raydm6
Yay! Cameras! 🙈🙉🙊┌( ಠ_ಠ)┘ [◉"]
I was wondering the other day why 120 film was shot in square format (6x6). From what I can gather, Kodak introduced the film in 1901 but it wasn't later that the square format was introduced. Perhaps the 75mm/80mm focal length contributed to this?
I believe 620 amateur cameras shot 120 film with a square negative but with the shorter 620 film spool? Maybe to get more exposures on the roll for consumer usage?
Roger commented re: 6x6:
Handing 120 Film
And this article about early Rolleiflexes alluded to the demise of 117 film and Franke and Heideke opted for the 120 size:
casualphotophile.com
Are there any other reasons for 120 square 6x6 format?
I believe 620 amateur cameras shot 120 film with a square negative but with the shorter 620 film spool? Maybe to get more exposures on the roll for consumer usage?
Roger commented re: 6x6:
Roger's article:
Handing 120 Film
And this article about early Rolleiflexes alluded to the demise of 117 film and Franke and Heideke opted for the 120 size:
The Rolleiflex Old Standard - the First Rollei to Shoot 120 Film
Juliet reviews the Rolleiflex Old Standard, the first Rolleiflex TLR film camera to use standard medium format film.
casualphotophile.com
Are there any other reasons for 120 square 6x6 format?
Last edited:
KoNickon
Nick Merritt
I expect it has at least something to do with the limitations of the lenses -- performance of the lenses would have fallen off more significantly at the edges of the rectangular image. So having a smaller image circle (the diameter of which is the diagonal of the square image) allowed more lenses to provide acceptable performance.
x-ray
Mentor
Why not square? In the 80’s and 90’s until digital came along and large format work was declining 120 6x6 format dominated the formats that I shot for most of my commercial work. This was pretty much true in most professional photography.
6x6 is a pleasing format and worked very well with TLR’s and SLR cameras like Hasselblad's and Rollei SL66’s. With a waist level finder you can’t really turn one on its side to make a horizontal if it were say 6x4.5. You’d go nuts without a prism and they didn’t exist in the early days.
I seriously doubt that the 75/80mm lens had anything to do with designing the format. I’d guess it’s more to do with designing a relatively compact camera around existing film. Something like this usually comes out of a need fir a new design. Early adopters of 6x6 120 were journalists using TLR’s. With a TLR they could invert the camera and hold it over their heads and get above the crowd to make a clear shot. Looking down through the finder made it less obvious they were making a photo. Also the format worked well for cropping either to horizontal or vertical.
For example 3.25x4.25 inch film was popular with news photographers because the 4.25” dimension was the standard with of two columns in a news paper. It made it faster and easier to screen halftones.
The film and backing are exactly the same in 129 and 620. The only difference is the spool core is thinner with 620 and the coupling holes in the end of the spools are different. Also 620 lacks the ridge around the end of the spool vs 120 having a raised ridge. It’s common for people to respool 120 on 620 spools to use in older cameras. The film is exactly the same length and width as is the paper. I believe the numbers on the paper are the same as well.
I’d guess, just guessing, 120 became the standard because 620 required spoiling the film on the smaller diameter core of the 620 spool resulting in more curl and making the film harder to handle. And again just guessing, 6x6 probably was driven by the journalistic world where TLR’s were primarily used in their early life.
6x6 is a pleasing format and worked very well with TLR’s and SLR cameras like Hasselblad's and Rollei SL66’s. With a waist level finder you can’t really turn one on its side to make a horizontal if it were say 6x4.5. You’d go nuts without a prism and they didn’t exist in the early days.
I seriously doubt that the 75/80mm lens had anything to do with designing the format. I’d guess it’s more to do with designing a relatively compact camera around existing film. Something like this usually comes out of a need fir a new design. Early adopters of 6x6 120 were journalists using TLR’s. With a TLR they could invert the camera and hold it over their heads and get above the crowd to make a clear shot. Looking down through the finder made it less obvious they were making a photo. Also the format worked well for cropping either to horizontal or vertical.
For example 3.25x4.25 inch film was popular with news photographers because the 4.25” dimension was the standard with of two columns in a news paper. It made it faster and easier to screen halftones.
