Irrational format hatred?

Irrational format hatred?

  • 2.8:1 (6x17)

    Votes: 7 12.1%

  • 2.7:1 (X-Pan)

    Votes: 6 10.3%

  • 2:1 (6x12)

    Votes: 7 12.1%

  • 1.5:1 (DX, FX, 35mm, 6x9)

    Votes: 7 12.1%

  • 1.33:1 (Micro 4/3, 6x8, 6x4.5)

    Votes: 11 19.0%

  • 1.25:1 (4x5)

    Votes: 7 12.1%

  • 1.16:1 (6x7)

    Votes: 22 37.9%

  • Other (specify)

    Votes: 10 17.2%
  • Total voters
    58
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...
 
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.
 
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).
 
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.
 
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...
 
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..
 
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...
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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 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).
 
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.
 
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).
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom