Do you go in for square comps?

[Mainecoonmaniac]

I did lots of squares decades ago. Then when I got out of 6 x 6 I didn't do much with squares. I'm enjoying getting back into them.

How bout you and squares?

It depends on which camera. If a shoot square, I compose square. I have a habit of looking at the edges of my viewfinder and shoot accordingly.

 

[Sirius Glass]

It depends on which camera. If a shoot square, I compose square. I have a habit of looking at the edges of my viewfinder and shoot accordingly.

Ditto

 

[Black Dog]

It depends on which camera. If a shoot square, I compose square. I have a habit of looking at the edges of my viewfinder and shoot accordingly.

As do I-I have cropped a couple to rectangular, but I'm now thinking they'd look better square.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

I did lots of squares decades ago. Then when I got out of 6 x 6 I didn't do much with squares. I'm enjoying getting back into them.

How bout you and squares?

I’m finding square as odd, primitive and boring. I never seen square painting.
I crop 6x6 to normal paper size. Old pros told me it was norm back then.

 

[Billy Axeman]

... I never seen square painting.

Here is a limited list to check out for some homework.

Andy Warhol
Gerhard Richter
Josef Albers
Kazimir Malevich
Keith Haring
Piet Mondrian
Sandra Blow
Klaus Friedeberger

 

[Sirius Glass]

I’m finding square as odd, primitive and boring. I never seen square painting.
I crop 6x6 to normal paper size. Old pros told me it was norm back then.

I did not realize that you never go to art museums. Maybe you could go to an art museum with me some time.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

As do I-I have cropped a couple to rectangular, but I'm now thinking they'd look better square.

When I was first decided which medium format camera I should buy over 30 years ago, I had to decide between Mamiya RZ or Hasselblad. I decided on RZ because there's less cropping with rectangular images. My intention was to use the camera for commercial photography but I secretly wanted a Hassy. When the pros went digital, a lot of Hassy gear went on Ebay. I bought one. The RZ is a nice camera, but the Hassy feels good in my hands. Both are very good. My first affordable square format camera was my $50 Pearl River. It opened up a whole new world of bigger negs. I'm not slavish not cropping, but cropping could greatly improve the shot also.

 

[John51]

I'm gradually coming round to the idea that 6x6 is the ideal compromise format.

I look at LP and CD cover photographs and I can often see ways to crop it to a rectangular format. I find it more difficult to visualise a square crop from a rectangular photograph. That is probably down to my eye not being trained enough for that. I'm sure that some of those LP/CD covers started as rectangular images.

I'm no purist when it comes to cropping. I cut my teeth on a scale focus 35mm. I soon learned to avoid parallax errors by getting more in the shot, just in case. Composition was done at the enlarger.

With 6x6 negs, I can crop to 5:4 either landscape or portrait. If the planets align, I might even get a decent square composition.

 

[jtk]

I’m finding square as odd, primitive and boring. I never seen square painting.
I crop 6x6 to normal paper size. Old pros told me it was norm back then.

Those "old pros" might have existed in your world, but not in civilization.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I'm gradually coming round to the idea that 6x6 is the ideal compromise format.

I look at LP and CD cover photographs and I can often see ways to crop it to a rectangular format. I find it more difficult to visualise a square crop from a rectangular photograph. That is probably down to my eye not being trained enough for that. I'm sure that some of those LP/CD covers started as rectangular images.

I'm no purist when it comes to cropping. I cut my teeth on a scale focus 35mm. I soon learned to avoid parallax errors by getting more in the shot, just in case. Composition was done at the enlarger.

With 6x6 negs, I can crop to 5:4 either landscape or portrait. If the planets align, I might even get a decent square composition.

That is because you are seeing a complete composition. If you were to see the original full image you could well choose a number of other square or rectangular shaped compositions.

 

[etn]

You can buy Ilford MGIV RC paper in 10 x 10” in the UK. Not sure if any of their other paper is sold in that size though. Even satin RC isn’t available in that size, only the gloss as far as I know.