The film and backing are exactly the same in 129 and 620. The only difference is the spool core is thinner with 620 and the coupling holes in the end of the spools are different. Also 620 lacks the ridge around the end of the spool vs 120 having a raised ridge. It’s common for people to respool 120 on 620 spools to use in older cameras. The film is exactly the same length and width as is the paper. I believe the numbers on the paper are the same as well.
I’d guess, just guessing, 120 became the standard because 620 required spoiling the film on the smaller diameter core of the 620 spool resulting in more curl and making the film harder to handle. And again just guessing, 6x6 probably was driven by the journalistic world where TLR’s were primarily used in their early life.
Rayt
Nonplayer Character
I recall reading about post-Weegee working photographers switching to square medium format so editors can crop any which way they wanted.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
What size is 120 film photo?
120 film is 6 cm wide (2 - 1/4"). But it could be 6x6, 6x4.5, 6x9 and even longer.
Why 120 is mostly associated (by some) with 6X6?
Because they haven't seen cameras made before TLRs. For example Brownies.
Which were made in huge numbers. And why?
Because 6x9 was large enough for contact printing. No enlarger needed or wasn't even available.
Once TLRs became available, they pushed out folders (MF and LF) from the dominance.
By the same time, enlargers became widely available.
Personally, I'm finding square way too primitive for framing. All you have to do it to dump it in the center. Well, it is only what you could do.
Before older generation became inactive and they had to rename APUG to something else with digital part added, I asked how professionals used 6x6.
They would bring the photo to the editor and the needed content would be extracted for publishing press at any given aspect ratio.
I did the same. I printed full 8x10 paper from 6x6 negative and with much interesting framing.
120 film is 6 cm wide (2 - 1/4"). But it could be 6x6, 6x4.5, 6x9 and even longer.
Why 120 is mostly associated (by some) with 6X6?
Because they haven't seen cameras made before TLRs. For example Brownies.
Which were made in huge numbers. And why?
Because 6x9 was large enough for contact printing. No enlarger needed or wasn't even available.
Once TLRs became available, they pushed out folders (MF and LF) from the dominance.
By the same time, enlargers became widely available.
Personally, I'm finding square way too primitive for framing. All you have to do it to dump it in the center. Well, it is only what you could do.
Before older generation became inactive and they had to rename APUG to something else with digital part added, I asked how professionals used 6x6.
They would bring the photo to the editor and the needed content would be extracted for publishing press at any given aspect ratio.
I did the same. I printed full 8x10 paper from 6x6 negative and with much interesting framing.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
How many square LF formats do we know?
It is more about construction.
6x6 on its golden times was mostly via compact TLR. And not so compact, yet still OK, SLR.
But even for 6x7 they have to do enormous SLRs.
And for 6x9, push it to LF beast via back adapter or folder.
And folder is so-so for accurate focusing. The only way is via somewhat more primitive than in 135 rangefinders. And lens has to be tiny.
Or you have to deal with Texas Leica instead of sexy Hasselblad.
But no problems with lens performance. Just performance of photog with bulk and heavy thing to operate.
raydm6
Yay! Cameras! 🙈🙉🙊┌( ಠ_ಠ)┘ [◉"]
Speaking of beasts, I have a thread for that also
. Yes I agree, even 6x7 SLR is challenging to hold to say the least.Let's See Your Beasts! (Camera Rigs That Is...)
Please share your "beast" rig(s). Mamiya RB67-ProSD -a bit hard on the wrist.
rangefinderforum.com
JohnGellings
Well-known
This is how I´ve always understood it in the commercial photography world. Artists, however, took the square and used it for what it was, a square.
vitaly66
slightly tilted
Advantages of square format:
* optimal/efficient use of lens image circle
* camera design simplicity -- only one orientation needs to be supported
* more images (12 per roll) compared to 6x9 (8 per roll), 6x7 (10 per roll)
Before 35mm came into prominence, the most popular proletariat/amateur films were 620/120, often in square format for simple mass-marketed "snapshot" cameras. Note that 620 is identical to 120 in all respects, except for the proprietary smaller spool Kodak designed for 620, intended to lock users of those 620 cameras into Kodak films.
* optimal/efficient use of lens image circle
* camera design simplicity -- only one orientation needs to be supported
* more images (12 per roll) compared to 6x9 (8 per roll), 6x7 (10 per roll)
Before 35mm came into prominence, the most popular proletariat/amateur films were 620/120, often in square format for simple mass-marketed "snapshot" cameras. Note that 620 is identical to 120 in all respects, except for the proprietary smaller spool Kodak designed for 620, intended to lock users of those 620 cameras into Kodak films.
wlewisiii
Just another hotel clerk
Shrug. Don't know why. Don't care why.
LOVE the square. It remains the best format. The _hardest_ format to properly use and so many times, yes, you can end up cropping out of it (though I almost never do - I prefer to live with what is there in the square) but 1:1 is a really delightful format to work with and when it works, it is just delicious.
LOVE the square. It remains the best format. The _hardest_ format to properly use and so many times, yes, you can end up cropping out of it (though I almost never do - I prefer to live with what is there in the square) but 1:1 is a really delightful format to work with and when it works, it is just delicious.
CMur12
Well-known
I am in full agreement with you, William! I find something really special in square composition when it is done right.
Actually, the same rules of composition that apply to a rectangle apply to a square (rule of thirds, etc). (It isn't simply a matter of plunking the subject down right in the middle of the frame.)
I've always shot transparency film, and I have always longed for a 6x6 projector. For projection of images, the square is vastly superior, filling the screen fully and identically from one shot to the next. (Square format 126 Instamatic film was also good in this sense.)
- Murray
DownUnder
Nikon Nomad
Me too.
I got into 12/120 in 1961 when as a 13-year old student, I saved my allowance money and bought my first TLR, a Yashica D. BTW it still works and has been on permanent loan to a camera club for the last 20 years, aho' with the cost of film in Australia these days I doubt if anyone is using it very much.
There were many odd film formats then. 616 and 116, 122, even quarter and half plate, and that popular and convenient (for happy-snapping) but now defunct 12/127. One of my aunts had a 'baby' Rollei which she took on her travels, mostly on ocean cruises as many well-off people did before the era of cheap flights. I have her collection of a few hundred 127 negatives (she wasn't a prolific photographer) of exotic travel places and family snaps. Some day I'll them for other family to enjoy, tho' it will mean buying a new Epson as their models do good work on larger film formats), also a bit of fiddling and testing to ensure the best sharpness without using film holders.
This aunt and her husband both had Rolleis. They got me into 12/120 TLR format and I got my first Yashica. I've had several including a 635 I didn't really get on with and a 124, a wonderful machine. Yashinon lenses were fine optics and all my 120 my negatives enlarge easily and well and most importantly they stay sharp to 8x10" or even bigger.
I have four Rollei TLRs (three 'flexes and one 'cord) and while I don't use them much, I try to take them out 1-2 times a year, to enjoy the old-time feel of photography as I once did but more so to exercise the Synchro-Compur shutters.
I also have two 1950s German 6x6 folders. They fold up tidily and fit into a coat pocket when I go bush walking in cold weather. .
Many authors of photo books in the 1940s and 1950s eulogized the 6x6 format. Other posters here have stated the same reasons I liked 120 and stayed with it until 35mm cameras became more the 'norm' and I bought into Nikkormats.
For me, shooting 'square' meant an entirely different discipline on my thinking. Gone were my urges to happy-snap landscapes or cram too much detail in my images. I took my 'flex 3.5 E2 to Bali in 1972 and 40+ rolls of film - a massive investment in film and $$ and so much 'shooting' in a time when we composed more carefully and thought about what we wanted from our images. Back then photographs of Bali were rare and I sold many photographs, including one B&W which got published as a two-page color spread (with a sunset yellow-red 'tint') in a German news magazine. I had a fight after publication, the editor insisted on paying for a mono image and I held out for the higher fee for a color spread. (I won in the end.)
Old memories aside, the enjoyment and pleasure I got (and still get) from the 6x6 format is totally different from the 'buzz' of working with my 35mm Nikkormats or my 6x9 Bessa.
For me with film, less is best and 12/120 is entirely adequate. To put it in another way, different strokes (and film formats) for different folks. Digital FF is good to have and use - also heaps cheaper, important to an age pensioner - to play with but film is a special experience and I think many of us enjoy it for this very reason.
Just my haphazard(ous?) thoughts.
I got into 12/120 in 1961 when as a 13-year old student, I saved my allowance money and bought my first TLR, a Yashica D. BTW it still works and has been on permanent loan to a camera club for the last 20 years, aho' with the cost of film in Australia these days I doubt if anyone is using it very much.
