Compositionally, why do you use square format?

[Jim Blomfield]

I choose the format that best suits the subject matter and what I am trying to convey. For example, I just finished a series of photos of Greek architecture. The subject matter was constructed from basic geometric shapes and forms, including the square. I wanted to convey this geometrical aspect, so I chose a square format to complement the subject.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

I let the scene 'fit' itself to whatever format I am using, and 6x6, 6x7 are my all-time favourites; 6x4.5, 6x9 and 6x12 are least appealing or useful, while 6x17 will fit to landscapes with very strong focal points.

In my ZeroImage pinhole, I shoot 6x6 98% of the time. Not having a viewfinder adds a challenging mental dimension of gathering all the scene and fitting it 'just so'. That should not include my toes at the bottom of the frame...

 

[eddie]

I also agree with those who choose scenes based on the format they're carrying.

One thing that hasn't been mentioned, as it pertains to the square format, is the way it adds tension to an image. The eye will "read" directionality in the long dimension of an image. Horizontal images will be viewed horizontally, verticals will be viewed vertically. The absence of a directional "cue", in a square image allows each side to have equal visual weight.

 

[M. Axel Wikstrom]

Depends on my goals. Sometimes the square format meets my goals, and other times I go to the other extreme and use a 6x12 back on a view camera (horizontal and sometimes vertical).

 

[MattKing]

When I first started shooting square format, I was almost always either printing the results using an enlarger, or using a lab that supplied masks that I would submit with my negatives in order to fit my results into the standard rectangular formats.

The exception would be the few 120 Ektachrome rolls I shot earlier on.

Sometimes I choose to fill the frame. But I don't feel the need to always fill the frame.

 

[DWThomas]

I took a look at your gallery to understand what optically centered meant, as you used the term. Looks very nice! Can you explain what the formula is for such centering? I note that several of your rectangular images (Soaring Arch, Trail Junction) also appear to have been optically centered -- same formula?

Aha! Now I'm in trouble! Thanks, yes I've been using a Javascript some guy had on the web. And after the initial efforts about 10 years ago Ye Olde Photographer has just been cruising on inertia! Actually, of late I have been using polypropylene photo corners to anchor the print so I can not only recycle the frame, but also recycle the mat, for exhibition purposes. (At latest purchase, museum mounting board to make a double mat and a backing piece represents about fifteen $US just for matting. I have a mat cutter and cut my own.)

Ah -- here we go -- Russell Cottrell (Glad he still has that out there.) I've played with a copy of the script trying to set it up to handle my double window mats (and learned I know just enough about such scripts to be dangerous!)

Since about 97% of my framed prints are the same size print and frame, I just keep using the same numbers. I make the reveal on the bottom wider than the sides and top so I can put my signature on the inner mat instead of the print. The script had some checks for conditions where that centering produces weird results and it pops up a recommendation to use equal margins or whatever.

That linked page also shows a graphical method. Note the page also has some weasel words about that's a starting point and one may want to adjust slightly under some conditions. The main theory appears to be having a wider bottom section adds "weight" to the presentation; the print center is slightly above the midpoint of the frame. That is, you probably wouldn't want the top margin narrower than the side margins, but you could just slide a print up and down and see what you like.

I usually print about 10 5/8 inches square on a cut piece from 11x14 paper, trimming about 2.5 inches off the 14 and using it for test strips. The print gets mounted behind a double mat with the inner window about 10 1/4 inches square.

Edit (now that I'm awake ):
I only now realized that you were apparently looking at my PBase galleries, vs APUG. Soaring Arch and Trail Junction are 8x10 prints (contact prints via my 8x10 pinhole camera!). They are in a 14x15 frame and hit one of those conditions where using top and side dimensions equal came into play; e.g., maybe not quite fully optically centered per that method. But as I recall, that script flagged that condition.

Hope that helps.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I compose to fill the frame. After forty plus years of shooting 35mm, I started using 6x6. Now that I have shot 6x6 and 35mm for over ten years since then, I am much more comfortable with square that 35mm. In fact when I took 35mm cameras on a two week trip, I found that the 35mm frame is much too long for many compositions and was just wasting the ends with boring material used to fill the frame. On the other hand, I have no problem with 4"x5". Now I agree that what Hasselblad said is correct, "Square is the perfect format."

 

[Wayne]

I wouldn't use it for landscapes.

Really? I kind of like it for landscapes it seems to add movement or something, probably because my eyes are trying to stretch it out. http://photoinf.com/General/Wim_van_Velzen/Composition_with_a_6x6_-_Square_Scotland.htm

 

[MattKing]

I wouldn't use it for landscapes.

Depends on the landscape:

 

[ac12]

If you keep your eyes and mind open, when you look at a scene, you may see that you have a square or rectangular composition. I have been somewhat surprised at how many square compositions I see, now that I am aware of them.

 

[rthollenbeck]

I mostly used square when my camera accommodated that shape.
That may sound ridiculous but that's not my intension. When I picked med format, then I picked what camera I wanted to work with. Then I cropped accordingly.
I respectfully suggest this happens more than people let on. I've seen the stories in hassy literature going on at naussium about the "perfect format" and how some artist consulted the gods and calculated a formula based on info extrapolated from a particle accelerator and that why this greatest artist has hassy and the square to thank for their success.......

Come on. It may be important to few people, but in general I call BS, most of us crop.

