adan Posted July 30, 2015 Share #41 Posted July 30, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) @ exodies - all is forgiven. A minor event. @ mjh et al In the past there may have been technical "reasons" for a square format - but from at least the 1940s on, the square format has been its own justification. Uncropped and self-sufficient, it can stand on its own artistic merits. And I am not alone in that opinion: Peter Marlow: http://www.magnumphotos.com/Catalogue/Peter-Marlow/1999/US-Fleet-in-action-during-Kosovo-War-1999-NN163454.html Diane Arbus: https://scrapofnowhere.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/022_diane_arbus.jpg David Bailey: http://writtenonskin.nl/wp-content/uploads/man-ray-1968-photo-david-bailey.jpg Irving Penn: https://theselvedgeyard.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/truman-capote-irving-penn-photograph.png?w=700 Ralph Eugene Meatyard: http://www.mocp.org/media/Meatyard_RE/1980_89_2.JPG Danny Lyon (also a Leica photographer): https://fansinaflashbulb.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/05_lyon_danny_2008_2_45_cropp.jpg David Plowden: http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5087/5325745593_688c5536e9.jpg Aaron Siskind: http://www.ethertongallery.com/artists/Siskind/DiversAssembled.jpg Arthur Tress: http://clampart.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Tress_Boy-with-Hockey-Glove.jpg Mary Ellen Mark: http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Arts/Arts_/Pictures/2009/12/4/1259922606576/Mary-Ellen-Marks-best-sho-006.jpg Harvey Wang: http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-vTNY5thAHyg/TduoSqutroI/AAAAAAAAACI/Ee_xc7G5P4E/s1600/103%2BFlophouse.jpg Vivian Maier: http://onewaystreet.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c86cc53ef01675f0c7946970b-pi Since the homogenization of digital has abandoned the square as an original format not requiring cropping (except for the left-over original MF backs with Kodak 16 Mpixel sensors), it seems like a nice niche for Leica to exercise its expertise in filling niches. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted July 30, 2015 Posted July 30, 2015 Hi adan, Take a look here new Leica Camera idea: Square Format RF camera. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
gyoung Posted July 30, 2015 Share #42 Posted July 30, 2015 With digital even the upright, or 'portrait' format has problems, alright if you're printing but who makes square monitors or TVs? So you view your vericals at a much lower magnification than 'landscape' shots. And even square screens are not so easy to find for projection. Gerry Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
almoore Posted July 30, 2015 Share #43 Posted July 30, 2015 With digital even the upright, or 'portrait' format has problems, alright if you're printing but who makes square monitors or TVs? So you view your vericals at a much lower magnification than 'landscape' shots. The monitor that I use - Eizo CG277 - can very easily be used in vertical mode with no loss of magnification. It's not the only monitor offering that option. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gyoung Posted July 30, 2015 Share #44 Posted July 30, 2015 The monitor that I use - Eizo CG277 - can very easily be used in vertical mode with no loss of magnification. It's not the only monitor offering that option. How does that work with software like Lightroom etc which assumes you are usin a wide screen monitor. And ok for viewing one pic but if its just one of a sequence? Gerry Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter H Posted July 30, 2015 Share #45 Posted July 30, 2015 How does that work with software like Lightroom etc which assumes you are usin a wide screen monitor. And ok for viewing one pic but if its just one of a sequence? Gerry I suppose you could use LR by having your portrait-format photo rotated 90o so it appears sideways, then turn the screen 90 so that it appears full size. The LR controls would be sideways, but usable. There's probably a better way though... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pop Posted July 30, 2015 Share #46 Posted July 30, 2015 Usually, the software takes into account the orientation of the screen. Hence, rotating the photograph will not be necessary. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter H Posted July 30, 2015 Share #47 Posted July 30, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) I recently did a book for an artist friend of mine, something like 48 pages of photos of her paintings. When I pointed out that all but two or three were square, she said she hadn't ever though about it. Square felt and came so naturally to her that it wasn't even a conscious decision. The more I worked on the book, the more I enjoyed it and it rekindled my appreciation for composing in a square. There's something very imaginatively stimulating about it. As Andy points out above, there's a lot going for the square format, and I love the idea of a square-format digital Leica Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkP Posted July 30, 2015 Share #48 Posted July 30, 2015 Theres always the Mamiya 6 for film users - rangefinder camera, great lenses. I noticed that photo of Peter Marlow with one in the link above. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
almoore Posted July 31, 2015 Share #49 Posted July 31, 2015 How does that work with software like Lightroom etc which assumes you are usin a wide screen monitor. As Philipp suggests, there's no clash with either Lightroom or Photoshop. You simply go in to the Eizo menu, select 'Orientation', then 'Portrait' and pivot the monitor on its stand ninety degrees clockwise. If there was an issue I think it would be graphics card related, but most current setups should handle the orientation shift automatically. I'll add my voice to the chorus praising the square format. Two photographers with very different styles who've used the Rolleiflex with huge success in recent years are Rinko Kawauchi and Steve Pyke: http://aperture.org/shop/books/illuminance-rinko-kawauchi http://www.pyke-eye.com/I-Could-Read-The-Sky/1/caption Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 31, 2015 Share #50 Posted July 31, 2015 Nobody mentioned Michael Kenna yet ? In his days Fritz Henle (Mister Rolleiflex) was famous. His books are still a pleasure. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
