5 ms·

> The 24x36mm image size, which by the 1950s was becoming accepted as a standard, was also widely known as a rather awkward rectangle. It suited landscape photo

> The 24x36mm image size, which by the 1950s was becoming accepted as a standard, was also widely known as a rather awkward rectangle. It suited landscape photos, but little else—it looked too tall in verticals, and made composition difficult, especially for photographers used to the square shape common in 120 cameras. I don't quite understand this part. If 35mm film was "standard" but photographers had a strong preference for square images, why wasn't there a proliferation of cameras that could shoot 24x24mm images on the same type of film?

gchpaco 8y ago
Too small, slide mounts were already standardized on 24x36, and the square was never all that popular among the general photographer. The reason why the square shape in 120 was originally developed was a technical hack. Since it outputs a square, there was never any need to hold a Hasselblad vertically; just take the photo and crop it to suit. The only square consumer oriented cameras I can think of are twin-lens reflex cameras like the Rolleiflex, which are delightful but somewhat uncommon. A number of folks started trying to make use of the square format as a square format, but it was not originally, I think, intended for that purpose. Re: too small; an 8x10, one of the smaller standard print formats for portraits, is about an 8x enlargement from a 35mm frame. With modern materials and good technique, 8x-11x is feasible, but starting to push it at the edges; I have printed 13x17s off 35mm but I would not want to push it much larger. 35mm does 4x6s, 5x7s and 8x10s perfectly reasonably, which is what it spent most of its time doing for common consumer work. It's worth noting that one of the other common consumer cameras of the 1940s was the Brownie, which output 6cmx9cm images and was routinely contact printed, producing something smaller even than a 4x6. 120 produces images that are between 1.8x (in the 645 format) or 2.5x (in most others) as large, physically, meaning that the common enlargements are only 4x-5x. If you push it, with quality equipment, you start getting into print sizes that are super clumsy to handle like 20x24. I've never printed, personally, anything larger than a 16x20. If you do your own wet processing they're also nicer to work with—35mm negatives are real small and kinda fiddly. 4x5 sheets are also delightful to work with, of course, but they require fighting the camera in the field.
- w0mbat 8y ago
  > The only square consumer oriented cameras > I can think of are twin-lens reflex cameras > like the Rolleiflex, which are delightful > but somewhat uncommon. The Kodak Brownie, a cheap consumer camera that sold in the millions, was a 120 camera that shot square pictures, same format as a Hasselblad or a Rolleiflex. The original Box Brownie came out in 1900 and was the most popular camera in the world for years going through various models up to the 1960s. That's how long the 120 square format was a popular consumer format.
  - gchpaco 8y ago
    The #2 Brownie came out in 1901 and shot 6cm x 9cm, and all of the surviving Brownies I've seen shot rectangular formats. There was the Brownie 127 which shot square, but I only learned of its existence just now; have never seen one in the wild, probably because finding 127 film is functionally impossible.
    - Finnucane 8y ago
      once a year Ilford produces a limited run of 127 bulk rolls (and other odd sizes). I’ve got a 127 Spartus I wanted to get some for, but figured i’d Never use the whole spool.
- rplst8 8y ago
  > With modern materials and good technique, 8x-11x is feasible, but starting to push it at the edges; I have printed 13x17s off 35mm but I would not want to push it much larger. Many pros push 35mm to billboard sizes. The size of the print doesn't matter. It's the viewing distance.
  - HankB99 8y ago
    Not a pro here, but the greater the distance, the better my pictures look. ;) Back to the subject at hand, it is a little surprising to me that a format closer to square didn't catch on at some point. I suppose that the image quality of the image deteriorates more toward the edge of a circle around the center point. The format that gets the most out of a circle of acceptable quality is a square. As the shape becomes more oblong, more of that 'acceptable quality area' falls outside the image. Perhaps this is one reason that larger formats are closer to square than 35mm.
Finnucane 8y ago
>why wasn't there a proliferation of cameras that could shoot 24x24mm images on the same type of film? There was. The 126 cartridge film was the same stock as 35mm, and square format. Since it was a cartridge and needed no sprockets, the image area 26mm x 26mm.
tjr 8y ago
I like square photos. But I've also taken so many pictures on both film and full-frame digital cameras that 24x36 looks normal to me. Other aspect ratios (besides square) strike me as odd!

