Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/02/20
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]> Of course you do. The New Yorker, for one, is fond of publishing square > images. But most images and, if you read my comments closely, any PAGE > FILLING images, are not square. And magazine covers are certainly not > square. Without being sarcastic, if the magazine is not square (though technically, a square is a rectangle), then only a 'not square' image can fill the page...but if the magazine were square... > Most reportage is 35mm; most fashion, glamour, > advertising, product shots, etc., are medium format; almost all covers are > medium format or even large format. Cover is a different issue (no pun intended) since the covers are generally higher quality. As far as why ad etc. are done in MF is not exclusively because of magazine ads. It is for ad campaigns, which are far more than just magazines. Do you know what line screens are? > this is > the reality of the marketplace. I have been a commercial photographer for near 20 years. I know the marketplace reasonably well. I do shoot all my commercial work in MF, but that has nothing to do with my point. > Look, the > square format > came about because it was suitable for TLR design. I don't know the exact history of this, do you have a reference, or does anyone know what the first 6x6 (or square for that matter) camera was? > Magazines were not > square before that time and continue not to be square since the TLR's > decline. I don't know that that has anything to do with it...but perhaps you have more knowledge of the history of magazine sizes than I do, but I believe magazines are not square because of the history of printing and paper sizes, not because of the TLR. > But, I wasn't talking about > aesthetics, was I? I was talking about the reality of magazine publishing > and commercial photography. That wasn't the topic of discussion, as I recall...but if that is what you were talking about, well, I still disagree. I'd be willing to bet that more commercial photography is done with Hasselblads than any other single camera. > Please don't confuse that with your own > picture-taking. George, is that a snide comment? Don't confuse what with my own "picture taking"? If you think I'm just some 'happy snapper' than you are sadly mistaken.