Aesthetic of different aspect ratio(s)

[Steve-CA]

Been shooting 35mm film since my dad handed me his Argus in the early '60's. Somehow got very good at available light candids of family and friends as well as the occasional "creative" shot . . . . . Recently in my old age I decided I could afford the jump into medium format and picked up a gently used 503CW 80mm 2.8 kit. In addition to the combination of my crappy eyesight and manual focus challenge(s) getting in the way - I find myself struggling a bit with the change in aspect ratio. There's something distinctly different in several rolls I've shot to date. The 6X6 feels like it wants to be more of a statement to me. It wants to move in the direction of a portrait - as opposed to a candid. It feels like it wants to be more of a planned statement - as opposed to just capturing a moment. Certainly the fully manual workflow is very different and maybe that changes things. My subjects have always responded to the presence of the camera and maybe the manual workflow emphasizes that activity (?) Need to meter, focus up and then wait for the moment. With my 35mm equipment, I could pretty much grab and shoot a moment - and from a distance. I know I'm rambling here between a couple of considerations but - I'm curious if those more experienced in the medium format realm have encountered this at all.

 

[AgX]

At printing you always can set up a new aspect ratio.

If the aspect ratio of the finder of your Hasselblad irritates you at taking, just mount a mask with a more pleasing aspect ratio over the groundglass.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I like the 6x7 format better in medium format. I thought square was for "squares". (Am I trolling?)

In any case, square eliminates the need for turning the camera on its side for portrait format, something difficult to do with a waist-level viewfinder camera. That's why Mamiya came out with the RB67. It has a revolving back so you don't have to turn the whole camera. That's what I use. Also, it shoots 6x7 which isn't "square".

 

[Alex Benjamin]

It's not only aspect ratio in this case. The Hasselblad is a wonderful instrument, but not, I found, one that makes it easy to "grab and shoot a moment," unless you've had a long experience with it. For that, I do think TLRs such as Rolleiflex, Yashica-Mat, etc., are more suited.

That said, going from 35mm aspect ratio to 6x6 does change things in one's approach to composition. Personally and generally, I do like to work with the sense that "there is a world outside the frame" when I'm working in 35mm, 6x7 or 6x9, and "the whole universe is contained within the frame" when working in 6x6, but it's not easy to do and I certainly cannot jump from 6x7 to 6x6 in the same outing. It's like going from driving manual to driving automatic and back again: reflexes are different, and you don't "feel" the car the same way.

 

[Steve-CA]

It's not only aspect ratio in this case. The Hasselblad is a wonderful instrument, but not, I found, one that makes it easy to "grab and shoot a moment," unless you've had a long experience with it. For that, I do think TLRs such as Rolleiflex, Yashica-Mat, etc., are more suited.

That said, going from 35mm aspect ratio to 6x6 does change things in one's approach to composition. Personally and generally, I do like to work with the sense that "there is a world outside the frame" when I'm working in 35mm, 6x7 or 6x9, and "the whole universe is contained within the frame" when working in 6x6, but it's not easy to do and I certainly cannot jump from 6x7 to 6x6 in the same outing. It's like going from driving manual to driving automatic and back again: reflexes are different, and you don't "feel" the car the same way.

That is a wonderful characterization, Alex -("..."the whole universe is contained within the frame"=...") I'll remember that and plagiarize it with your permission! Much more astute than my early and not fully developed sense but I believe in much the same vein.

 

[Pieter12]

The square contains all aspect ratios. Use what you want. Especially with the SWC, where the viewfinder is just a suggestion and once you're used to the camera you don't even need it for candid shots. Just use sunny 16 and zone focus and the world is yours.

 

[GregY]

"With my 35mm equipment, I could pretty much grab and shoot a moment - and from a distance. I know I'm rambling here between a couple of considerations but - I'm curious if those more experienced in the medium format realm have encountered this at all."

I don't think it is really related to aspect ratio. The closest I've come in medium format was the Mamiya 6. Even the 7 was more awkward to handle. Like any other tool, you really have to spend time with it to gain familiarity & ease. Even the huge Fuji 6x7,8,9..... are capable of grab & go photography especially the wide with the 65mm. I've done a lot of skiing & rodeo photography with them: Tri-X. f8 and hyperfocal distance and they're a giant point-and-shoot. TLR & SLR take more preparation to be there at the moment.

 

[MattKing]

I change formats and aspect ratios fairly frequently, and don't find it difficult.
That may mean that practice helps.
One thing that really helps even more though is envisioning your photographs first without the aid of any viewfinder - framing them in your mind's eye first.
And then spending more time looking without the camera, then with it.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

That is a wonderful characterization, Alex -("..."the whole universe is contained within the frame"=...") I'll remember that and plagiarize it with your permission! Much more astute than my early and not fully developed sense but I believe in much the same vein.

Stephen Shore is much more eloquent and profound than I am regarding this in The Nature of Photographs (a must read, in my opinion) :

For some pictures the frame acts passively. It is where the picture ends. The structure of the picture begins within the image and works its way out to the frame...

For some pictures the frame is active. The structure of the picture begins with the frame and works inward. While we know that the buildings, sidewalks, and sky continue beyond the edges of this urban landscape, the world of the photograph is contained within the frame. It is not a fragment of a larger world.

(Stephen Shore, El Paso Street, 1975)​

I'm not saying that 35mm or 6x7 are more conducive to "passive-acting" frames, while 6x6 to "active" ones. Just that going from one format to the other does make you think much more about how your frame are acting, or how you like your frames to act. As I said, I like the "world within itself" feeling I get from 6x6, but perhaps I'm just being influenced by the "boxed-in" illusion that the format brings. Not the mention the fact that of all the formats, it's the least cinematographic.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I use single frame 35mm, double or full frame 35mm, 6x6 and 4"X5". Over time even before started using the square format, I found that the 35mm format to been to stretched out and just a bit too long for many compositions and I was printing less than the full negative and drifting more and more toward a square format. Of course the 4"x5" format approaches a square format and can be used easily to make square or squarish prints. I purchased the Hasselblad 503 CX with a 45° PME prism eliminating the damned left-right reversal and providing TTL metering. While a bit heavier than a 35mm camera I can handle and take photographs with it as easily at a 35mm camera although my 35mm cameras have zoom lenses. I still print square or nearly square with any of my formats. That just shows that Hasselblad was right when it advertized that "Square is the perfect format."

 

[wiltw]

I find the issue of camera formats to be a bit puzzling...we print our photos, regardless of the aspect ratio of the camera, be it shot on 1.5"1 or 1.33:1 or 1.25"1 or 1.16:1 or 1:1 camera onto enlarging paper which is (in the US)

• 1.25:1, for 4x5" and 8x10" and 16x20", etc
• 1.4:1 for 5x7"
• 1.27:1 for 11x14"
• 1.2:1 for 20x24"

IOW, we have to custom trim our enlarging paper to fit our camera frame! Why the angst?

 

[Sirius Glass]

I find the issue of camera formats to be a bit puzzling...we print our photos, regardless of the aspect ratio of the camera, be it shot on 1.5"1 or 1.33:1 or 1.25"1 or 1.16:1 or 1:1 camera onto enlarging paper which is (in the US)

• 1.25:1, for 4x5" and 8x10" and 16x20", etc
• 1.4:1 for 5x7"
• 1.27:1 for 11x14"
• 1.2:1 for 20x24"

IOW, we have to custom trim our enlarging paper to fit our camera frame! Why the angst?

Just because square is more pleasing.

 

[guangong]

Stephen Shore is much more eloquent and profound than I am regarding this in The Nature of Photographs (a must read, in my opinion) :

For some pictures the frame acts passively. It is where the picture ends. The structure of the picture begins within the image and works its way out to the frame...

For some pictures the frame is active. The structure of the picture begins with the frame and works inward. While we know that the buildings, sidewalks, and sky continue beyond the edges of this urban landscape, the world of the photograph is contained within the frame. It is not a fragment of a larger world.

(Stephen Shore, El Paso Street, 1975)​

I'm not saying that 35mm or 6x7 are more conducive to "passive-acting" frames, while 6x6 to "active" ones. Just that going from one format to the other does make you think much more about how your frame are acting, or how you like your frames to act. As I said, I like the "world within itself" feeling I get from 6x6, but perhaps I'm just being influenced by the "boxed-in" illusion that the format brings. Not the mention the fact that of all the formats, it's the least cinematographic.

The concept of the frame was the great innovation of Western art. The relationships of a compositions elements with various points on the frame set up the dynamic of a picture. Some frames, such as squares or circles are very difficult to work with because they are too stable, allowing very little dynamic interplay. While sometimes tempted to try, I feel that the pictures from Widelux type cameras lack a frame, but rather are viewed much like a Chinese scroll, with eye moving along a path.
Unlike sketching or painting, a photographer cannot move a tree, mountain, or house to link with the frame, but only shift camera position. In many ways, a successful composition in photography is much more difficult than for drawing.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

The concept of the frame was the great innovation of Western art. The relationships of a compositions elements with various points on the frame set up the dynamic of a picture. Some frames, such as squares or circles are very difficult to work with because they are too stable, allowing very little dynamic interplay. While sometimes tempted to try, I feel that the pictures from Widelux type cameras lack a frame, but rather are viewed much like a Chinese scroll, with eye moving along a path.
Unlike sketching or painting, a photographer cannot move a tree, mountain, or house to link with the frame, but only shift camera position. In many ways, a successful composition in photography is much more difficult than for drawing.

I forget who the sculptor was who said when asked how he makes such beautiful work?

"I start with a huge slab of marble and just chip away everything that doesn't belong."

Just like a photographer. A painter starts with a blank canvas and adds everything that belongs, somewhat simpler.

 

[markjwyatt]

When I first got my 6x6 outfit (Mamiya C330f/220f), I tended to think of 6x6 as 6x4.5 that did not need to be rotated. Nowadays I do appreciate composing square also.