gchpaco 8y ago

Too small, slide mounts were already standardized on 24x36, and the square was never all that popular among the general photographer. The reason why the square shape in 120 was originally developed was a technical hack. Since it outputs a square, there was never any need to hold a Hasselblad vertically; just take the photo and crop it to suit. The only square consumer oriented cameras I can think of are twin-lens reflex cameras like the Rolleiflex, which are delightful but somewhat uncommon. A number of folks started trying to make use of the square format as a square format, but it was not originally, I think, intended for that purpose. Re: too small; an 8x10, one of the smaller standard print formats for portraits, is about an 8x enlargement from a 35mm frame. With modern materials and good technique, 8x-11x is feasible, but starting to push it at the edges; I have printed 13x17s off 35mm but I would not want to push it much larger. 35mm does 4x6s, 5x7s and 8x10s perfectly reasonably, which is what it spent most of its time doing for common consumer work. It's worth noting that one of the other common consumer cameras of the 1940s was the Brownie, which output 6cmx9cm images and was routinely contact printed, producing something smaller even than a 4x6. 120 produces images that are between 1.8x (in the 645 format) or 2.5x (in most others) as large, physically, meaning that the common enlargements are only 4x-5x. If you push it, with quality equipment, you start getting into print sizes that are super clumsy to handle like 20x24. I've never printed, personally, anything larger than a 16x20. If you do your own wet processing they're also nicer to work with—35mm negatives are real small and kinda fiddly. 4x5 sheets are also delightful to work with, of course, but they require fighting the camera in the field.

w0mbat 8y ago
> The only square consumer oriented cameras > I can think of are twin-lens reflex cameras > like the Rolleiflex, which are delightful > but somewhat uncommon. The Kodak Brownie, a cheap consumer camera that sold in the millions, was a 120 camera that shot square pictures, same format as a Hasselblad or a Rolleiflex. The original Box Brownie came out in 1900 and was the most popular camera in the world for years going through various models up to the 1960s. That's how long the 120 square format was a popular consumer format.
- gchpaco 8y ago
  The #2 Brownie came out in 1901 and shot 6cm x 9cm, and all of the surviving Brownies I've seen shot rectangular formats. There was the Brownie 127 which shot square, but I only learned of its existence just now; have never seen one in the wild, probably because finding 127 film is functionally impossible.
  - Finnucane 8y ago
    once a year Ilford produces a limited run of 127 bulk rolls (and other odd sizes). I’ve got a 127 Spartus I wanted to get some for, but figured i’d Never use the whole spool.
rplst8 8y ago
> With modern materials and good technique, 8x-11x is feasible, but starting to push it at the edges; I have printed 13x17s off 35mm but I would not want to push it much larger. Many pros push 35mm to billboard sizes. The size of the print doesn't matter. It's the viewing distance.
- HankB99 8y ago
  Not a pro here, but the greater the distance, the better my pictures look. ;) Back to the subject at hand, it is a little surprising to me that a format closer to square didn't catch on at some point. I suppose that the image quality of the image deteriorates more toward the edge of a circle around the center point. The format that gets the most out of a circle of acceptable quality is a square. As the shape becomes more oblong, more of that 'acceptable quality area' falls outside the image. Perhaps this is one reason that larger formats are closer to square than 35mm.

Finnucane 8y ago

>why wasn't there a proliferation of cameras that could shoot 24x24mm images on the same type of film? There was. The 126 cartridge film was the same stock as 35mm, and square format. Since it was a cartridge and needed no sprockets, the image area 26mm x 26mm.

tjr 8y ago

I like square photos. But I've also taken so many pictures on both film and full-frame digital cameras that 24x36 looks normal to me. Other aspect ratios (besides square) strike me as odd!