Do you go in for square comps?

Alan Edward Klein · Feb 6, 2019

jtk said:
I couldn't disagree more. When "composition" rules the photo becomes trite, decorative.

"A picture begins" when I see something that stimulates me in some way.

"Composition" is preached by "art teachers" who have nothing significant to contribute.

A photograph isn't a painting.

Of course you have to be stimulated some way to want to take the picture. But then, you have to compose it in a way so you can convey to others what you saw that inspired you. That's the hard part. Cameras don;t do our brains or eyes very well.

As an aside, there is nothing wrong with decorative photos. Most art is decorative. Or just a snapshot or slightly better memorializing something we saw or visited. Rarely does a photo reach that rarified level where we gasp. I'm not so pretentious to think otherwise about my shots although it is nice to get an "atta boy" now and then.

Paul Ozzello · Feb 6, 2019

There's a lot more to photography than point and shoot.

jtk said:
I couldn't disagree more. When "composition" rules the photo becomes trite, decorative.

"A picture begins" when I see something that stimulates me in some way.

"Composition" is preached by "art teachers" who have nothing significant to contribute.

A photograph isn't a painting.

mark · Feb 6, 2019

Paul Manuell said:
Another cropped example, though this wasn't shot with square in mind. It was only after cropping a lot of featureless sky and cow shit from lower down the grass that I realized the square crop looked better
View attachment 216542

But the cow shit would have elevated it to another level of art.

Very nice image by the way.

Vaughn · Feb 6, 2019

There are many equally valid ways to approach image-making - from the starting point of composition or from a spark of stimulation...from an idea, or from the subject itself.

I do not crop or enlarge, nor do I dodge/burn. Thus, my compositions are tied directly to my ability to see, the format and the subject. They are not separated. In a world of infinite possible images, always printing full-frame, by definiton, is never limiting. The only limitation would be in the vision of the photographer.

Pieter12 · Feb 6, 2019

Vaughn said:
There are many equally valid ways to approach image-making - from the starting point of composition or from a spark of stimulation...from an idea, or from the subject itself.

I do not crop or enlarge, nor do I dodge/burn. Thus, my compositions are tied directly to my ability to see, the format and the subject. They are not separated. In a world of infinite possible images, always printing full-frame, by definiton, is never limiting. The only limitation would be in the vision of the photographer.

It is silly to cripple yourself by such arbitrary rules. The viewer doesn't know and most probably doesn't give a flying fork. And if there is something in the foreground you can't get around--a highway or parked car, say--do you forego the photo because you don't have a long enough lens and won't crop it out?

DonJ · Feb 6, 2019

jtk said:
I couldn't disagree more. When "composition" rules the photo becomes trite, decorative.

"A picture begins" when I see something that stimulates me in some way.

"Composition" is preached by "art teachers" who have nothing significant to contribute.

A photograph isn't a painting.

Oy.

mark said:
But the cow shit would have elevated it to another level of art.

Very nice image by the way.

Now I'll never know how it looks in infrared.

Paul Manuell · Feb 6, 2019

mark said:
But the cow shit would have elevated it to another level of art.

Very nice image by the way.

Shitart maybe? And thank you for the compliment on the image.

Kodachromeguy · Feb 6, 2019

I really like square as a result of having used Rolleiflexes for decades. Rather then plan the shape of a frame ahead of time when I approach a scene, I let the camera format set the parameter for me. With my Hasselblad and Rolleiflex, I make sure that the important elements fit into that shape. Here are some recent Hasselblad examples. The first is from Learned, Mississippi, the second from the Fetterbush Overlook, Blue Ridge Parkway, North Carolina.(When using digital, I sometimes set the frame format to be 1:1 to recreate that Rolleiflex look.)

Vaughn · Feb 6, 2019

Pieter12 said:
It is silly to cripple yourself by such arbitrary rules. The viewer doesn't know and most probably doesn't give a flying fork. And if there is something in the foreground you can't get around--a highway or parked car, say--do you forego the photo because you don't have a long enough lens and won't crop it out?

It is a bit silly to think such guidelines or arbitary rules cripple, or limits, an artist. If what you say is true, then it would also be silly to cripple oneself by only doing photography and not, let's say, modern dance or underwater basketweaving. What beautiful baskets you could be weaving if you did not use all your free time doing photography!

I forego images every minute of my life...except in those relatively brief moments I am clicking a shutter of a camera. And some of my favorite images are some that I have 'missed' by not getting them on film. That's why I am a photographer...to learn how to appreciate the light all the time -- and not just when I am pulling a darkslide and clicking a shutter.

PS -- the viewer does not need to know the set of guidelines I work with in order to enjoy my work. However some like to know and I am happy to share that information.

Too many words, not enough images!

Doggy Diner Doggies, Platinum/palladium print

jtk · Feb 6, 2019

Pieter12 said:
It is silly to cripple yourself by such arbitrary rules. The viewer doesn't know and most probably doesn't give a flying fork. And if there is something in the foreground you can't get around--a highway or parked car, say--do you forego the photo because you don't have a long enough lens and won't crop it out?