 

[Pieter12]

I find the issue of camera formats to be a bit puzzling...we print our photos, regardless of the aspect ratio of the camera, be it shot on 1.5"1 or 1.33:1 or 1.25"1 or 1.16:1 or 1:1 camera onto enlarging paper which is (in the US)

• 1.25:1, for 4x5" and 8x10" and 16x20", etc
• 1.4:1 for 5x7"
• 1.27:1 for 11x14"
• 1.2:1 for 20x24"

IOW, we have to custom trim our enlarging paper to fit our camera frame! Why the angst?

There is no rule stating you have to print to the aspect ratio of the paper. I routinely print square on 8x10 and 11x14, no trimming. Just like there is no rule (sorry St. HCB) about not cropping an image. I will routinely shoot something knowing that I intend to crop it later in printing.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

When I travel on vacation and shoot digital, I switch to 16:9 photo format to match video clips which are also 16:9. That way, when I create slide shows to show on my 16:9 4K TV, the entire screen is filled with both photo stills and short video clips. No black bars.

Interestingly, when I first set the camera to 16:9, it took less than an hour to adjust to the new format. Your brain adapts to all the "rules" you used in 3:2 or 4:3 or 4:5 formatting.

 

[guangong]

I forget who the sculptor was who said when asked how he makes such beautiful work?

"I start with a huge slab of marble and just chip away everything that doesn't belong."

Just like a photographer. A painter starts with a blank canvas and adds everything that belongs, somewhat simpler.

Usually attributed to Michelangelo. My friend and teacher,myhemlate Phil Pavia told me that sculpture is all about the placement of shadows. Can’t get much closer to photography than that.

 

[Pieter12]

Photography is unlike painting. A painter has a blank canvas to fill as he or she pleases, it is an additive process. A photographer has a subject in front of the camera to choose angles and include or crop out things, more of a subtractive process. Obviously, when making a portrait or still life both the painter and the photographer have similar aesthetic choices to make about arrangement, wardrobe and lighting.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Photography is unlike painting. A painter has a blank canvas to fill as he or she pleases, it is an additive process. A photographer has a subject in front of the camera to choose angles and include or crop out things, more of a subtractive process. Obviously, when making a portrait or still life both the painter and the photographer have similar aesthetic choices to make about arrangement, wardrobe and lighting.

A painter can rearrange or make any changes to a subjects face that the painter chooses; not so for a photographer.

 

[Pieter12]

A painter can rearrange or make any changes to a subjects face that the painter chooses; not so for a photographer.

I did say photography is unlike painting. You point?

 

[Sirius Glass]

I did say photography is unlike painting. You point?

It is called amplifying a point with more clarification.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

Photography is unlike painting. A painter has a blank canvas to fill as he or she pleases, it is an additive process. A photographer has a subject in front of the camera to choose angles and include or crop out things, more of a subtractive process. Obviously, when making a portrait or still life both the painter and the photographer have similar aesthetic choices to make about arrangement, wardrobe and lighting.

Actually, as long as it is figurative and representational, painting has a lot in common with photography. Both the film plane and the canvas are flat, which causes for the artist the same problems of organizing space especially with regards to the relationship between the near and the far. The edge of the canvas also acts the same way as the frame — in this case, there is no difference between "cropping out" and "not including in". The intent for both photographer and painter is the same: either to suggest a world beyond the frame/canvas or make it feel like all is contained within.

And, of course, both work essentially with light, and you'd find examples of both photographers and painters tell you that their actual subject is light.

I think it's no coincidence that one of the most oft quoted influence by many American photographers on the development of their photographic style is Edward Hopper.

Side, but related, note: interesting article on how Francis Bacon worked from photographs: http://www.cedricarnold.com/francis-bacon-and-photography/

 

[Don_ih]

I don't find much correlation between what my eyes see normally and what I see though a 6x6 camera. It's always a bit of a surprise, for lack of a better word, when trying to figure out how to compose something in a square. Maybe I'm too accustomed to 35mm. I can certainly see where @Steve-CA is coming from.

 

[Pieter12]

Actually, as long as it is figurative and representational, painting has a lot in common with photography. Both the film plane and the canvas are flat, which causes for the artist the same problems of organizing space especially with regards to the relationship between the near and the far. The edge of the canvas also acts the same way as the frame — in this case, there is no difference between "cropping out" and "not including in". The intent for both photographer and painter is the same: either to suggest a world beyond the frame/canvas or make it feel like all is contained within.

And, of course, both work essentially with light, and you'd find examples of both photographers and painters tell you that their actual subject is light.

I think it's no coincidence that one of the most oft quoted influence by many American photographers on the development of their photographic style is Edward Hopper.

Side, but related, note: interesting article on how Francis Bacon worked from photographs: http://www.cedricarnold.com/francis-bacon-and-photography/

Once again, the painter starts with a blanc surface the will be filled, the photographer with a scene to be edited. While cropping out and eliminating may seem the same, if the object/person is to cropped out, they need to be near the edge of the scene. The painter can choose to eliminate something right in the middle of what he or she may be looking at.