ADOX sells the MCC 110 / 112 in various square format sizes. (Temporarily unavailable, though - there is a thread about this)

Disclaimer: I am late to this discussion and haven't yet read further than page 1, apologies if this info has already been posted in pages 2 to 6

 

[etn]

• I shoot 645 format but do occasionally shoot with square in mind, so crop the photo accordingly.
• Example...
• View attachment 216406

Awesome, incredible picture!!! How did you do it? with some sort of crystal ball?

 

[etn]

I did lots of squares decades ago. Then when I got out of 6 x 6 I didn't do much with squares. I'm enjoying getting back into them.

How bout you and squares?

I think some people feel at home with a certain format, others don't. For me the format I feel most at home with is 6x6.

After almost 2 decades of using 24x36 I discovered square when I first bought a cheap TLR around 2005. It was a revelation. Compositions just come instinctively. I find square has a certain balance, beauty, dynamics (or lack thereof - very easy to make static pictures in square format!) - to me it offers the utmost flexibility in composing. I never crop square negs to another format when printing, and project slides which cannot be cropped anyway.

As a matter of fact I still do 24x36 (mostly to save on weight when traveling or casually wandering), but I have a harder time with it than with square. I've never tried 6x7 (mainly because I couldn't project my slides) or 4:3 format (mainly because it would be either digital or extremely bulky such as GX680!), but I am curious as how I 'd react to those formats.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

If it works best as a square, I'll crop it so.

 

[Billy Axeman]

Square Magazine
http://www.squaremag.org/

A free magazine with only photos in a square format.
Appears four times a year.

p.s. I saw I posted this earlier in #88 (almost one year ago though), apologies.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Square Magazine
http://www.squaremag.org/

A free magazine with only photos in a square format.
Appears four times a year.

Hasselblad in the past advertised that "Square is the perfect format."

 

[Paul Manuell]

Awesome, incredible picture!!! How did you do it? with some sort of crystal ball?

It's simply a glass ball made by a company called Lensball. Placed on the sand, shot at ground level with a macro lens, cropped to a square and then the whole picture inverted, as images through glass balls are themselves inverted.

 

[jtk]

It's simply a glass ball made by a company called Lensball. Placed on the sand, shot at ground level with a macro lens, cropped to a square and then the whole picture inverted, as images through glass balls are themselves inverted.

Beautiful.

Also, it shows the advantage of square format in many graphic-oriented situations, for which restriction to 6X9, 4X5 et al can be a visual distraction.

My primary cameras are now digital/mirrorless with square format SELECTED, displayed, exposed, and printed. With 20MP they readily equal or exceed what film can accomplish in large prints and with 30MP they easily rival 6X6 film...I find my square format decisions better than other formats (which can also be SELECTED) especially for graphically strong images, especially macro...I suspect that my portraits will be mostly square in future because I rarely want to tightly record a subject's clothing or background (but can simply switch to 6X9 or whatever in-camera. Square is especially effective with head shots (for which my Pentax 50/1.4 and 85/2 lenses produces superb bokeh mounted on 20 and 30mp APSC cameras.

I always loved various Rollei, never liked Mamiya, for optical reasons, but both were compromises.

 

[jtk]

https://lensball.com/ Somewhat silly, but I want one. Cheap.

 

[etn]

https://lensball.com/ Somewhat silly, but I want one. Cheap. View attachment 235911

Definitely cheaper than the Hasselblad CF 24mm IHI ! Not sure how the results compare, though...
Thanks for sharing, I want one too. (the lensball, not the IHI)

 

[jtk]

What I'm saying is that a 50mm lens in 35 format gives you far less coverage on the vertical as it does the horizontal. The equivalent 75mm medium format lens gives you the same horizontal angle of view as the 35format lens, but it is far wider vertically. Don't shoot the 6x6 format camera with the intent to crop, try using it to your advantage instead. If you can't see in squares then shoot with a more rectangular format. It all depends on subject matter. I mostly shoot square, but for my arctic landscapes I mostly use a rotating panorama camera as is better suits the subject.


I don't think they sell square paper - you're going to have to crop the paper...

Square paper of all sorts is easily available from IT Supply.

 

[Pieter12]

Square paper of all sorts is easily available from IT Supply.

Unfortunately, not gelatin silver.

But I'm going to have to get one a Lensball!