Go Back   Rangefinderforum.com > Cameras / Gear / Photography > Rangefinder Forum > Image Processing: Darkroom / Lightroom / Film > Film / Developing / Chemistry

View Poll Results: I absolutely loathe this/these format(s) (nominal):
2.8:1 (6x17) 7 11.86%
2.7:1 (X-Pan) 6 10.17%
2:1 (6x12) 7 11.86%
1.5:1 (DX, FX, 35mm, 6x9) 7 11.86%
1.33:1 (Micro 4/3, 6x8, 6x4.5) 12 20.34%
1.25:1 (4x5) 7 11.86%
1.16:1 (6x7) 22 37.29%
Other (specify) 10 16.95%
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 59. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes

Irrational format hatred?
Old 03-23-2017   #1
Dante_Stella
Rex canum cattorumque
 
Dante_Stella's Avatar
 
Dante_Stella is offline
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,757
Irrational format hatred?

Is anyone else afflicted by this thing where they would never buy a camera - no matter how good - whose frames are certain proportions?

My particular bugbear is 6x7. Yours?

Dante
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-23-2017   #2
newsgrunt
Registered User
 
newsgrunt's Avatar
 
newsgrunt is offline
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,157
totally agree re:6x7 ! Loved the 43 mm lens on the Mamiya 7 but just couldn't work with 6x7. too bad, that lens is stellar
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-23-2017   #3
sreed2006
Registered User
 
sreed2006's Avatar
 
sreed2006 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Memphis, TN
Posts: 972
I'll try anything twice.
__________________
Sid

My favorite question is "What does this button do?"
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-23-2017   #4
Dante_Stella
Rex canum cattorumque
 
Dante_Stella's Avatar
 
Dante_Stella is offline
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,757
Poll posted!
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-23-2017   #5
Dante_Stella
Rex canum cattorumque
 
Dante_Stella's Avatar
 
Dante_Stella is offline
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,757
&#%! —*omitted 1:1. Use the "other" if you hate Rolleiflexes.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-23-2017   #6
Steve M.
Registered User
 
Steve M. is offline
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,382
I don't like, nor understand, 6x7. To me it's a strange format (although of course you can always crop, so it's really a moot point). My favorites are 35mm/6x9, or 6x6.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-23-2017   #7
maddoc
... likes film.
 
maddoc's Avatar
 
maddoc is offline
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: 名古屋
Age: 53
Posts: 7,300
6x7 in my case. Requires a different enlarger than the more common 6x6.
__________________
- Gabor

flickr
pBase
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-23-2017   #8
Hatchetman
Registered User
 
Hatchetman is offline
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 223
4x5 what a PITA.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-23-2017   #9
Darthfeeble
But you can call me Steve
 
Darthfeeble's Avatar
 
Darthfeeble is offline
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Logtown, California, USA
Age: 73
Posts: 1,485
Hate? A format? Oh come on!
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-23-2017   #10
narsuitus
Registered User
 
narsuitus's Avatar
 
narsuitus is offline
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,248
Over the years, I have used only three different formats (small, medium, and large) but have used about a dozen different aspect ratios. I did not vote because, thus far, I have not found an aspect ratio that I do not like.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-23-2017   #11
Bob Michaels
nobody special
 
Bob Michaels's Avatar
 
Bob Michaels is offline
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Apopka FL (USA)
Age: 75
Posts: 3,757
I have never found an aspect ratio that I could not crop to what I wanted.
__________________
http://www.bobmichaels.org
internet forums appear to have an abundance of anonymous midgets prancing on stilts
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-23-2017   #12
charjohncarter
Registered User
 
charjohncarter's Avatar
 
charjohncarter is offline
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Danville, CA, USA
Posts: 8,729
I like 2:3 format and 6x6, but like you not crazy about 6x7. EXCEPT my best camera is 6x7, so please advise: what do I do?
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-23-2017   #13
aizan
Registered User
 
aizan's Avatar
 
aizan is offline
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Torrance, CA
Age: 37
Posts: 4,584
6x12. it just needs to be a little wider.

6x7. all of this should have been 6x8.

6x4.5. i might as well be shooting m4/3 or aps-c.

35mm. almost of a why bother situation, except it's fun.

irrational loves: aps and 7x17.
__________________
Ugly Cameras
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-23-2017   #14
kxl
Social Documentary
 
kxl's Avatar
 
kxl is offline
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Sunny SoCal
Posts: 2,981
I think 'loathe' may be too strong of a word for this, but 6x7 is a challenge.
__________________
Keith
My Flickr Albums
RFF feedback


"... I thought the only way to give us an incentive, to bring hope, is to show the pictures of the pristine planet - to see the innocence.” ― Sebastiao Salgado
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-23-2017   #15
Larry H-L
Registered User
 
Larry H-L is offline
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 590
I tended to crop 6x7 to 6x6, 1:1, when I used a work camera in the past, but have never purchased a 6x7 camera personally.

2:3 is good, and as I shoot more and more video, I'm really liking 16:9.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-23-2017   #16
Pablito
coco frío
 
Pablito's Avatar
 
Pablito is offline
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Salsipuedes
Posts: 3,481
6x8 is a really pleasing format but I think there has only been one commercially produced camera in that format, can't remember what it was, maybe a Fuji or a Bronica.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-23-2017   #17
Robert Lai
Registered User
 
Robert Lai is offline
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,634
Why all this prejudice against 6x7?
I love my Voigtlander Bessa IIIW. I keep it in 6x7 all the time, even though it can also shoot 6x6.

If I want a 6x6 image, I have a variety of TLRs, and folding rangefinders to work with.

With the 6x7, I know which camera took the picture, as I only have one of that format.

Photographic principles are the same in composition.
Just watch what's in the edges and corners.

i have the Coolscan 9000, which has a maximum size of 6x9. For that reason only, I've not gone to the panoramic formats.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-23-2017   #18
Huss
Registered User
 
Huss is offline
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Venice, CA
Posts: 7,593
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve M. View Post
I don't like, nor understand, 6x7. To me it's a strange format (although of course you can always crop, so it's really a moot point). My favorites are 35mm/6x9, or 6x6.
Throw in 6 by 12 and you are a man of impeccable taste.

6by7 looks like it does not know what it wants to be.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-23-2017   #19
benlees
Registered User
 
benlees is offline
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Edmonton, AB
Age: 47
Posts: 1,510
Strangely, 6x9 never did it for me. I'd look at pictures and forget it wasn't 35mm.

6x4.5: it is obviously MF, 6x6: obviously MF, 6x7 (my favourite): Obviously MF, 6x9: I'm not sure...
__________________
flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-23-2017   #20
Sid836
Registered User
 
Sid836 is offline
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,132
I love 6x6 and 6x4.5, but due to the convenience the smaller formats offer, I use 135 most of the time.
(And this is why my stock of 120 and 220 rolls is larger than 135)
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-23-2017   #21
Doug
Moderator
 
Doug's Avatar
 
Doug is offline
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Pacific NW, USA
Posts: 13,011
I like 6x7 fine but don't much care for 6x6... However I'll not hesitate to crop to about 1:1 if that's what the photo "calls for". The feeling about 6x6 is entangled with antipathy to waist-level viewing...
__________________
Doug’s Gallery
RFF on Facebook
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-23-2017   #22
f16sunshine
Moderator
 
f16sunshine's Avatar
 
f16sunshine is offline
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Seattle
Age: 51
Posts: 6,258
645 but not for the proportions/ratio.
More so for the cameras. I could never really get used to the viewfinders in the cameras I tried.
The Zeiss Contax lenses still are very appealing. May try them on this new Fuji GX creature.
6x7 is a bit weird as well but, it seems to work out well enough often enough that I keep one around.
__________________
Andy
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-23-2017   #23
zuiko85
Registered User
 
zuiko85 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,925
Loathe is too strong a word. 'Have not much use' for, or 'can't think of how I'd use', certain formats is more like it.

On the other hand I've always had a preference for the 4:3 format, perhaps because my start in 35mm was with half-frame, still have a Pen F and several VF Pens, (the real ones, not digital snark snark).
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-23-2017   #24
tunalegs
Pretended Artist
 
tunalegs's Avatar
 
tunalegs is offline
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,559
I don't hate 6x7, but if we're honest, 6x7 only exists as a gimmick. Every 6x7 camera would be better if it just shot 6x9 or 6x6 instead.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-23-2017   #25
alexandru_voicu
Registered User
 
alexandru_voicu is offline
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Posts: 111
I don't loathe any of the formats, but I certainly dislike very "wide" formats (6x12 and wider). And this comes from a 35mm film user... I'm amazed that 6x7 is so unpopular. I would have preferred the 35mm frames to have this ratio...
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-23-2017   #26
Spanik
Registered User
 
Spanik is offline
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 1,425
6x7 it is. To be honest 6x6 is only the tiniest bit better as you don' have to think about how holding it. But give me something that is very definitely rectangular..
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-23-2017   #27
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 23,947
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Michaels View Post
I have never found an aspect ratio that I could not crop to what I wanted.
Dear Bob,

Well, exactly. Though the original Kodak circular format is a bit... interesting.

Cheers,

R.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-23-2017   #28
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
 
sevo is offline
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Frankfurt, Germany
Posts: 6,364
X-Pan was a embarrassingly silly monument to poor research - they started a new format immediately next to the widely established Cinemascope 2.65:1. Cinema still photographers probably are banging their heads even now...
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-24-2017   #29
leicapixie
Registered User
 
leicapixie is offline
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Toronto.Canada
Posts: 1,598
I have used many formats.
None are loathed. The "new" digital "Medium Format" is not Medium Format.
It's simply a larger 35mm! Truth though, for boxes I shall never afford!
The 6x8 format only by a Fuji, a kind of technical camera.
My Pentax 6x7 was a great format. Rectangular not Square like Hasselblad.
Yet I love my Rolleiflex. Use your tools.
I love the 35mm format. Simply Perfect.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-24-2017   #30
brbo
Registered User
 
brbo's Avatar
 
brbo is online now
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,445
You could probably give me 3.69:2.18 format and I wouldn't even notice. And I never crop.

