Why is 6X6 used over 6X4.5?

[Brian Schmidt]

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

 

[DWThomas]

Enh -- when I shoot square I compose to that frame. The off-cut from a typical rectangular sheet of paper can be used for test strips. (If one were printing 20 or 30 prints that could be wasteful, but I pretty much do one-up in my printing.) Even if you crop, it means you don't have to rotate the camera for a vertical rectangle. As I understand it, in the case of 645 SLRs, the viewfinders give upside down or awkward views when rotated 90º, as most don't have rotating backs. In the case of folders the viewfinder function is more straight-forward, so that's less of a consideration.

(And I have been shooting a lot of square and like it uncropped. There's quite a few in my gallery here.)

 

[Sirius Glass]

Why would one want to throw away all that negative space to look like a 35mm snapshot instead of a real photograph?

I shoot all formats to fill the frame, so 35mm and 6x6 waste paper which is cheap. 35mm is too long for many compositions and without the large viewfinder of a MF camera and with a really small negative that is harder to handle, I rarely use 35mm for something serious. 4"x5" fits nicely on 8"x10" or 16"x20", but usually I like to print 8"x8" or 11"x11" for my 6x6 negatives. I do not need to rotate a 6x6 camera and my 4"x5" slr has a rotating back. A 4"x5" press camera handles the same in landscape or portrait.

Film is cheap, unless one is shooting 5"x7" or larger. Paper is cheap. Chemicals are cheap. With the digital revolution almost all film cameras and the lenses are much cheaper now. The only things that are expensive is the space for darkrooms and time.

 

[macfred]

... when I shoot square I compose to that frame...

I totally agree !
I enjoy my Super Ikonta III 531/16 for shooting square.

--

In most cases I prefer (for esthetic reasons) composing and shooting 6x4.5 (FUJI GA645 series) and 6x7 (FUJI GW670 series).
A Super Ikonta A 531 (6x4.5) would be a nice addition for its compactness.

 

[Neil Poulsen]

While my compositions are almost always rectangular, I tend to drift more towards square. I find that 645 has a shorter W_to_L aspect ratio than I like. So, I prefer square 6x6 to 645.

In addition, 6x6 square enables one to oscillate between portrait and landscape orientations without having to change the camera orientation.

 

[darkroommike]

When I shoot square I tend to see square and print square. And I'm most likely to use a WLF when I shoot with with either my C330 or 500CM. At this time I have only one 120 folder, it's a 6x6/6x4.5 convertible. At eye level the 645 format is nice. It's a shelf queen alas a Chinese Seagull folder with all the shutter issues one expects. I can get the shutter to work, just can't keep it working.

 

[wiltw]

Two schools of thought about 6x6
SQUARE School

• Compose square, shoot square
• Print square, buy square mattes and frames

RECTANGLE School

• Compose with rectangular print in mind, shoot without having to rotate the camera
• Print rectangular, buy easier to find mattes and frames

There is not a right or wrong approach.

• There are probably a lot more compositions which look good square than you might imagine.
• Rectangular mattes and frames are a whole lot easier to find and less expensive to buy.

Perhaps the best approach is the hybrid approach...shoot and print square when the composition makes sense to do so, but readily change to a composition that prints rectangle for the advantages of that format.
After all, even 'rectangle' is NOT a single aspect ratio, and we print to many different aspect ratios simply because of the print size we want!

• 1.5:1 is 6x4" and 12x8"
• 1.4:1 is 7x5"
• 1.27:1 is 14x11"
• 1.25:1 is 10x8" and 20x16"

If you want to shoot and think exclusively in the Rectangle School, 6x6 forgoes the need for a prism finder to change from Portrait to Landscape orientation and back. But at the 'expense' of 70% of the frame in one direction.
645 or 6x7 might be better for efficiency of film use, but at the expense of the capital cost of the prism.
You choose how youse wants to use up your money!

Few of our camera formats fit well with standard paper sizes for larger prints (the overlong 135 format only in more recent times -- the past 25 years -- 12x8" prints, more optimally sized to the format, were not even offered commonly until SLRs first were widely adopted by amateur shooters in the late 1970s or so.

135: 2:1
645: 1.3:1
5x4 sheetfilm: 1.29:1
6x7: 1.2:1
6x6: 1:1
​

Cropping our image to fit a standard print size is simply a fact of life -- no matter what format we choose to shoot!

 

[DWThomas]

SQUARE School

• Compose square, shoot square
• Print square, buy square mattes and frames

In truth, when I shoot and print square, I still use a rectangular frame -- approximately a 10x10 inch print optically centered in a 16x20 inch frame, vertically oriented. I cut my own mats, so that's a non-issue. I get a fair number of pats on the back for my "presentation" so why change! (There are a few examples of that presentation in my gallery here.)

 

[Alan Gales]

From my understanding wedding photographers liked shooting 6x6 because they didn't have to rotate the camera and they could later crop to portrait or landscape orientation. They preferred making that decision later and not having to worry about it while shooting.

I shoot 6x6 and don't crop because I like square images. I also like rectangles but I have my 8x10 for that. If you shoot both it is stimulating and helps creativity in my opinion.

 

[MattKing]

I used a 6x6 camera (Mamiya C330) for many years to shoot weddings and portraits. For most of that time, my professional lab supplied me with cardboard masks that permitted custom masking of each negatives - enlargements to common sizes at machine print cost.
A square format camera never has to be turned on its side. You can design it with a control layout that is particularly comfortable and efficient.
A square slide is a thing to behold when you project it. If you want to mask it down to a rectangle, you can do that too.
Some here compose to a square when they shoot square. Maybe it is all that time shooting weddings, but I can compose to just about any aspect I want in that big, square viewing system. I do like having a grid screen though.
I use and enjoy both square and rectangular shooters. My RB67 is a particularly rewarding rectangular shooter, because that rotating back is wonderful. But I still wouldn't mind having one of the relatively rare 6x6 backs for it, because I like having a square option, and because you can fit a whole roll of 6x6 egatives in a single Printfile holder!

 

[onre]

Square is the new cool.

 

[BMbikerider]

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

The main reason for me using 6x6 is I can decide what format to present the final image in without having to resort to using a prism to get a verticle format. You don't use a 'narrow strip' of the negative on a 6x6 negative, actually it is actually 2/3rds of the width/height if you wish to use the full width of the other side. With a 6x4.5 neg format you don't get 4 more images, in most cases it is 3 except with the much older 'folders' which you seem to prefer. However if you look at it from another angle, if you are not sure what format you need or want a final image to be, you will use more film, shooting in both horozontal and verticle formats. With 6x6 you only need one.

 

[pdeeh]

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

I think this answers your own question doesn't it?
(i.e. other people don't do that)

 

[Slixtiesix]

I also belong to the square school. Anyway, if you find yourself always cropping to a rectangle, I do not see much sense in using 6x6. I would go for 645 instead. Cameras are often cheaper, smaller and lighter and you get more shots on a role.

 

[Agulliver]

If you find yourself composing for an oblong rectangle even when using a 6x6 camera, then I would suggest that such a camera is not for you. Find a 645 instead or shoot 35mm.

The first camera I ever used, aged four, was a Zeiss-Ikon 520/16 which shoots 6x6. My formative photography experience was of the square variety and barring one roll in a box camera it was probably three years before I experienced another aspect ratio. I then learned that it's possible to learn to compose for various different negative shapes. Personally I would rather waste paper than the area on a negative. And as has been suggested, the paper cutoff could still have uses...test strips, contact printing perhaps.

 

[Ai Print]

My opinion is near completely worthless:

I love the square format, sometimes crop my 4x5 images to it. I love that I don't have to rotate the orientation of the camera so with using a system like my Hasselblads, it makes it by far the fastest system to work and compose with.

I like having the test strips, helps to mitigate waste overall.

 

[removed account4]

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

hi brian

i think it is personal preference.
when i was shooting a lot of 6x6 like everything else
i printed full frame, so if i was enlarging on 5x7 or 8x10 or 11x14 or 16x20 i had
a square image because i compose full-frame. and i weight the image so there is a strip of blank paper UNDER the image
like when i mat things, it's about 1" above the center.

have fun!

 

[guangong]

First, a side comment. Lots of people use 35mm for serious work. As for the various roll film formats, what 6x6 gives is the opportunity for after thought. While one does try to shoot full frame it would seem rather short sided to produce pictures with such a limited selection of canvass sizes. It would be like an art supply store that only sold a few fixed sized canvases. The camera one carries depends on such things as the weather, social environment, how much size and weight to carry. For 120 the best all around choice would be 6x6 and refine composition later. I agree that 6x45 can be awkward to shoot except in landscape orientation. Cameras , film, eats are instruments like pens, pencils, brushes and so forth...when to use what all depends.

 

[NJH]

I agree with you guangong, couldn't have said it better.

 

[Cholentpot]

I like my 645 because it does give me that medium format look but I get a few more frames per a roll. However I do so very much like the 6x6 look, I'm torn between them both.

In the end, the 120 camera that has a working lightmeter is my M645 so that one gets used indoors. The rest, my TLRs and Bronie get used outdoors with sunny 16. I used to shoot far more 120 but now that my cheap film pool has dried up I've been more careful. (Oh how I miss you Shanghai GP3...)

 

[Luckless]

I personally like 6x6 and generally shoot with the plan to display the final image as square. However I'm happy to crop and custom mat an image to the dimensions suited to the content and display space, rather than feeling any strong requirement to 'stick to the norms'. Do I have a space that would be suited to something 1x20? Well, then I'll find an existing image that can work, and if I can't do that then I'll find a scene from which to produce the image.

"I can't do that! It won't fit on an 8x10 with my current setup!" that I've heard from many photographers over the years seems like a silly excuse to not even consider making an attempt at an image if you have otherwise good reasons to produce the photo to another arbitrary format. Cropping at 'weird and unusual sizes' as a general practice just feels odd and inefficient in my mind, and would create a rather weird and probably messy looking body of work, but it hardly seems like the end of the world to me.

I'll keep shooting to produce mainly 8x8", 8x10", and other fairly typical sizes, with a few 20-30" inch prints for rather special images, but I'll still happily compose and print stuff at the really oddball format as things come up that make sense to do it as such.


I totally understand where some people get their "Must stick with the standards" mindsets however. We are kind of railroaded down into them, and there is the whole 'waste not want not' mentality. Supplies aren't readily available off the shelf in anything beyond what is seen with the most common practices in the craft, and even then the market tends to concentrate on a subset of that. I know that I'm not remotely likely to find a frame matted and ready to go for a 6"x40" print at any store, so that just means that if I want to produce a photo like that, then it means I'm going to be reaching for custom framing. But I've always been one to build and fix things, so the idea of having to produce something myself to get the job done doesn't really bother me.

It is mildly annoying to try and find photo frames in stock for the 8x8 images that I've been producing lately, but it just means I spend a little more time looking for them. They're there, and I can buy them, but I generally aim for a fairly simple black frame and white mat anyway, so I'm not bothered that I don't have the bajillion random options that I would get if I were looking for frames to put 4x6 photos in.

I'm currently without a space suitable for my own darkroom, so I've been slowly building up a collection of negatives to work with so that I have a wide array of negatives to make prints from when I finally do get my own darkroom setup. (And doing 'terrible, immoral, and just plain wrong' things to produce prints apparently in the meantime.) but I really don't see printing 8x8 images off 8x10 stock paper to remotely be a problem. I'll just get a good paper cutter, and for every 8x8 print I make I'll have spare full length test strips to work with while also not having to sacrifice a full sheet of paper. And that's totally a win, right?

 

[Steve Smith]

As I understand it, in the case of 645 SLRs, the viewfinders give upside down or awkward views when rotated 90º

SLRs with prisms are ok. Waist level finders are difficult to use rotated though.


Steve.

 

[DWThomas]

It is mildly annoying to try and find photo frames in stock for the 8x8 images that I've been producing lately, but it just means I spend a little more time looking for them. They're there, and I can buy them, but I generally aim for a fairly simple black frame and white mat anyway, so I'm not bothered that I don't have the bajillion random options that I would get if I were looking for frames to put 4x6 photos in.

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.

 

[Paul Howell]

As many have posted I prefer a 6X6 as it gives me more options, square or rectangle, crop in the camera or in the darkroom, downsize for me is fewer frames when shooting 6X6 but as I shoot of landscapes 6.45 is award another reason I use 6X6 and 6X9. I have both TLRs and a Kowa Super 66, generally shoot with a waist level finder, I do have a eye level for the Kowa which I use on occasion. The upside with a 6.45 is Mamyia are very reasonable as are the lens.

 

[BobMarvin11225]

I use both formats; my most-used cameras are a Rolleiflex and a Super Ikonta A. I never print square, so I appreciate the extra four exposures I get per roll with the little Zeiss folder. OTIH, although I plan specifically for horizontals or verticals with the Rollei (and have crop marks on an overlay on top of the focussing screen) I appreciate the occasional opportunity to change my mind in the darkroom.