duckrider Posted July 31, 2015 Share #51 Posted July 31, 2015 For those, who think it's hip to be square, I suggest a ROBOT Royal 24*24, a camera which was competitor to Leica at it's time. To the others I'd suggest a cardbord box or tube, at the back side thin pergament kitchen paper and holding the M lens by hand at the open side. Here You see immediately the covered image circle of each lens. Focus must be infinte, image circle ingreases at near focus of course. Unfortunately I don't have time to do on my own, but would apreciate, if somebody would post some pictures & results. Thomas Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted July 31, 2015 Share #52 Posted July 31, 2015 @ PeterH - your math agrees. But it is better (or worse) than that. To get a square image from a 24 x 36 sensor, it must be cropped to 24 x 24mm, or 576 square mm area Sorry, Andy, I have to take issue with this. If we accept Phillip's comment that the diagonal on the standard 36x24 film size is 43mm, this is also the usable diameter of the image circle. If we visit Pythagorus, that results in an image square of 30.4 x 30.4 (or about half the size of the Hasselblad 500 series image), with an area of 924 sqmm - not a bad area, compared to the 24x36 area of 864sqmm. Someone smarter than me can work out what that means in pickles. I love this idea. I agree that the technical reasons for having a square format (whatever they really were) may have gone (also not forgetting that the Hasselblad 500C was released in 1957), the same can be said for the Barnack format of 24x36 (being the readily available roll film of the time). On its own merits, I love the square format. It does mean a larger camera, but that's about it. Imagine if this camera had an articulated LCD! It would be a smaller, digital equivalent of a 500C with a waist level viewfinder! I wonder if Hasselblad would have made one if Walter Hasselblad had still been alive - certainly, I don't see Leica making one, but what a great idea! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
duckrider Posted July 31, 2015 Share #53 Posted July 31, 2015 Sorry, Andy, I have to take issue with this. If we accept Phillip's comment that the diagonal on the standard 36x24 film size is 43mm, this is also the usable diameter of the image circle. If we visit Pythagorus, that results in an image square of 30.4 x 30.4 (or about half the size of the Hasselblad 500 series image), with an area of 924 sqmm - not a bad area, compared to the 24x36 area of 864sqmm. Someone smarter than me can work out what that means in pickles. I love this idea. I agree that the technical reasons for having a square format (whatever they really were) may have gone (also not forgetting that the Hasselblad 500C was released in 1957), the same can be said for the Barnack format of 24x36 (being the readily available roll film of the time). On its own merits, I love the square format. It does mean a larger camera, but that's about it. Imagine if this camera had an articulated LCD! It would be a smaller, digital equivalent of a 500C with a waist level viewfinder! I wonder if Hasselblad would have made one if Walter Hasselblad had still been alive - certainly, I don't see Leica making one, but what a great idea! Victor, VICTOR ! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_Hasselblad Walter was Mr. Shirra, only a outerspace Hassi user: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wally_Schirra http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2834812/Sold-Unique-Hasselblad-camera-used-capture-recognisable-images-Earth-fetches-275-000-auction.html Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted July 31, 2015 Share #54 Posted July 31, 2015 Sorry - of course, Victor! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pop Posted July 31, 2015 Share #55 Posted July 31, 2015 If we accept Phillip's comment that the diagonal on the standard 36x24 film size is 43mm, this is also the usable diameter of the image circle. In theory. They could have built into the lenses some baffles or other obstructions which could reduce the full circle of the projection. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted July 31, 2015 Share #56 Posted July 31, 2015 Sorry, Andy, I have to take issue with this. If we accept Phillip's comment that the diagonal on the standard 36x24 film size is 43mm, this is also the usable diameter of the image circle. If we visit Pythagorus, that results in an image square of 30.4 x 30.4 (or about half the size of the Hasselblad 500 series image), with an area of 924 sqmm - not a bad area, compared to the 24x36 area of 864sqmm. John - walk me through this. Begin with a 24 x 36 image (e.g. out of an M9 or M240 - read carefully my original post) - crop THAT image in any way you want to get a square - how do you end up (starting from a 24 x 36 original) getting anything larger than 24 x 24? You can can indeed get a 30 x 30mm image from a LENS designed for 24 x 36 (we've covered that) - but not from a 24 x 36 sensor (well, absent resizing in Photoshop/Lightroom). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted July 31, 2015 Share #57 Posted July 31, 2015 Never let a good piece of speculation go without undermining it, eh Phillip? Okay, I took your figure at face value. Let's accept a 24x36 image size - that gives us a diagonal of 43.27mm, which makes your 43 look pretty conservative. Before the usual subjects raise all sorts of technical reasons why this can't be built, and accept that it won't. Still a nice idea, though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted July 31, 2015 Share #58 Posted July 31, 2015 If we accept Phillip's comment that the diagonal on the standard 36x24 film size is 43mm, this is also the usable diameter of the image circle. If we visit Pythagorus, that results in an image square of 30.4 x 30.4 Sorry, but no. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted July 31, 2015 Share #59 Posted July 31, 2015 John - walk me through this. Begin with a 24 x 36 image (e.g. out of an M9 or M240 - read carefully my original post) - crop THAT image in any way you want to get a square - how do you end up (starting from a 24 x 36 original) getting anything larger than 24 x 24? You can can indeed get a 30 x 30mm image from a LENS designed for 24 x 36 (we've covered that) - but not from a 24 x 36 sensor (well, absent resizing in Photoshop/Lightroom). I don't think anyone was talking about using the same sensor, Andy. What would be the point. I missed that you were - sorry. Why crop the 6mm off each side of the sensor? The point is to make use of the rest of the round image from the lens ... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted July 31, 2015 Share #60 Posted July 31, 2015 Sorry, but no.Why? 24 squared + 36 squared = 1,872 The square root of that is 43.27 If we half 1,872, we get 936 The square root of that is 30.59 My earlier figure was rounded down to allow for a margin (as Phillip was suggesting) - Picothagorus? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.