Square Format Digital - Gateway To 6x6 MF??? I am thoroughly enjoying shooting medium format (MF) film with my Mamiya M645. I am considering a used Hassy, but one in good shape with a...

Shutterbug57

I am thoroughly enjoying shooting medium format (MF) film with my Mamiya M645. I am considering a used Hassy, but one in good shape with a 80mm lens is in the $1,200 range. Several folks I have talked to that have experience with 6x6 & 6x4.5 say their prefer the 6x4.5 format. SO, I have set up my Fuji X-T2 to shoot in square format and Acros profile. (Most of my MF shooting is B&W). The jury is still out, but I like square format as an additional option.

What are y’alls thoughts on square format (1:1) versus 3:4. Interested to hear from the group.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

I've rarely produced square format photographs. Even those photographed with my Hasselblad end up 16x20 prints.
--Bob

Shutterbug57 wrote:

I am thoroughly enjoying shooting medium format (M... (show quote)

Bill_de Loc: US

While some images look good in a square format, I always thought shooting squares was done for convenience. It would have been very difficult to shoot verticals with a TLR or any medium format camera that didn't have a prism. Mamyia overcame that problem with the RB67.

Of course whether you shoot square or 3:4 it is your final crop that determines what hangs on the wall. 6x6 puts more "pixels" on the image than 6x4.5 giving you more latitude composing the final print.

--

BboH Loc: s of 2/21, Ellicott City, MD

Nikon's D850 has a 1:1 image area which is 24x24 which I frequently use. There are some scenes that do look much better using that than the full frame

classic320

Previous comment regarding TLR ease is undoubtedly true, but there's the additional ease of not deciding vertical or horizontal at the moment of exposure. BTW, I miss my Mamiya 645. Had the 150 and the 45 as well as the 80, and especially liked the 45 with the WL finder--could handle it as quickly as a 35mm and get that big negative!

Shutterbug57

Bill_de wrote:

While some images look good in a square format, I always thought shooting squares was done for convenience. It would have been very difficult to shoot verticals with a TLR or any medium format camera that didn't have a prism. Mamyia overcame that problem with the RB67.

Of course whether you shoot square or 3:4 it is your final crop that determines what hangs on the wall. 6x6 puts more "pixels" on the image than 6x4.5 giving you more latitude composing the final print.

--

As to your second paragraph, I agree. With the 6x6, you can always crop to 6x4.5, but with the 6x4.5, going square yields a 4.5x4.5 negative area - a significant reduction (20.25 v 36.0 cm2).

To your first paragraph, the M645 has a couple of prism viewfinders, one metered, the other not. I use the non-metered viewfinder for studio shoots where I know I will want portrait format, but it is harder to focus than the waist level view finder. BTW, the waist level viewfinder was the original overhead viewfinder, way before flip out screens. ;-)

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

I shoot the native aspect ratio, and if I wanted a square image, which is rare, I would crop.

Cdouthitt Loc: Traverse City, MI

I sometimes bring along my M645 when I'm shooting with m4/3 gear (4x3 format). I find it's easier to crop to 1x1 after.

speters Loc: Grangeville/Idaho

Shutterbug57 wrote:

I am thoroughly enjoying shooting medium format (M... (show quote)

I just enjoy shooting MF, I really do not have any preference for one size though, I shoot 6x4.5, 6x6, 6x7, and 6x8. I like/love 'em all!

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

Years ago, after becoming very interested watching a couple of folks work with those beautiful medium format negatives in the school darkroom, I bought a used C330f (I think the later version had the f suffix) from KEH when they had their store in Dallas (TX) and had a lot of fun using it in class. There were lots of benefits, including macro focusing without buying additional lenses, among others. Our teacher was really concentrating on having us compose our image on the negative, so she required us to always have visible film borders on our prints...no cropping. It was difficult at first, but eventually a lot of fun to visualize and compose to a square negative. I still sometimes set the D850 to 1:1 (as discussed above) as an exercise. And sometimes I crop images to square with good results. I'd encourage folks to occasionally "think square." Better still is to set your camera to square format and see what doing so encourages you to come up with.

I like to imagine that I'd have had a lot of fun with view cameras, but I never made it that far.

oldeman Loc: Cape Cod, MA

Shutterbug57 wrote:

I am thoroughly enjoying shooting medium format (M... (show quote)

My medium-format tool is a Bronica EC; with a choice of my three Nikkor lenses, and always tripod-mounted, it's cumbersome enough to slow me down in the process, to take my time with composition and exposure, before I trip the shutter. The square format can be challenging, but that's the frosting on the cake when you're having to treat photography as a process, one that you're actively involved in. In my film work, I enjoy using black and white film. Having only light, dark, and form to work with (i.e., no color)), the challenge to produce a successful image is greater. And quite satisfying.

Largobob

Shutterbug57 wrote:

I am thoroughly enjoying shooting medium format (M... (show quote)

Just my opinions:

Since most posted or printed images tend to be more rectangular than square, it seems wasteful to shoot square and then have to crop to throw away either top/bottom or left/right sides to make it rectangular. I find that the 6x7cm format in medium format cameras, has more usable image area than either 645 or 6x6. With 6X7, you get 10 images on a 120 roll, or 20 images on a 220 roll. I had a Mamiya 645 and gave it away....images were always too soft and lacked contrast....at least for my taste.

I have recently invested in some nice old (nearly mint) Bronica GS-1 equipment. I have two GS bodies both with side grip/winder and AE prism finders... 50, 65, 100, 110 macro, 150, 200, and 250mm lenses with caps and hoods....extension tube set, Bronica TTL speed light, remote shutter release, and a variety of 120 and 220 film backs. The images are crisp and sharp. I send the exposed film to "The Darkroom" for processing and scanning. I also have and inexpensive Epson V600 scanner to digitize my analog images.

ELNikkor

I just can't squeeze my brain into a square format, no Hasselblad, Mamiya, Rollei ever appealed to me at all. I do have some wonderful $10 6x9 Kodak Tourist cameras in the cellar though, that will give all those expensive cameras a run for their money!

Shutterbug57

Largobob wrote:

I had a Mamiya 645 and gave it away....images were always too soft and lacked contrast....at least for my taste. ... I send the exposed film to "The Darkroom" for processing and scanning.

Yeah, shoutout to the darkroom for quality and affordable processing & scanning. As to the 645 sharpness, that is weird. I shot a model with my 645 with the 80/2.8 lens and Ektar 100 film. It delivered tack sharp photos. In a shot that went from her knees to over her head, you could count every thread in her dress and tell that she was wearing contact lenses. Maybe I just got a killer lens copy, but I am very pleased with its image quality.

drmike99 Loc: Fairfield Connecticut

I have 6x7 (Pentax), 6x4.5 (Bronica ETRSi), and 6x6 (Rolleicord III). The one least used is the Rollei because of the square format. All are used fully manually. The Pentax delivers the best images. The Bronica is the most fun to use.