Which format do you best see/compose in?

Which format do you best see/compose in?

  • Four-Thirds

    Votes: 1 1.0%
  • Half-Frame 35mm

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • APS-C digital

    Votes: 1 1.0%
  • 35mm/Full-Frame Digital

    Votes: 41 40.2%
  • 6x4.5

    Votes: 8 7.8%
  • 6x6

    Votes: 34 33.3%
  • 6x7

    Votes: 5 4.9%
  • 6x9

    Votes: 2 2.0%
  • Medium Format Digital (list format)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Other Medium Formats

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 4x5/8x10

    Votes: 4 3.9%
  • Panoramic

    Votes: 6 5.9%

  • Total voters
    102
I just try to enjoy what I'm shooting. I try not to limit myself by only shooting a rangefinder or with an SLR or a German or Japanese camera.
 
I tried 6x6 and developed my first 6x6 tri-x "pain loading the film in the reel!"
But I love and voted for 35mm for it's beautiful size and ease of use.


Happy holiday to every one
 
4x3 ratio seems to work out the best here for urban shooting, which is the vast majority of what I do. For portraits then all of the formats have benefits, though I have always had a soft spot for square head and shoulders photographs. Its the liking of the square format that makes me desire a square medium format.
 
1:1 - Mamiya C330f
2:3 - Leica, Horseman 970
3:4 - Welta Watson, 9x12 cms (this spring)
5:7 - Aspiring to fix a 5x7" back to my Vageeswari HP camera

Currently, it's mostly the 2:3 aspect with me. But, trying to break free from that.
 
As far as viewing the groundglass is concerned, I'd say my 8x10 Sinar Norma. It's like viewing a giant TV screen.

No. It's like viewing a very small TV screen.

Even my 12x15 Gandolfi (over twice the area) isn't a giant TV screen.

Big ground glasses are a drug of addiction. At first, 4x5 looks big... then 8x10... then....

But all three are too squat (4:5 ratio). For shape, I prefer 56x72mm or whole-plate (6.5 x 8.5 inches -- the same ratio, 3x bigger) or 5x7 inch/13x18 cm. I'm wondering about having an 11x15 holder made...

Cheers,

R.
 
Back
Top Bottom