Why 120 Square Format?

[heritagecameras]

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.)

Another option that was popular many years ago was the "Superslide". These were 40x40mm images taken on 127 transparency film, fitted into a standard 2x2" slide mount suitable for many quality 35mm projectors. At over 1.8x the area of a 35mm image, these made the best possible use of the available area covered by these projectors, and filled the screen very impressively. I remember being wowed by some of these superslides at the local camera club's competition night about 50 years ago, taken (if my memory isn't playing tricks on me) with a 4x4cm Baby Rolleiflex TLR.

Here's a more recent experiment with the format: They Still Shoot Super Slides, Don't They?

 

[raydm6]

Another option that was popular many years ago was the "Superslide". These were 40x40mm images taken on 127 transparency film, fitted into a standard 2x2" slide mount suitable for many quality 35mm projectors. At over 1.8x the area of a 35mm image, these made the best possible use of the available area covered by these projectors, and filled the screen very impressively. I remember being wowed by some of these superslides at the local camera club's competition night about 50 years ago, taken (if my memory isn't playing tricks on me) with a 4x4cm Baby Rolleiflex TLR.

Here's a more recent experiment with the format: They Still Shoot Super Slides, Don't They?

Wow! Never heard of these. Learned something new today. Thank you @heritagecameras.

 

[pixelated]

Wow! Never heard of these. Learned something new today. Thank you @heritagecameras.

Hasselblad had a back for that format on 120 film. It wasted a lot of film area, but gave you 16 frames instead of 12.

 

[KM-25]

As has been stated above, it was likely a technical consideration well before my time.

But it is by *far* my favorite way to shoot, I compose much more intuitively and freely with it so I end up taking far more "risks" in terms of bold compositions in shooting square. I even use my Nikon Z cameras and Hasselblad X2D in square crop mode a lot. As Huey Lewis says, "It's Hip to be Square".

Here are three images on a gallery announcement for a show I was part of, I shot 3 rolls of film through my Hasselblad in highly organized fashion that saw them going through the camera twice. The first time was to get the dogs, second was to get the secondary images. I kept super accurate notes and made records on my phone so I could reference each frame for the next shot. I love square format:

 

[CMur12]

Another option that was popular many years ago was the "Superslide". These were 40x40mm images taken on 127 transparency film, fitted into a standard 2x2" slide mount suitable for many quality 35mm projectors. At over 1.8x the area of a 35mm image, these made the best possible use of the available area covered by these projectors, and filled the screen very impressively. I remember being wowed by some of these superslides at the local camera club's competition night about 50 years ago, taken (if my memory isn't playing tricks on me) with a 4x4cm Baby Rolleiflex TLR.

Here's a more recent experiment with the format: They Still Shoot Super Slides, Don't They?

I remember seeing superslides for sale at tourist destinations in years past.

If we could still get quality slide film in 127 and superslide mounts, I would have a Baby Rolleiflex, or equivalent, in an instant!

- Murray

 

[skahde]

When the format originated small contacts where the norm and enlarging an expensive thing. One factor surely was the nature of the chimney finder on reflex-cameras where you cant easily take a portrait-oriented shot. Other than that I guess it was just technically efficient, easy to work with and people didn't mind the square.

 

[Mos6502]

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.

Something only just occurred to me after having to re-fix a roll of 120. Originally 117 and 120 only had six exposures per roll. The eight (6x9) length of 120 was added later on. I suspect the shorter rolls were easier to develop in trays. As it happens a modern roll of 120 is about as long a roll as possible with this method unless one has freakishly long arms. A six exposure length roll would have been much easier to work with. Tray development of roll film was apparently considered "old fashioned" as long ago as 1914... but I remember seeing instructions for doing it in 1940s and 1950s photography books.

 

[Bob Michaels]

In 1976 Hasselblad produced a booklet Square composition with Hasselblad that explains the aesthetics of the square format the best I have ever seen. It is 20 pages of very high quality printing designed to be a dealer giveaway marketing tool. It convinced me to shoot square although my pocketbook led me to a Mamiya 124G instead of a Hasselblad. Sadly, I misplaced my copy of this great booklet. Amazon.com has a copy but it is $25.