Compositionally, why do you use square format?

[Gerald C Koch]

I would guess the square-ish ones are mostly portraits.

Even among portraits this format is scarce. To me it looks very static. Sort of like a squat toad just sitting there.

 

[Roger Thoms]

I think Frame Destination has pre-cut square mats. For frames I do square sometimes, but often I frame in a "standard" dimension rectangular frame. Rectangular frames mix better with other formats too.

Frame Destinations can custom cut frames and mats to your requirements. Very high quality and they are an advertiser here on Apug. Just bought 4 frames with mats and glazing for a square image of my parents. The image was shot with my Rolleiflex and square worked particular well for a portrait of two people.

Roger

 

[Moopheus]

Don't, hate it as aesthetically displeasing. I much prefer the Golden Rectangle.

Then you crop all your photos to fit that? No normal negative or paper formats are made to the golden ratio.

 

[Hatchetman]

I will check out Frame Destinations, but most of my frames cost like $5.99 at Target.

 

[destroya]

i bought a 6x6 camera to shoot slides as i have a 6x6 projector and hated cutting 6x7's down to fit the slide mounts. at first it was hard to use as i was used to a more rectangular shape. but have come used to using it and really like the fact that i dont need to rotate the camera.

I find it odd though, that when viewing slides, square seems natural and a rectangle seems off for some reason. but a print, square seems a little off and a rectangle seems more natural. I guess we are all creatures of habit and like what we are used to seeing. I prefer print a 6x7 neg as it just seems to be the perfect format. not square but close and not 35mm which can be to long

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Like Maris, I pretty much follow the format, and a lot of the stuff I shoot seems to work well in the square. Maybe because I have been doing more of the square lately, I'm actually finding the 3:2 aspect ratio almost too extreme some of the time, especially in a vertical. I would probably like a 6x7 if I found one to suit me (that I could afford!)

affordable 6x7: Mamiya RB67.

 

[ME Super]

Square prints are cool. Square slides fill the screen better than rectangular ones. Nearly all of the pictures my parents have of me and my sister during our childhood were shot on Kodachrome 64 in a Kodak Instamatic, and were therefore square pictures.

It's hip to be square!

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

As to shooting square, well... I got my start with a (VERY used) Hasselblad, so I learned to photograph using a square format camera. Now, I shoot with a Rolleiflex. From a shooting perspective, the square meaning you don't have to rotate to change composition is very helpful in shooting - there's less to fuss with when taking photos, so it lets you think and shoot faster, getting a higher percentage of keepers. Also, a square has a very different visual and emotional resonance to a rectangle. I find that I like that feel. And some of the most striking portraits ever created have been in the square format, going back to the Renaissance:

Ginevra di Benci, by Leonardo DaVinci.

 

[bvy]

Squat toad di Leonardo.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

I like it but finding frames is a big PITA so I don't print that size very often. In fact all my square prints sit in a drawer.

As others have mentioned, framing square in a rectangular frame works very nicely. I don't center my prints, I float them with the opening toward the top, so the mat is bottom-heavy. It's very dramatic. I also cut my own mats in 8-ply, which really bumps up the effect.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Squat toad di Leonardo.

You can complain when your photos sell for a quarter-billion a pop.

 

[Alan Gales]

Anyone like circles?

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Anyone like circles?

Somebody important did:

Doni Tondo, by Michelangelo.

 

[bvy]

You can complain when your photos sell for a quarter-billion a pop.

That was tongue in cheek. Lots of squares in my portfolio. (But I do like the squat toad simile.)

 

[Harry Stevens]

Some nice vintage Kodak round photographs here......
http://www.vintag.es/2012/02/kodak-no1-circular-snapshots.html

 

[DWThomas]

affordable 6x7: Mamiya RB67.

Ah yes, I have actually looked at them fairly recently -- carrying one around could substitute for a gym membership (which I don't do either). But I may still succumb to GAS in that direction. I actually looked longingly at that Fuji folder that just had some NOS resurface, but for two grand I think I'll just crop my 6x6 occasionally (or trim the ends from my 6x9 Ercona II).