There were many odd film formats then. 616 and 116, 122, even quarter and half plate, and that popular and convenient (for happy-snapping) but now defunct 12/127. One of my aunts had a 'baby' Rollei which she took on her travels, mostly on ocean cruises as many well-off people did before the era of cheap flights. I have her collection of a few hundred 127 negatives (she wasn't a prolific photographer) of exotic travel places and family snaps. Some day I'll them for other family to enjoy, tho' it will mean buying a new Epson as their models do good work on larger film formats), also a bit of fiddling and testing to ensure the best sharpness without using film holders.
This aunt and her husband both had Rolleis. They got me into 12/120 TLR format and I got my first Yashica. I've had several including a 635 I didn't really get on with and a 124, a wonderful machine. Yashinon lenses were fine optics and all my 120 my negatives enlarge easily and well and most importantly they stay sharp to 8x10" or even bigger.
I have four Rollei TLRs (three 'flexes and one 'cord) and while I don't use them much, I try to take them out 1-2 times a year, to enjoy the old-time feel of photography as I once did but more so to exercise the Synchro-Compur shutters.
I also have two 1950s German 6x6 folders. They fold up tidily and fit into a coat pocket when I go bush walking in cold weather. .
Many authors of photo books in the 1940s and 1950s eulogized the 6x6 format. Other posters here have stated the same reasons I liked 120 and stayed with it until 35mm cameras became more the 'norm' and I bought into Nikkormats.
For me, shooting 'square' meant an entirely different discipline on my thinking. Gone were my urges to happy-snap landscapes or cram too much detail in my images. I took my 'flex 3.5 E2 to Bali in 1972 and 40+ rolls of film - a massive investment in film and $$ and so much 'shooting' in a time when we composed more carefully and thought about what we wanted from our images. Back then photographs of Bali were rare and I sold many photographs, including one B&W which got published as a two-page color spread (with a sunset yellow-red 'tint') in a German news magazine. I had a fight after publication, the editor insisted on paying for a mono image and I held out for the higher fee for a color spread. (I won in the end.)
Old memories aside, the enjoyment and pleasure I got (and still get) from the 6x6 format is totally different from the 'buzz' of working with my 35mm Nikkormats or my 6x9 Bessa.
For me with film, less is best and 12/120 is entirely adequate. To put it in another way, different strokes (and film formats) for different folks. Digital FF is good to have and use - also heaps cheaper, important to an age pensioner - to play with but film is a special experience and I think many of us enjoy it for this very reason.
Just my haphazard(ous?) thoughts.
Last edited:
wlewisiii
Just another hotel clerk
I only went into digital for real with m4/3 because it had 1:1 as a standard. I bought an E-PL1, a 17/2.8 lens & VF2 electronic finder. The finder could be swiveled up 90 degrees to vertical so it could act like a waist level finder.
So I had the equivalent of a 35mm/2.8 lens digital TLR and I loved the hell out of it. There were many days where my discipline was to go out and only allow myself to take either only 12 or 24 shots total for the day. No chimping allowed. And, yeah, sometimes I'd get home with no keepers, but at least I hadn't paid for C41 processing!
It kept me out of trouble for a couple of years & taught me a lot. Two of the the three shots above were done with that rig (the the middle one was with my Rolleicord).
So I had the equivalent of a 35mm/2.8 lens digital TLR and I loved the hell out of it. There were many days where my discipline was to go out and only allow myself to take either only 12 or 24 shots total for the day. No chimping allowed. And, yeah, sometimes I'd get home with no keepers, but at least I hadn't paid for C41 processing!
It kept me out of trouble for a couple of years & taught me a lot. Two of the the three shots above were done with that rig (the the middle one was with my Rolleicord).
Mos6502
Well-known
The 6x6 format originated with the Brownie, and on 117 roll film. Square format in other sizes however already existed, pre-brownie.I was wondering the other day why 120 film was shot in square format (6x6). From what I can gather, Kodak introduced the film in 1901 but it wasn't later that the square format was introduced. Perhaps the 75mm/80mm focal length contributed to this?
I believe 620 amateur cameras shot 120 film with a square negative but with the shorter 620 film spool? Maybe to get more exposures on the roll for consumer usage?
Roger commented re: 6x6:
Roger's article:
Handing 120 Film
And this article about early Rolleiflexes alluded to the demise of 117 film and Franke and Heideke opted for the 120 size:
The Rolleiflex Old Standard - the First Rollei to Shoot 120 Film
Juliet reviews the Rolleiflex Old Standard, the first Rolleiflex TLR film camera to use standard medium format film.
Are there any other reasons for 120 square 6x6 format?
When the No. 2 Brownie was introduced, taking 6x9 images, 120 was introduced along with it. 117 and 120 use slightly different spools. the spools for 120 being a larger diameter to accommodate a greater length of film.
Why the original brownie shot square images is anybody's guess, but my own guesses are that the square format made the most of a simple lens, gave more shots for given length of film, and was more forgiving on shots "composed" in a camera without any viewfinder (the Brownie didn't have one!). 117 had numbers printed down the center of the backing paper. 120 had the numbers printed down the side. This seems a bit odd because the two formats were not supposed to be compatible, so why keep the numbers out of each other's way? In any event it was fortunate, because when there was a demand to use 120 film for 6x6 images, the center portion of the backing paper was vacant, just waiting for the 6x6 frame numbers to be added in. Although this took some time to happen. I do not know if the Rollei was the first to shoot 6x6 images on 120. I do know that prior to the addition of of the 6x6 frame numbers, cameras that did shoot 6x6 on 120 had to devise work arounds. A common solution (and one which persisted on some Japanese made cameras into the late 1940s) was to have three red windows, through which the frame numbers for 6x9 had to be wound in a particular order to get 12 non-overlapping 6x6 frames. It was that or create some mechanical means for automatically stopping the film in the right place when advancing.
neal3k
Well-known
Holga uses 6X6 format and that's good enough for me.
I've been shooting 35mm since the 1960s and added 120 format around 2012. Even then, rarely shot anything in 6X6 except for one of my pinholes. I shot a good bit of 120 but mostly 6X17 and 6X9. Once I started shooting Holgas about 2 years ago, I began to love square format and used my Holgas about one-third of my rolls last year,
I've been shooting 35mm since the 1960s and added 120 format around 2012. Even then, rarely shot anything in 6X6 except for one of my pinholes. I shot a good bit of 120 but mostly 6X17 and 6X9. Once I started shooting Holgas about 2 years ago, I began to love square format and used my Holgas about one-third of my rolls last year,
Richard G
Mentor
Love the square too. And even more when I’ve used a film Leica on a tripod with its tripod bush at one edge of the camera and I want to switch to portrait orientation. So many adjustmemts to make, swiveling the collar cut-out, rotating the pan function, if it hasn’t locked up on my little Gitzo, necessary to clear the main ball head adjustment knob, checking the camera is properly upright and level, raising the column or lengthening the legs, deciding on viewfinder high or low, invariably bending over further and squinting into it. Lucky I never have a larger tripod with me to think of switching to.
A British landscape photographer I looked at on YouTube for a bit (Thomas Heaton…?) used a Hasselblad briefly. He reckoned the square format made fine use of negative space.
A British landscape photographer I looked at on YouTube for a bit (Thomas Heaton…?) used a Hasselblad briefly. He reckoned the square format made fine use of negative space.
x-ray
Mentor
I’m wondering if there was an economic reason. I say that because around 1970 Kodak introduced the 24 exposure roll of 35mm to replace the 20 exposure roll. I was in college and working as a photojournalist at the time and had an opportunity to ask our Kodak rep. He said it was purely economic. Kodak upped the price proportionately and photofinishing labs would print 4 more prints. It increased their revenue by 20% which was substantial. In addition labs had to purchase more slide mounts which Kodak supplied.
I’m curious as to whether something like this may have driven 12 exposures vs 6x9. More prints per roll.
I’m curious as to whether something like this may have driven 12 exposures vs 6x9. More prints per roll.
Deardorff38
Mentor
Well, i'd suspect it was more to do with camera engineering design....afterall the Rolleiflex was invented in 1929......
Muggins
Junk magnet
.... though at least one of the wacky folding TLRs that Welta made in the few years following the dawn of the Rollei was a rectangular format with a rotating back.
KeithH
Member
I'm of the 'Don't know why, don't care why' school. With its large square negative it gives me the freedom to crop the image to the format I want (and that's very rarely what convention say I should use) and still retain image quality, which is also one of the reasons I also shoot 5x4in film.