viewfinder and the constraints that the format imposes.

I rarely crop a square photo. The compositions tend to suit the square and I rarely think about cropping to a different ratio when taking a photo.

I'm far more likely to crop a 35mm photo square than a 6x6 to a different ratio.

 

[ME Super]

Back in the day, the 127 format had images 4cm x 4cm, but some 127 film cameras shot 4cm x 6cm...surprisingly close to 645 rectangle or even 645 cropped to square aspect ratio!
127 color transparencies could be mounted in standard 2” square slide mounts, and projected in an ordinary 35 mm projector. Popularly called “Superslides”, this was a name once reserved for 4x4 cm slides cut down from 120 film.

Yep. I have a few commercially produced super slides. Just try finding superslide slide mounts these days, though - or 127 film for that matter!