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Ah yes, I have actually looked at them fairly recently -- carrying one around could substitute for a gym membership (which I don't do either). But I may still succumb to GAS in that direction. I actually looked longingly at that Fuji folder that just had some NOS resurface, but for two grand I think I'll just crop my 6x6 occasionally (or trim the ends from my 6x9 Ercona II).

The biggest plus to the RB is the price - you can put together a multi-lens system for under $500. The problem with them (other than the weight) is that spare parts are getting harder to come by, so your neighborhood camera repair person may not be willing to work on them. But if a body craps out on you, well, a replacement is probably cheaper than a repair anyway. If you do go down that route, I strongly recommend looking for an RB-67 ProSD- they're the newest of the RB lineup, and less likely to be worn out from heavy pro usage. Bump your budget a tad and you can get an RZ instead, which is a much newer camera and can provide some degree of automation, depending on the accessories you couple with it (metered prism, motor winder).

 

[Alan Gales]

Somebody important did:

Doni Tondo, by Michelangelo.

Here is another good one!

https://www.google.com/imgres?imgur...ca5sh0r54mT1M:&tbnh=160&tbnw=160&vet=1&w=2034

 

[norphot]

I use a square crop when it fits, i.e. when the subject happens to fill a square. If there is a lot of empty space, I crop without hesitation. I think you lose a lot of good photos if you get stuck on the shape of the film gate, 6x6 or otherwise. With moving subjects you also often don't have time to compose to the edge of the frame (especially when you don't have a zoom). Here are some examples: 6x6 full frame, 6x6 cropped to 2:1 and 645 cropped to 1:1.

Full frame 6x6:


Cropped 6x6:


645 cropped to square:

 

[Alan Gales]

The biggest plus to the RB is the price - you can put together a multi-lens system for under $500. The problem with them (other than the weight) is that spare parts are getting harder to come by, so your neighborhood camera repair person may not be willing to work on them. But if a body craps out on you, well, a replacement is probably cheaper than a repair anyway. If you do go down that route, I strongly recommend looking for an RB-67 ProSD- they're the newest of the RB lineup, and less likely to be worn out from heavy pro usage. Bump your budget a tad and you can get an RZ instead, which is a much newer camera and can provide some degree of automation, depending on the accessories you couple with it (metered prism, motor winder).

RB's with a choice of 90mm or 127mm are cheap. Add a 180mm for around $100 and a person could be set. I'd rather have an RZ with the 110mm and 180mm that I had but of course like you say, it's a little more money.

 

[Ai Print]

It's one of my favorite formats and I almost never crop it. I have cropped 4x5" into square but not 6x6 into 4x5 aspect ratio. To me it's an evolved format if that makes any sence.

I also love that when I put the Hasselblad on a tripod, it is taking care of horizontal and vertical orientation at the same time, probably changes my subconscious engagement of a scene for that reason too, especially in landscapes.

If I had to choose only one format, square would be it.

 

[cliveh]

I suggest you look at some of the compositions by Bill Brandt.

 

[bain]

I suggest you look at some of the compositions by Bill Brandt.

Oh nice! Thanks, I like his stuff.
Specifically, I like how he manages to avoid putting the subject dead center and/or using a symmetric composition.

Also thanks for all the great responses! If you have an opinion, keep it comin!

 

[bain]

I use a square crop when it fits, i.e. when the subject happens to fill a square. If there is a lot of empty space, I crop without hesitation. I think you lose a lot of good photos if you get stuck on the shape of the film gate, 6x6 or otherwise. With moving subjects you also often don't have time to compose to the edge of the frame (especially when you don't have a zoom). Here are some examples: 6x6 full frame, 6x6 cropped to 2:1 and 645 cropped to 1:1.

Full frame 6x6:


Cropped 6x6:


645 cropped to square:

Yo I really like these! finally a little off center composition!

 

[MultiFormat Shooter]

Can you explain what the formula is for such centering?

Here's a video explanation of how to optically center and image.