It is what it is.
__________________

  Reply With Quote

Old 03-24-2017   #31
lawrence
Registered User
 
lawrence's Avatar
 
lawrence is offline
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: London, UK
Age: 67
Posts: 2,097
I used a Mamiya 645 for many years but looking back I don't like this format any more. It doesn't have the classic proportions of 35mm and it's not as elegant as the nearly square 67 format, which used to be known as 'ideal'. Really, it's neither one thing nor the other.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-24-2017   #32
Merlijn53
Registered User
 
Merlijn53 is offline
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 178
I do not "hate" any format, but I would never buy a 6x7 again.
The negatives do no fit in a normal negative pages. Only 8 negatives on one page, but there are 10 negatives. :-)
Regards,
Frank
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-24-2017   #33
FujiLove
Registered User
 
FujiLove is offline
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 575
I own and love several 35mm cameras (Leica M2, M3, Minolta X500 etc.) but I absolutely hate the shape of the frame.

I find squares much easier to compose and I like how the cropping decision can be taken later in the darkroom. I also enjoy shooting 6x7 as a close second (which is virtually 4x5 on the negative).
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-24-2017   #34
FujiLove
Registered User
 
FujiLove is offline
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 575
Quote:
Originally Posted by Merlijn53 View Post
I do not "hate" any format, but I would never buy a 6x7 again.
The negatives do no fit in a normal negative pages. Only 8 negatives on one page, but there are 10 negatives. :-)
Regards,
Frank
I use these Clearfile sleeves which fit 6x7 negs perfectly.

http://www.firstcall-photographic.co...ck-of-25/p1806
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-24-2017   #35
jawarden
Registered User
 
jawarden is offline
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 395
I hate all formats. What do I win?

;-)
__________________

  Reply With Quote

Old 03-24-2017   #36
jawarden
Registered User
 
jawarden is offline
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 395
Quote:
Originally Posted by FujiLove View Post
I use these Clearfile sleeves which fit 6x7 negs perfectly.

http://www.firstcall-photographic.co...ck-of-25/p1806
Thanks! I had no idea this product existed. I've been frustrated by using two sheets for one roll of 6x7 as well.
__________________

  Reply With Quote

Old 03-24-2017   #37
css9450
Registered User
 
css9450's Avatar
 
css9450 is offline
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,903
6x6 is square and 6x9 is close (or close enough) to the Golden Ratio or Golden Mean or whatever you want to call it, whereas 6x7 is neither and that might explain why it might look awkward to some.
__________________
Nikon S2, S3, F, F2, F3, FM2, FA, N90S, D80, D7000, D750, Sony a6000, Canon IIf, Leica CL, Tower type 3, Zorki 4, Vito B, Perkeo II, Rollei 35....
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-24-2017   #38
pvdhaar
Zoom with your feet!
 
pvdhaar's Avatar
 
pvdhaar is offline
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 3,196
My main beef is with anything that's sort of 4:3 like you get with most compacts. It's neither here (square) nor there (DX/FX or wider). With a square and anything FX or wider, you've really made a compositional statement, and you can make images really stand out. With 4:3, it's like you've taken either a square or FX and had to crop some borders with stuff that you were too lazy to compositionally exclude. In short, 4:3 is ugly (well, you did ask for an opinion).
__________________
Kind regards,

Peter

My Hexländer Gallery
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-24-2017   #39
Canyongazer
Canyongazer
 
Canyongazer's Avatar
 
Canyongazer is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 500
I've a rather benign attitude toward formats.
OTOH, I do not and will not tolerate lactose.
__________________

Fuji X Pro2
Fuji X E2
Fuji X100s
Panasonic GX1 w/ 20mm F1.7
Nikon D800E


introspection.zenfolio.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-24-2017   #40
willie_901
Registered User
 
willie_901's Avatar
 
willie_901 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,304
I really don't like 1.33:1 (4/3).

It reminds me of all the butchered movies I watched for on TV for decades before the HD TV aspect ratio of 1.78:1 (16/9) became common.

I consider this reasoning sufficiently irrational. However it is one reason I sold my m 4/3 kit.

Somewhat more practical is my preference not to crop to a modify aspect ratio.

One exception is my ancient 35mm Tri-X work which was commonly printed on 8 X 10 paper. This is more of a bow to nostalgia than aesthetic goals.
__________________
Basically, I mean, ah—well, let’s say that for me anyway when a photograph is interesting, it’s interesting because of the kind of photographic problem it states—which has to do with the . . . contest between content and form.
Garry Winogrand
williamchuttonjr.com
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 22:47.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.