Vaughn certainly doesn't "cripple himself" through his discipline. That would be like saying a Zen practitioner "cripples himself" by sitting quietly.

jtk · Feb 6, 2019

fatso said:
There's a lot more to photography than point and shoot.

Or a lot less, as in quite a lot of it.

jtk · Feb 6, 2019

Alan Edward Klein said:

Of course you have to be stimulated some way to want to take the picture. But then, you have to compose it in a way so you can convey to others what you saw that inspired you. That's the hard part. Cameras don;t do our brains or eyes very well.

As an aside, there is nothing wrong with decorative photos. Most art is decorative. Or just a snapshot or slightly better memorializing something we saw or visited. Rarely does a photo reach that rarified level where we gasp. I'm not so pretentious to think otherwise about my shots although it is nice to get an "atta boy" now and then.

Click to expand...

Nothing is "wrong with decorative photos". Nothing is "wrong" with puppies or sunsets or Motel 6.

The question for some photographers (me for example) is "why?" or "what's more" Liiving in nearly uninterrupted beauty here in New Mexico, my question is Minor White's : Is there something more than beauty (or shock, or "composition") in a photograph I may make?

Paul Ozzello · Feb 6, 2019

Composition is essential in almost every art form, from painting to modern dance to video production. In photography it gives structure to an image and is used as a form of communication. Pointing your camera whether looking through a viewfinder or blindly from your hip is part of the composition process, whether you do it consciously or not. Painters have the luxury of choosing the shape of their canvas while photographers are stuck with their camera format. There is no perfect format. I either shoot square or with a rotating panorama camera, it's how I see the world, but it's different for everyone. If you don't like the square format don't buy a square format camera. And if you have one learn how to use it - primarily without cropping (yes there are always exceptions). Study art history, lighting, visit art galleries and go to museums, study the work of artists that truly inspire you. Seek the wisdom from an art teacher - everyone has some knowledge that can make us better photographers. Yes rules are meant to be broken, but you'll do a better job of breaking the rules once you actually understand them.

jtk said:
Nothing is "wrong with decorative photos". Nothing is "wrong" with puppies or sunsets or Motel 6.

The question for some photographers (me for example) is "why?" or "what's more" Liiving in nearly uninterrupted beauty here in New Mexico, my question is Minor White's : Is there something more than beauty (or shock, or "composition") in a photograph I may make?

Paul Manuell · Feb 7, 2019

DonJ said:
Oy.

Now I'll never know how it looks in infrared.

it was nothing to write home about, just lots of black lumps

FujiLove · Feb 7, 2019

I find two aspect ratios fun, easy to compose and great when printed: squares and the Xpan's 2.7:1

Everything in-between seems more difficult and less interesting. It's not that they really are, of course, but that seems to be how my brain's wired.

guangong · Feb 7, 2019

jtk said:
I couldn't disagree more. When "composition" rules the photo becomes trite, decorative.

"A picture begins" when I see something that stimulates me in some way.

"Composition" is preached by "art teachers" who have nothing significant to contribute.

A photograph isn't a painting.

Photography covers such a broad spectrum, that in many cases what you say is true. But good composition makes a picture stronger. Poor composition can make a picture weaker. A case in point: Weegee was able to capture the moment when snapping the shutter. Weegee’s widow asked my friend Lou Stettner to do a book with his pictures. Louie told me that there was evidence that he was unsure of just how to compose his pictures. The final pictures in his Weegee book were enhanced by better composition by framing..
The invention of the picture frame was a great contribution of Western art. The frame is where composition begins.
It a picture begins at “stimulation “, it’s given birth at composition. From what you have said in other threads, I am sure that you don’t place a negative willy nilly under the enlarger, but place it just right to make a better picture. I suspect that you are rather finicky about composition of your prints.

Paul Manuell · Feb 7, 2019

Another example of cropping square cos looked better than the 645 original, though with this one I had that in mind when I took it.

Down Under · Feb 7, 2019

runswithsizzers said:
As a retiree-on-a-fixed-income, I was somewhat shocked by the price of paper. I would love to have the option to print bigger on 9"x9" paper, rather than paying for 8"x10" where my image size is limited to 7.5"x7.5"

A paper size of 9x9 has about the same square-inch size as 8x10. Leaving a 1/4" border on all four edges of 9x9 paper yields an image size of 8.5x8.5, or 72 sq.inches, compared to 56 sq.in. at 7.5x7.5 on 8x10 paper. When printing square on 8"x10" paper, I am paying for 20 square inches of paper more than I need.

Me too, but why bother going to all the trouble of sourcing and buying niche-market 10x10 enlarging paper? Use 8x10, chop off two inches off the long length, et voila! you have a two inch test strip to play with.

I've been doing this in my darkroom since the 1960s and it has worked for me.