 

[Moopheus]

I shoot 6x6 because I have a Hasselblad, and before that, a Mamiya C330. I also have a 6x9 Fuji and a 4x5. I had an RB67, but sold it to buy the Hasselblad. So mainly I just try to make my compositions work for whatever camera I have at the time. I don't think any one format is intrinsically better than the others. Lots of great pictures have been taken with every available format. Also, since I regard the print as the photo and not the negative, I make the final judgement at the easel. So a lot of my square negs end up not-quite-so-square prints.

 

[Arklatexian]

I know there was recently a thread posted about the practicalities of shooting 6x6 (then cropping) over 6x4.5. My question, however, is why do you choose to shoot square compositions?
(I'm looking at you Hasselblad shooters.)
Personally, I have dabbled with all formats, and square is my least favorite for composing. However, my heart is open, and I'm genuinely curious as to why so many people shooting 120 love the square format.

If you don't like square format, by all means, shoot something else. I have found that there are picture taking situations that call for a square format. However, I would be out of my mind if I tried to force every photographic situation into a square format, or any other format for that matter. I have been convinced for years that we would all use different formats if paper manufacturers made photographic papers in formats other than rectangular........Regards!

 

[Arklatexian]

I mostly used square when my camera accommodated that shape.
That may sound ridiculous but that's not my intension. When I picked med format, then I picked what camera I wanted to work with. Then I cropped accordingly.
I respectfully suggest this happens more than people let on. I've seen the stories in hassy literature going on at naussium about the "perfect format" and how some artist consulted the gods and calculated a formula based on info extrapolated from a particle accelerator and that why this greatest artist has hassy and the square to thank for their success.......

Come on. It may be important to few people, but in general I call BS, most of us crop.

Correct and with a square negative, I can crop as much or as little as I please. Or course I can do that with any format if I print my own stuff so where is the problem? To me that is one of the things that photography is all about............Regards!

 

[Alan Gales]

I like square format when the subject naturally fits in a square, especially for portraits. This would reduce unnecessary material on the left or right, or top or bottom, and focus on just the face.

I wouldn't use it for landscapes.

Some won't shoot square for portraits.

It all depends upon how we see. A very good friend of mine shoots a Hasselblad X-pan. His landscapes are gorgeous. I have trouble seeing that wide myself.

 

[klownshed]

I wouldn't use it for landscapes.

I like to use square format for landscape photography as it encourages different compositions. I guess I'm not a fan of more 'traditional' landscapes and for me Landscape photography is more than trying to fit as much as you can into a frame with a wide angle lens and sweeping panoramas.

When I have a square viewfinder to look trough I tend to find different types of composition, often more minimal. I like the space you can get with square. By having less going on horizontally you can give the subject more room to breathe vertically which I like. Less is more.

Here's just one example, shot with my Bronica.

https://instagram.com/p/BKV57rfALAZ/

But it's also the antithesis of the current trend in the digital world whereby every landscape appear to be shot with an ultra wide at sunrise with a rock in the foreground and the colour saturation turned up to 11.

I also frequently crop 35mm landscapes to square.

And whilst my opinion counts for nothing, my favourite photographer is Michael Kenna, who's a master of the square B&W landscape.

 

[Harry Stevens]

If people need frames then look for vinly LP frames,they where selling these at poundland last Christmas but hell could I find any.

I took my Rolleiflex and Rolleicord on a long walk shoot because I knew there where square shots I wanted and some 645 shots, the Rolleicord as the 645 kit fitted.

 

[removed account4]

proponents of the de stjil 100+ years ago
believed the square embodied perfection, truth and beauty.
straight sides and right angles = perfection. they wrote
essays and treaties on what they called neoplasticism
which also included primary colors, black white and grey.
(not only for 2D but 3D works, furniture, buildings &c )

I also agree with those who choose scenes based on the format they're carrying.

One thing that hasn't been mentioned, as it pertains to the square format, is the way it adds tension to an image. The eye will "read" directionality in the long dimension of an image. Horizontal images will be viewed horizontally, verticals will be viewed vertically. The absence of a directional "cue", in a square image allows each side to have equal visual weight.

i dont' shoot much square format anymore but used to a lot. i was weened on a flashfun
and then went to 120 film. and i agree completely. the tension becomes what is inside the box
not the box itself. it allows the photographer to direct the viewer what to look at through composition, not through
the golden mean or other tools format might dictate.

 

[BMbikerider]

I don't usually but sometimes a square format is perfect for what I need

 

[mgb74]

I very recently attended a local exhibition where all the photos (I would loosely describe as environment and candid portraits) were printed square. Not only was the square format very effective for the subject but there is just something really compelling about viewing a square print. Maybe it's because we're so used to rectangular prints.

BTW, most were mounted in rectangular frames with a bottom weighted mat. Common, but again very visually appealing (to me at least).

 

[paul ron]

Because I have alot of square matt boards and frames I want to fill.

The format doesn't matter much to me... I'll use whatever my camera of the day is.

 

[bvy]

Environmental portraits. One example is the Brownie camera in which I've flipped the lens. This gives a sharp center surrounded by a nice circle of blur. And circles are known to fit nicely inside squares.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Don't, hate it as aesthetically displeasing. I much prefer the Golden Rectangle. Go in any art museum and see how many square format paintings there are in relation to the whole.

 

[keenmaster486]

Go in any art museum and see how many square format paintings there are in relation to the whole.

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

 

[removed account4]

Go in any art museum and see how many square format paintings there are in relation to the whole

it depends on what kind of a museum it is
and if it has people who part of mondrain's group
http://www.theartstory.org/movement-de-stijl.htm

or works from the american expressionists from the 40's on up are included.