Compositionally, why do you use square format?

[bain]

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.

 

[Rick A]

Initially, square format was so you didn't need to flip the camera for composing vertical vs. horizontal. I prefer to compose full frame no matter which format I shoot, be it 6x6, 6x9, 4x5, or 5x7. I crop in camera whenever possible, makes it easier for printing later, especially since a good bit of my work is contact printed.

 

[Maris]

For me the composition seems to follow the format rather than the other way around. If it doesn't look good in the square viewfinder then I tend not to shoot. So inevitably all the square negatives are "right" and don't need cropping.
This is probably an example of the adage that the camera you haul about, er schlepp, determines the pictures you take. More formally: As ye schlepp so shall ye see.

 

[Alan9940]

When I first started shooting square format, I couldn't come to grips with it after using 35mm and LF for so many years. But, I kept at it and one of the "tricks" that I read somewhere long ago was that depth is a very important compositional component to the square; rule of thirds, etc, doesn't necessarily apply so you can't just employ rectangle composition techniques to the square. But, once I got used to composing in the square my eye seemed to simply start seeing things that fit naturally in the format. And, since all dimensions are equal it becomes natural (to me, anyway) to fill that space. After all...it's hip to be square!

If you're interested, pick up an old 6x6 folder, any of the 6x6 box style cameras, or a Yashica 124G (or equivalent) and shoot with it for a year. If you find you don't like square format, sell the camera.

Have fun!

 

[rubbernglue]

Personally I really like the square format and since recently "coming back" after having shot anything but 6x6 the last year I was very pleased with being "back" with my 6x6 cameras again Now, I rarely crop these squares into anything else than perhaps just a little smaller, but mostly they're very thought out as they are.

However I have never lusted for, nor owned a Hasselblad so I might not be the one of whom you whish to ask about this ;-)

 

[narsuitus]

... why do you choose to shoot square compositions?

Because that was the first aspect ratio I used.

 

[DWThomas]

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!)

 

[keenmaster486]

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.

 

[Leigh B]

Enlargers enable you to print any aspect ratio from any film format.

I compose as desired with the Hasselblad, paying attention to the intended final image.

I shoot Hasselblad because of the excellent optics and convenient handling, not because it's 6x6.

- Leigh

 

[bdial]

I too compose to the format. In my early days of using a 6x6, I was working in a professional environment, everything was printed either 5x7 or 8x10, period, and I had no control over that. I was filling the square frame until I got my hand slapped and was told to leave some cropping room so the lab could make rectangular prints.
Now that I shoot for myself, I fill the square frame. I think it gives you a lot of flexibility, with no landscape or portrait orientation, you can concentrate on the pictorial elements without fitting them into a special shape. I do more landscapes than portraits, it works for both.

 

[baachitraka]

1:1 is just perfect for me.

Portraits with Rolleinar I and II using Rolleicord/Rolleiflex, presumably with tele Rolleiflex with or without rolleinar fits so beautifully in square.

 

[baachitraka]

If you are interested I may recommend to read 'Sacred Geometry'.

But I also give the same weightage to other proportions.

 

[Hatchetman]

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.

 

[Dan Daniel]

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.

First, I use a Rolleiflex and other TLRs, whose square format precedes Hasselblad's use of the square by a couple of decades. So please look at TLR users, also. Although I do use a Rolleicord with the 6x4.5 insert and enjoy it.

If the square is your least favorite, don't use it. I like it and it works for me. I'm with Maris above, I shoot to the camera. And the camera I carry most is a square format. I guess that means I like shooting squares the most? When I have a 2:3 format, I shoot to it, 3:4, 4:5, 6:7...

But it's not an issue for me what format other people use. I recognize how format affects what I am looking at but rarely give it central importance in how I look at others' images. Find what works for you, simple enough. If you find square images not pleasing to look at, there are about 63 million other photographers' whose work you can look at who don't use the square.

 

[Alan Gales]

I no longer own a Hasselblad but I do own a Mamiya C220 f TLR which also shoots square. I like composing square. I also like the 6x7 format. I always felt the 35mm format to be a bit long for me so I don't care for 6x8 or 6x9.

Besides, It's hip to be square!



We Alan's think alike!

 

[moto-uno]

I've bought and sold 4 YashicaMats , then later tried 2 Bronica SA's (and an SQ). Sold them too . Next was a couple of Iskras,
both gone . Now I have a lovely Welta Weltur and to save my life I cannot (and have not) taken a single picture
from this square format that I've bothered to put in my enlarger. My hat goes off to those of you that can !
Peter

 

[mooseontheloose]

I love the square - I was attracted to square images long before I ever shot my first square (with my Minolta Autocord TLR). I'm not sure why though.

That said, like others have mentioned above, I shoot/frame pictures based on the format that I'm carrying. Although I don't have a problem cropping in the darkroom if it makes for a better print, I usually compose full frame with whatever camera I'm shooting.

 

[Pentode]

Like Maris, I, too, tend to compose differently depending upon the format I'm shooting.

I change formats a lot (short attention span), but I have a few TLR's and a couple of 6x6 folders that I enjoy shooting with very much. I never found composing in a square difficult to adjust to, really. I tend to just see things differently when I know that's what I'm shooting with.

That reminds me... gotta find some 127 for my Yashica 44!

 

[Luckless]

I specifically went with a square format for my first medium format camera in part because it was another aspect that made it different from working with my digital gear, and because I generally found it to be a pleasing way to frame a scene.

I'm not overly sold on any specific aspect ratio - I work with what the scene and the space intended for display have to offer. There is no one 'perfect' ratio that works all the time, and I will happily go super wide or super tall as needed to display what I want.

I tend to frame slightly loose with my TLR - Not a lot, but just shaving a little off the edges to safeguard against minor parallax error. I sometimes crop further from that for another aspect ratio, but I typically aim to make square prints from the format.

I'm enjoying it to the point that I think I will probably mark the ground glass of my 4x5 press camera when I start using it.

 

[DWThomas]

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.

Precut mats are likely not common, but frames can be bought in sectional pairs and can easily be made square, but you are left to cut your own glazing. And there's no law that square prints need to be in square frames -- years back I framed a few square prints in square frames, but have since standardized on placing square prints "optically centered" in rectangular frames oriented vertically. I get a lot of 'atta boys' for my presentation (maybe it's my photography they don't like! ), there are some examples in my gallery here.

 

[GarageBoy]

Instagram makes you good at shooting square

 

[Trask]

Precut mats are likely not common, but frames can be bought in sectional pairs and can easily be made square, but you are left to cut your own glazing. And there's no law that square prints need to be in square frames -- years back I framed a few square prints in square frames, but have since standardized on placing square prints "optically centered" in rectangular frames oriented vertically. I get a lot of 'atta boys' for my presentation (maybe it's my photography they don't like! ), there are some examples in my gallery here.

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?

 

[bdial]

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.

 

[faberryman]

I compose on the frame presented to me - 35mm, 6x6, or 4x5.

 

[Pioneer]

I haven't got the slightest idea. However, even when I am shooting 35mm I see squares in my photographs and often find myself cropping to 1:1.

In the beginning I think it was just a sick plot by Franke and Heidecke that was perpetuated by the Hasselblads just to keep people from turning their cameras sideways.

Now we all walk around trying to justify why we use the format. It is a useless endevour. Not even Da Vinci could come up with a good reason to paint on a square canvas...and he painted on anything he could find.

Just my opinion you understand.