I've only shot with my new TLR once, but I really
enjoyed composing within a square. Here are the
fruits of my first effort:
http://www.dirtybackroad.com/photos/tlr/index.html
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the
While we are on the square format subject , I just picked up
(possibly a mistake) an argus 75 TWL for $15.00 - more out
of curiousity than anything else. IT takes 620
film...ergo..
but is 620 film still called that? I'd kinda like to try
this little antique out - anyone have any experience
You'll need a 620 take up spool. I'll search around and see if I can
find one.
Paul Stenquist
Ann Sanfedele wrote:
On 30 Dec 2001 at 16:56, Ann Sanfedele wrote:
snip
could recommend a good fine grain film for me to play with
in this format? (square 620)
Rob replied:
I have a
a
6x4.5.
Kent Gittings
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, December 28, 2001 11:00 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Square Format
Paul Stenquist asked:
Everyone think real hard. Out of yur best 100 all-time
This thought comes from Bob Monaghan:
The larger the neg the more versatility you gain.
Feel free to use your 6x6 or 6x7 camera as a virtual 6x4.5.
You can change, to a limited degree, some of the characteristics of your image by
shifting the camera to give the same effect as shift the lens on
Interesting perspective (no pun intended) on the whole format question. I guess I'm in
favor of the biggest film area that I can handle in a reasonable manner. Many years
ago, when I shot a lot of drag racing for buff mags, I used a Speed Graphic and
Honeywell Strobe, handheld. I focused with
While we are on the square format subject , I just picked up
(possibly a mistake) an argus 75 TWL for $15.00 - more out
of curiousity than anything else. IT takes 620
film...ergo..
but is 620 film still called that? I'd kinda like to try
this little antique out - anyone have any experience with
On 30 Dec 2001 at 16:56, Ann Sanfedele wrote:
While we are on the square format subject , I just picked up
(possibly a mistake) an argus 75 TWL for $15.00 - more out
of curiousity than anything else. IT takes 620
film...ergo..
but is 620 film still called that? I'd kinda like to try
this
Hi,
Never been to the Met, so I can't help you there. But you might like
to consider artists such as Vermeer, Kandinsky, Bridget Riley: these
are just three examples of people using a square frame picked at
random from books within arm's reach of where I'm sitting. Certainly
the square is less
Hi, Paul,
With the greatest of respect, that's just a silly argument. Have you never
turned your rectangular format cameras sideways, to capture tall buildings,
statues, etc.? Is that in correspondence with out natural field of vision?
You're just not used to shooting (and perhaps viewing)
It seems humans have a preference for rectangular shapes in art, as Paul
alluded to. Paintings, film, prints, media, books, magazines, movie
screens, are almost universally rectangular.
It makes one ask why?
Tom C.
Tom,
Whatever Huey Lewis says, it is NOT hip to be square. BG
Cory
Nonsense. One crops where appropriate. Effective use of the square
format, just as effective use of any other format, negates or minimizes
the need to crop.
http://www.philborges.com/tibetanportrait/portrait00.html
http://www.philborges.com/enduringspirit/esphoto00.html
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I disagree - why would you want to crop to a rectangle unless your
framing was off. I think there are those who just don't know how to
maximize the format. Square, to me, is just another way of seeing the
world. The windows in many houses are square g.
Some people, it seems, just have to use
I don't use all of the paper, but I almost never crop square. Perhaps it has
something to do with the way we see the world. Our vision is basically
rectangular or, more correctly, oval. I don't know what it is, but I rarely
find square prints pleasing to the eye.
Paul
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
I
I like the square format, but, I'll admit, using it requires more care
in framing than when using a rectangular format. However, perhaps
because it's less commonplace, a good image in a square format can
really stand out from the crowd.
Paul Stenquist wrote:
I don't use all of the paper, but
http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=0008LF
http://www.philborges.com/tibetanportrait/portrait00.html
Paul Stenquist wrote:
I don't use all of the paper, but I almost never crop square. Perhaps it has
something to do with the way we see the world. Our vision is basically
A scroll of mail from "Peter Smith" [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Thu, 5
Apr 2001 00:00:02 +0100
Read it? y
Last weekend I discussed with my eldest son (an poor student) his desire to
do some "square" format photography. He has a Pentax MG and a SFX1n. He
uses the MG mostly and was considering selling
I write:
So you would agree with me that for someone on a tight budget
then a used
Yashica would be a better bet than a Kiev?
Maybe, maybe not. A YashicaMat 124-G in Exc condition (or better) could be a
very reliable camera. A new Kiev 88 can be a bit "iffy" right out of the
box. However,
I think your son should experience the square format. There are old Yashica
6 X 6 cameras out there in different price ranges. He might realize that
medium format could be the way to go in his future photographic endeavors.
Jim A.
From: "Peter Smith" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL
Take a pair of scissor to the print!
Otherwise choose your favorite square in the darkroom or on the scanner!
At 12:00 AM 4/5/01 +0100, you wrote:
Last weekend I discussed with my eldest son (an poor student) his desire to
do some "square" format photography. He has a Pentax MG and a SFX1n.
20 matches
Mail list logo
