Cropping 6x6

V

Vobluda

Well-known
Local time
1:25 AM
Joined
Feb 2, 2009
Messages
824
My friends are cropping 6x6 images to 3:2 or even 16:9.
To me this is sacrilage as the essence of 6x6 is the square. Othervise it doesnt make sence to me.
What is your thought?
 
The 645 cameras are much easier to use than a Hassy or Rollei, so if you are after cropping, you better look at some of these. I usually take a 6x6 camera in hand only if I want to shoot square.
 
Personally, I really like square composition and I like to take advantage of the entire film area. Nevertheless, I think the idea of the square was also that you could crop a vertical or horizontal rectangle without changing the position of the camera. In concept at least, you could crop both a vertical and a horizontal out of the same square.

The downside is that you use more film, but it allows you greater convenience and flexibility, as you have more cropping options at the time of the final print and you have the advantage of groundglass composition. I find composition on a groundglass, which I can view with both eyes at the same time, as a very different experience from using an eye-level finder.

- Murray
 
If that's what they want to do, why not let them? I prefer to shoot formats that adhere to the ratio I want to print at and not crop (which is why I shoot mostly 6x7, 4x5, and 8x10, for the standard 4:5 ratio) but totally understand why others would do it differently. Different strokes, etc.
 
It sounds like part of their story is missing.
Are they cropping EVERY picture to 3:2 or 16:9, or just ocassionally, to help a composition?
If they are stuck in front of gorgeous horizontal or vertical scene and have only a 6X6 with them, what do think they should do. Walk away?
Do they have just that one 6X6 camera, so they really cannot pick another camera to go out shooting?

Ultimately, though, so what? They crop pictures. Why is that bad?
 
I shoot the square to print as a square...I crop very tight in the view finder and normally print with very little to no cropping...
If the image allows for different cropping...then go for it...your image, your vision...
 
A thought I have had, though I have never followed through with it for lack of a darkroom (analog or digital), is to shoot the primary image in the square, printing the entire negative. This image is then framed and displayed as the central/primary image. Around it would be displayed smaller images cropped out of the main image.

- Murray
 
I like the square viewfinder, but I usually make the print a little bit rectangular, often 1.1:1, rarely over 1.2:1
 
Vobluda said:
My friends are cropping 6x6 images to 3:2 or even 16:9.
To me this is sacrilage as the essence of 6x6 is the square. Othervise it doesnt make sence to me.
What is your thought?
Click to expand...

When I shoot 6x6 I usually think in terms of 1:1 composition. However, in some situations what I see in front of me will call for a different aspect ratio. I don't think it's sacrilege to shoot and crop to a different aspect ratio if I think that will result in a stronger composition. The 6x6 neg gives one flexibility to select different crop aspect ratios from the image circle.

Perhaps if they are cropping all their negs, they might be happier with a 6x4.5 or 6x9 camera.
 
One doesn't want to give overhasty advice about friends, but consider cutting off their feet. Or their heads. Or an arm and a leg (from the same side, of course.)

;-)
 
I agree with Lynnb--generally when I shoot 6x6 I compose in a square. Occasionally, I find that a subject will not work in a square and I crop.

If someone has a need for a 16:9 photo then why is it not OK? Yes, maybe another format would better serve the person, but they may like the flexibility of having the whole square to crop from. It can be considered an advantage in post production.
 
I actually look at cropping as a good thing..in terms of versatility of the square format.. If I am out w/ my Voitlander perkeo, but the composition calls for 645 --> why force it to square?

The nice thing about cropping to 645 from square is u don't have to turn the camera to get vertical or horizontal orientation like a mamiya 645 or the opposite w/ a Fuji 645.

Gary
 
Vobluda said:
My friends are cropping 6x6 images to 3:2 or even 16:9.
To me this is sacrilage as the essence of 6x6 is the square. Othervise it doesnt make sence to me.
What is your thought?
Click to expand...

I would crop mine if I didn't get it right in cam. Such as

'Wino drinking beer for breakfast'

http://danielteolijr.tumblr.com/image/41195859023

But I prefer shooting FF 6 x 6 if possible. With the SWC using an external finder, sometimes comp would not be perfect. But close to 6 x 6 FF if fine for me.

http://www.artslant.com/lon/works/show/691521-crazy

I wish they come out with an affordable 6 x 6 FF back for the Hassy. Something like 6 mp would be great for $2500. Makes no sense to shoot the SWC with a cropped back.
 
If people like to crop square negs into rectangular prints, let 'em; it's their neg.

That having been said, cropping seems counterproductive to me. It always has. Cropping defeats the purpose of having a large negative or sensor.

Buy a camera that makes big negs and chop them down when printing - seems kind of like an exercise in futility...
 
The only sacrilege in photography is trashing a good camera or lens. Anything else goes. Your friends are fine.

PF
 
I have always found it funny to hear that people shoot or crop the image dictated by the format of the available paper ("to most efficiently fill the paper"), and not the other way around :D

I can see van Gogh in front of me mumbling:
OK, i have this 10x30 white edge on the right, what else should i put on this landscape...? Maybe another small windmill...
yea i know it's different :D
 
CMur12 said:
A thought I have had, though I have never followed through with it for lack of a darkroom (analog or digital), is to shoot the primary image in the square, printing the entire negative. This image is then framed and displayed as the central/primary image. Around it would be displayed smaller images cropped out of the main image.

- Murray
Click to expand...

that's an idea i followed up once on some shot from Greece. But not in the darkroom, just digitally. It ended up a bit cheesy looking, but that's definitely improved by (darkroom) printing the images.

I also did the opposite, composed a large image of tiny cropped parts of several images, i called it "the greeks".
 
In a book I have from the heyday of the TLR it is suggested the square format is popular because it lends itself to cropping.
 
I'm pretty sure every photographic lens projects an image circle which means any rectangular format negative is already a cropped image. So, if one wants or needs to crop some more, fine.
Rob
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom