What aspect ratios do Pentax users like?

Phil A Martin wrote:

1. Barry Pearson wrote:

Phil A Martin wrote:

Barry Pearson wrote:

Phil A Martin wrote:

Barry Pearson wrote:

PortrayingLife wrote:

http://www.fotografiewimvanvelzen.nl/publication02.htm

Cheers... M

Oh, boy!

The photos at that link are perhaps the best evidence for the advantages of "square landscapes" I've ever seen! Combined with a great tutorial on the topic.

Thanks for that link!

Before I upgraded to a Mamiya RB, all of my landscape work was done in square format, on a succession of TLRs. It's hard to explain but I found it quite easy to get a sense of balance and stability using a square. Much easier than 3x2

I intend to take 1:1 for landscapes (and interiors?) more seriously in future.

A TLR is a good viewing tool for the purpose.
(Except where parallax is an issue, which it shouldn't be for most landscapes).

It is interesting that the K-1 introduced a visible square in the viewfinder with firmware V1.30. (I think it had been there in prototypes, but it wasn't in the first released model).

I used a Velbon tripod and as long as the camera was vertical, one turn of the geared central column was enough to remove parallax error and the Rollieflex I used also adjusted the viewing screen as the focus changed. It was great.

Ah! I hadn't realised (or I'd forgotten) that it was possible to get a Rolleiflex that did that.
(They were typically out of my league, at least when new).

One camera, Western Master light metre, half dozen filters, cable release, spirit level and film all in one army surplus gas mask bag from the army and navy stores and the tripod in a green carpenters bag. Total anonymity until I set up for snapping.

Not very different from what I used to do in my "film days"!
No fancy camera bags.

I'm currently starting to use film again.
But I won't be doing my own processing; those days are behind me.
I've seen an advert for "Black and White Silver Gelatin prints from digital files".
I'm not sure what that implies, ("longevity"?), or if it is relevant to me.

(I used a Weston Master V if I thought the "Sunny f/16 rule" wouldn't work.
Now I use a Gossen Digipro F in such circumstances).

My first TLR was a Chinese Seagull which was remarkably good for the price. Certainly better than 35mm. This was replaced by a lovely grey Rollieflex 3.5t. I remember a review that said even though it was cheaper than the 2.8, it was sharper at f8. It was certainly sharp enough for me and no prevarication about what lens to use. I'm a strong believer that limiting options increases creative potential. You know what the camera will do and you just do it well, instead of worrying about other possibilities.

Here's two images from the Rollieflex taken around 1992. Photographs just snapped on my phone.

I assume that means "photographs of the mounted prints just snapped ..."?

For interest, how large are the mounted prints?
(I've never above 50cm by 40cm mounts, because that was the limit for club work).