Margins are a personal choice. Make them wide or short, it's your choice. Me, I vary. Sometimes none, sometimes up to one inch. Whatever works best for the image.

As someone else has posted, the cost of (fresh) enlarging paper today can be a fnancial burden to those of us who are retired and on limited incomes. Best to look for expired paper (a lot of it on Ebay, some with ridiculous prices, a bit at bargain rates) as I do. I pay on average A$20 per box of (unopened) 8x10 - if the box has been opened, I expect to get it for much less. Now and then you lose out, but on the whole, 99 times out of 100 purchases, the paper is usable. Expect some contrast change, not so much with FB, with RC it's always a gamble. Benzotriazole works wonders with minor fog.

The fun part of being retired and on a budget is to be flexible and stretch your mind, experiment, think (yes, a bad pun) out of the square. I shot 6x6 exclusively in the '60s until I felt the siren lure of Nikkormat SLRs and Nikon lenses in the '70s. I've now returned to 6x6 creativity and the mental discipline is most enjoyable. Plus the quality of just about every 120 negative I'm shooting and working with, over 35mm is, in one word, astounding.

jtk · Feb 8, 2019

fatso said:
Composition is essential in almost every art form, from painting to modern dance to video production. In photography it gives structure to an image and is used as a form of communication. Pointing your camera whether looking through a viewfinder or blindly from your hip is part of the composition process, whether you do it consciously or not. Painters have the luxury of choosing the shape of their canvas while photographers are stuck with their camera format. There is no perfect format. I either shoot square or with a rotating panorama camera, it's how I see the world, but it's different for everyone. If you don't like the square format don't buy a square format camera. And if you have one learn how to use it - primarily without cropping (yes there are always exceptions). Study art history, lighting, visit art galleries and go to museums, study the work of artists that truly inspire you. Seek the wisdom from an art teacher - everyone has some knowledge that can make us better photographers. Yes rules are meant to be broken, but you'll do a better job of breaking the rules once you actually understand them.

Paulo, you've posted a popular philosophy but your photos (especially nunavik) are more significant.

http://www.paulozzello.com/m_home.htm

Paul Ozzello · Feb 8, 2019

jtk said:
Paulo, you've posted a popular philosophy but your photos (especially nunavik) are more significant.

http://www.paulozzello.com/m_home.htm

What do you mean?

jtk · Feb 8, 2019

fatso said:
What do you mean?

I mean that your photos resonate but that your written philosophy is routine jive.

Paul Ozzello · Feb 9, 2019

jtk said:
I mean that your photos resonate but that your written philosophy is routine jive.

I'm simply stating a fact and responding to a contrarian comment critical of composition and belittling the value of art teachers.

Paul Manuell · Feb 9, 2019

Cropped from the 645 original cos the sky was featureless and washed out

runswithsizzers · Feb 10, 2019

ozmoose said:
Me too, but why bother going to all the trouble of sourcing and buying niche-market 10x10 enlarging paper? Use 8x10, chop off two inches off the long length, et voila! you have a two inch test strip to play with.

I've been doing this in my darkroom since the 1960s and it has worked for me.

Margins are a personal choice. Make them wide or short, it's your choice. Me, I vary. Sometimes none, sometimes up to one inch. Whatever works best for the image.

As someone else has posted, the cost of (fresh) enlarging paper today can be a fnancial burden to those of us who are retired and on limited incomes. Best to look for expired paper (a lot of it on Ebay, some with ridiculous prices, a bit at bargain rates) as I do. I pay on average A$20 per box of (unopened) 8x10 - if the box has been opened, I expect to get it for much less. Now and then you lose out, but on the whole, 99 times out of 100 purchases, the paper is usable. Expect some contrast change, not so much with FB, with RC it's always a gamble. Benzotriazole works wonders with minor fog.

The fun part of being retired and on a budget is to be flexible and stretch your mind, experiment, think (yes, a bad pun) out of the square. I shot 6x6 exclusively in the '60s until I felt the siren lure of Nikkormat SLRs and Nikon lenses in the '70s. I've now returned to 6x6 creativity and the mental discipline is most enjoyable. Plus the quality of just about every 120 negative I'm shooting and working with, over 35mm is, in one word, astounding.

Yes, cutting 2" from the 8"x10" paper is a good way of making do with what we've got. But the reason cutting down 8"x10" paper is less desirable than 10"x10" paper is because the (square) image size from 10"x10" paper is about 56% greater than from 8"x10" - but if priced the same per quare inch, should cost only about 25% more.

The point I was trying to make was: If square format is so popular, why is 10"x10" enlarging paper a niche-market item?

Thanks for the tip about looking for expired paper on eBay! I will check it out.

mark · Feb 10, 2019

Because square is not more popular. Those of us replying do but that would not be enough to sustain lower prices. As you say 10x10 is more paper, more emulsion, so higher price.

Sometimes you have to live within the confines the “man” sets. I got very good at test strips from the 2 inch cut offs.

Do you go in for square comps?

Attachments

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency