Your favorite 120 Format?

[ColColt]

I fell in love with the 6x7 back in the early 80's and never looked for anything else. It was a choice between it and the 6X4.5 which Mamiya had the corner market on back then. I liked the larger negative better and the fact the Pentax 6x7 looked more like just a large 35mm. Never did care for square formats.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

6x6 square, because with a non-square format I frequently catch myself trying to fit the format over the confines of the subject. But with a square format I more often find myself trying to arrange the subject to fit within the confines of the format.

I understand cropping after the fact in the darkroom. I just enjoy a more self-disciplined approach at the camera.

Ken

 

[rpsawin]

6x7 and 6x6.


Best regards,

Bob
CEO CFO EIEIO, Ret.

 

[BradleyK]

6x6...in a Hassleblad 500c/m ...or 501 or a 503...

 

[removed account4]

not too particular as to what mf format i like best
i have had a few different formats over the years from
6x6 to 2x3, 6x4.5 to half frame 6x6, to longer ones from folders and box cameras ..
each one has its own charm ... square is nice, but somethings don't
look nice in the square and need something closer to the golden mean ..
and i like to compose incamera when i can and not crop .. although i am not particular
and if i find something within a negative that looks nice cropped i won't hesitate to crop ..

 

[Jager]

I can't abide losing any potential negative area. So if there is a choice between, say, 6x6 or 6x7 (as in my Bessa III), I'll always choose the larger format.

That said, I find square very exciting compositionally. There is a certain unique, aesthetic beauty that it brings. And so 6x6 is far and away my favorite format.

 

[DannL.]

I like 5x7 a bunch, but can't seem to get it to fit on a standard roll of 120. At present I'm using a Yashica Mat 124G, and am satisfied. I find it a compromise between the heavy 120 cameras, and the smaller 120 formats.

 

[gordrob]

My favorite is 6x9 because I like the larger negative area. I use 6x9 backs on a Mamiya Press Super 23. I have a 6x7 back as well but it seldom gets used.

 

[Sirius Glass]

6x6...in a Hassleblad 500c/m ...or 501 or a 503...

A very wise man.

 

[flavio81]

I'm very surprised in seeing 6x9 win over 6x4.5.
I thought 6x9 was not so popular!

 

[Sirius Glass]

I'm very surprised in seeing 6x9 win over 6x4.5.
I thought 6x9 was not so popular!

I think that just reflects that 645 in just not so popular. 645 is only marginally bigger than 35mm for the same shape format and therefore not worth the effort for many while 6x9 provides a much larger negative for the same shape format.

 

[MattKing]

I think that just reflects that 645 in just not so popular. 645 is only marginally bigger than 35mm for the same shape format and therefore not worth the effort for many while 6x9 provides a much larger negative for the same shape format.

Your 645 must be a different size than mine.

6x4.5 is a lot less rectangular than 135 or 6x9.

16/12 vs. 18/12.

6x4.5 is a perfect fit for 16x12 paper (which I really like) and the closest fit for 11x14.

I think the numbers are skewed because so many who shoot 6x6 actually print 6x4.5 of that.

EDIT: my 6x4.5 negatives have almost 4 times the area of an equivalently shaped (24mm x 32mm) portion of a 135 negative.

 

[Roger Cole]

Impossible choice, I like and use 6x4.5, 6x6, 6x9 and 6x17. These days though I use 6x6 the most.

Ian

Ian is right many user equally like and use different formats for me it's 6x4,5; 6x6; 6x9 & 6x12

I agree but...

I shoot 645 in my 645 Pro, 6x6 in my Yashicamat TLR and so far only 6x7 using a RF back (mainly for affordable color) on my 4x5. So I don't actually have a 6x7 camera but I have handled them.

If I have to choose a favorite it's 6x6 hands down. The cameras are a much more manageable size and weight than 6x7 for all around use, the square allows easy use of a waist level finder, and the format is big enough to crop to a rectangle yielding a 6x4.5 or similar when wanted or can be left square. I think it's the all around best compromise. But the others are great in their own ways too.

