Irrational format hatred?

[Karlovak]

My most favored formats are 6x7 or 4x5 and 35mm or 6x9.
And while I enjoy some 6x6 photography, I myself wouldn't shoot with it anymore.

The micro four thirds system in for instance the Olympus PEN series, which I once shot with at an event, was a ratio I just couldn't identify with.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Depends on the use, too. 5x4 inch is nastily squat for many applications (but of course can be cropped) while 8x10 is lovely for portraits. Then again, 5x7 can be used for almost anything.

Cheers,

R.

 

[B-9]

Re: 6x8

There was a motorized 6x8 film back made for the Mamiya RB67

 

[Bisakok]

Stange how lots of people don't like 6x7. 6x7 is 56mm x ~70mm on most cameras, ie. 1.25:1 (and not 1.16:1 as stated in the poll). Give or take 1-2mm in width depending on system it's the same dimensions as 5x4, 8x10, 11x14 (close), 16x20, 20x24....
(And 6x17 is 56mm x 168mm: 3:1).

 

[Moto-Uno]

Soooo , I've read all the posts , and the consensus appears that the most unloved format is 6x7 . Does anybody actually use an enlarger ? What you see in the 6x7 viewfinder can be printed in it's entirety as you saw it , on the most widely available paper . Peter

 

[Prest_400]

Aspect ratio discussions are amusing.

It is ironic how the "perfect format" is rather unloved. And 2:3 gets different perceptions in 35mm and 6x9 (MF).

I shoot 2:3 by the way of 35mm and 6x9. 1:1 rarely through a Polaroid SX70 and 4:3 with the cellphone and m43 cameras.

An observation, actual 6x7 isn't the same ratio as 4x5 and 8x10?

4:3 is quite bearable to me and unknowingly use it quite a lot. m43 and my phones shoot at this ratio natively. I don't carry negative perceptions from the academic format and TV as I grew as they were phasing out.

1:1 is rather challenging compositionally as a native format in my scant use of it.

2:3 is a bit neither here or there. Frankly, I'd either wish it'd be slightly squarer (Portraits) or longer (Landscape). And it requires cropping for a standard paper size. Although 20x30cm is easily available, not as "classic", finding the traditional 8x10" size quite balanced.

Cropping my cellphone shots I like to play with during commuting get corpped to any suitable to composition aspect ratio. Leaning towards 4:5 rather often, despite never having used a camera on this aspect ratio.

But native shooting on an aspect ratio isn't the same as cropping it.

 

[Jack Conrad]

Haters, please dispense with 6x7 formatiphobia before it becomes a viral internet meme.

All formats are equal. :angel:

 

[Evan Bedford]

I stay away from 6x8 6x9 and pano's, since they won't fit in a Gepe holder. Plus, I'd prefer more shots per roll. I even converted a Plaubel Proshift to 6x7 for those reasons.

 

[FujiLove]

Soooo , I've read all the posts , and the consensus appears that the most unloved format is 6x7 . Does anybody actually use an enlarger ? What you see in the 6x7 viewfinder can be printed in it's entirety as you saw it , on the most widely available paper . Peter

Exactly. 6x7 format is actually 4x5 on the negative, so it works beautifully when you wet print.

6x6 is better if you are shooting and projecting slides. 6x7 projectors and mounts are really hard to find and expensive.

 

[Fotobot]

I like them all.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Exactly. 6x7 format is actually 4x5 on the negative, so it works beautifully when you wet print. . .. .

Not at the only decent 6x7 format, namely, Linhof 56x72, which at 3x is whole plate.

Cheers,

R.

 

[thawkins]

It is what you are used to. I like the square 6X6 format and have no problems with the 6X7 and 6X9. My only issue with them is the film is too short and requires too frequent changing.

 

[Dante_Stella]

Stange how lots of people don't like 6x7. 6x7 is 56mm x ~70mm on most cameras, ie. 1.25:1 (and not 1.16:1 as stated in the poll). Give or take 1-2mm in width depending on system it's the same dimensions as 5x4, 8x10, 11x14 (close), 16x20, 20x24....
(And 6x17 is 56mm x 168mm: 3:1).

As stated in the poll, just nominal dimensions, since medium format sizes are usually narrower and shorter than advertised. Plus they are all over the place. My Horseman-based 6x12 backs are 56x113 (2:1); a Linhof is 55x120, which is more like 2.2:1.

Dante

 

[Doug]

Looks like Bisakok beat me to this revelation...

I think one could reasonably suggest that 8x10 = 4x5 is the most “classic” proportion, a standard in photography. And in this poll, so far, it shares a very modest 13% disfavor with four other formats. By contrast, the most disliked is 6x7 with 42% thinking it’s the pits! This is very curious, since 6x7 has the same 1.25:1 proportions as 4x5.

The poll listing shows 6x7 as 1.16:1 (70/60=1.16) while the actual framesize is 56mm x 70mm + /- a couple mm variation among different camera brands. And 70mm / 56mm = 1.25:1, same as 4x5 and 8x10.

Because of the way 56 x 70 is commonly rounded to 6x7 in our terminology, it deceptively seems more nearly square than it really is. We could call it 5.6x7 but that’s awkward. Perception and deception!

 

[znapper]

Hmm.....

I shoot film, there is no hate. ^^

I found all the cool, to my taste, cameras were 6x6, 6x7 and 6x9, so I shoot those, and 35mm.

 

[FujiLove]

It is what you are used to. I like the square 6X6 format and have no problems with the 6X7 and 6X9. My only issue with them is the film is too short and requires too frequent changing.

I dislike 35mm for the opposite reason: it takes me forever to finish a roll. Ten or twelve photos I can shoot and process before I completely forget what I've taken.

 

[Moto-Uno]

^ +1 , Peter

 

[FujiLove]

Not at the only decent 6x7 format, namely, Linhof 56x72, which at 3x is whole plate.

Cheers,

R.

By my calculation you would lose roughly a quarter inch of the photo on one side of a sheet of 8x10 paper with that Linhof negative size. That's still much better than all the other formats, apart from sheet film, isn't it?

 

[Oren Grad]

Of these, the 4:5 proportion of 6x7cm/4x5/8x10 feels the most awkward to me in use, though I'm far from "loathing" it. If I had my druthers, the sheet film formats that survived in mainstream use would have been 3.25x4.25, 6.5x8.5 and 7x11 instead of 4x5, 5x7 and 8x10. But really, any format can be used to make satisfying pictures. If I were stuck with only one I'd happily use it, whatever it was.

 

[Benjamin Marks]

Please send me all your loathed 6x7 cameras and leneses. I already have three systems in this beloved format and could use more. I will find some room on the shelf for them somewhere. Y'all are spoiled and don't remember the days when a Pentax 67 was the least expensive, new, high quality, medium format camera on the market. And oh the jump in quality! 6x7 is for those who printed 11x14. You could also crop to a square either vertically or horizontally. .. Great stuff.

Ahhhh. Horses for courses. I love all formats. Seriously. I see differently with each of them. Such a cheap way to change your perception. Cheaper than formal education by a long shot!