 

[Roger Cole]

I probably print more of my 6x6 negatives to roughly 6x4.5 than I leave square. 6x4.5 (based on nominal size, I realize actual frames are somewhat smaller) is 2700 square mm of film area. 24x36 is 864. 6x4.5 is 1.67 times longer, over half again, on the long side and 1.875 longer on the short side than 35mm.

Even if they don't necessarily look much larger I find it far, far easier to print 645 negatives well than 35mm negatives, especially in sizes above 8x10.

 

[Slixtiesix]

I think the numbers are skewed because so many who shoot 6x6 actually print 6x4.5 of that.

That is indeed an interesting question. Maybe I´ll make that subject of another poll...

 

[roby02091987]

I use 6x6 and 6x7 formats, but my personal favorite is 6x7.

I use square only because my yashica mat is waaay smaller and lighter than my mamiya RB and because I could not find a 6x7 slide projector at a decent price, otherwise I would use 6x7 only.

 

[twoeyeandy]

Another vote for 6x6....I think, and this is only a personnel opinion, it's because the square format works so well geometrical. A circle fits into a square better than rectangle, a square seems to divide better than a rectangle, such a horizon dividing a landscape. It's strange, we see 3D in landscape but 2D seems to work better square.
But here's the twist, I mainly shot b/w using 6x6, but when I shoot colour I much prefer 6x7 or 6x4.5....what's that all about then?

 

[ColColt]

I never could follow the logic behind the 6x6 format. You loose so much when you enlarge to standard paper sizes compared to 6x4.5 and especially 6x7-the ideal format.

 

[DannL.]

I never could follow the logic behind the 6x6 format. You loose so much when you enlarge to standard paper sizes compared to 6x4.5 and especially 6x7-the ideal format.

Take a look at "Moon and Half Dome" by Mr. Adams as an example. He didn't seem to have any problem with the format. To the contrary, I am sure.

I recently received this print as part of the estate from my uncle who passed away in 1981. It only took 34 years to filter it's way to me. It would be a later printing, probably late 70's. Upon closer inspection I would say that 6x6 is a perfectly fine format.

 

[ColColt]

I have several of Ansel's books including "The Negative" and "The Print". I think all will agree he's not or wasn't your every day photographer and was a master printer as well as photographer. He could have taken a pen hole camera and still get better results than with my F2A. Not knocking the 6x6-I just don't care for square formats myself but, to each his own.

 

[DannL.]

The point I was making (subliminally of course) is that if you look at that particular print, nothing was lost to enlarging as you mentioned in your previous reply. You'll notice this print was made in portrait and not square. And also, it was not printed to fit on a standard paper size. I am positive that the shape and orientation of the print was based on many things, but not the physical shape of the negative being used. The square negative opened up many avenues. He could have just as easily chose a horizontally oriented print from the square negative. But this is what we got.

PS; I'm not out to sell anyone on a particular format. I find there is a lot more to it than frame shape and film size. Glass is extremely important, as is ergonomics, and cost, and weight, etc.

 

[Roger Cole]

I never could follow the logic behind the 6x6 format. You loose so much when you enlarge to standard paper sizes compared to 6x4.5 and especially 6x7-the ideal format.

6x7 is only "ideal" in the mind of someone who marketed it as such long ago. There is no one ideal format for every image and photographer.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk and 100% recycled electrons - because I care.

 

[jeff.deponte]

Screw standard paper sizes. Square is beautiful. Print - mount- frame your art without "standard sizes" dictating your vision.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

 

[Roger Cole]

I agree, as I've said before. I have prints I've made from 6x6 that are square and others that are cropped to rectangular. Printing gives you the chance to recompose to a degree and change the aspect ratio to whatever works best for the image. In that sense the square is the most versatile since you don't have to turn the camera.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I never could follow the logic behind the 6x6 format. You loose so much when you enlarge to standard paper sizes compared to 6x4.5 and especially 6x7-the ideal format.

Your problem is that you are buying the wrong size and shape paper. Try 11"x14" or 12"x16". Some companies market square paper. 135 and 645 do not fit well on paper by your criteria.