Do you go in for square comps?

[Sirius Glass]

I let the scene before me dictate the composition, not the gear. So while I often use square negative cameras, I don't often print square prints. Though sometimes a composition works best as a square, and if it does, that's how it gets printed regardless of the aspect ratio of the negative.

I use the same approach, but the result is almost always better square than 2:3, even when I have both formats available. 2:3 reminds my of billboards which are almost never beautiful.

 

[Maris]

If I shoot square the final enlargement is un-cropped square. If I shoot with the 8x10 view camera the final result is un-cropped in the original 4:5 aspect ratio.
Why? Because if the viewfinder composition did not look right in the camera I didn't take the picture. There's more than enough subject matter around to fit well into any camera format. The challenge is to generate the energy to find this subject matter and to cultivate the vision to recognize it when found. For me, regrettably, success is both sweet and rare.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Now if they'd only made paper and mattes in the same format as the cameras.

 

[ntenny]

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.

Thanks for this tip! I looked for US sources, and it turns out Photo Warehouse has several Ilford papers in 10x10, including MGIV pearl (I didn’t see satin though).

-NT

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I never shoot with square film but sometimes I compose with the final outcome as square...very rarely, though.

 

[brent8927]

I only shoot square. It's bad enough that the few times I take iphone pictures, they have to be square as well. When I had a digital point and shoot I occasionally shot panoramic, but otherwise the rectangle just doesn't do it for me.

My Hasselblad has ruined me. I've fallen in love with the square so much and enjoy the WLF and manual controls (I rather like that the aperture and shutter controls are up front there on the lens) that I'm not sure I can ever go digital. I've tried a few (with a toddler a DSLR would come in handy). But I just can't seem to enjoy the prism finder, LCD screen, autofocus, autoexposure, etc... I know they make great photos. It's just the experience that is lacking.

Personally, I find giving myself limitations (only shooting square, which I just interpret as "full frame," and using an 80mm lens for >95% of my shots) gives me more room for creativity. Initially those were artificial limitations--after buying a Hasselblad I couldn't afford any other lenses/cameras, but now I find it's a more enjoyable way to shoot. For me.

 

[jtk]

I'm a photographer...therefore I print whatever ratio i want. I don't confine my images to someone else's habits. Currently printing a series 9.75x12 on 13x19...I like the rebate. Paper is cheaper than time. Evaluate comments via Media.

 

[guangong]

Although I shoot with cameras of various film sizes and formats, while I have some idea of composition I do not feel constrained to print full frame and determine final composition when printing. The only exception is with Minox, where small size of negative offers no wiggle room. Forgot, another exception...4x5!

 

[DonJ]

I would never pass up a photograph, or decide not to print one I've taken, because the format of the best composition didn't match the format of my camera. About 1/3 of the prints from my 2x3 ratio camera end up as squares.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I would never pass up a photograph, or decide not to print one I've taken, because the format of the best composition didn't match the format of my camera. About 1/3 of the prints from my 2x3 ratio camera end up as squares.

You are missing the point. Make the format work for the composition.

 

[Pieter12]

When shooting square format, I compose to the square, not necessarily the scene. That is, I let the square dictate the composition, not the scene. This leads to more fluid and sometimes more dynamic compositions. Maybe because the square is inherently static.

 

[jtk]

When shooting square format, I compose to the square, not necessarily the scene. That is, I let the square dictate the composition, not the scene. This leads to more fluid and sometimes more dynamic compositions. Maybe because the square is inherently static.

I rarely think in terms of "compositions." I crop as appropriate when I'm printing.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Although lately I've been shooting a LOT of 6x12, I still love 6x6 with my Rolleiflex and my relatively new Lomo LC-A. Square is a beautiful format and I find that I see very well in that aspect ratio.

 

[DonJ]

You are missing the point. Make the format work for the composition.

I'm not missing your point, I just don't limit myself in that way. If I see a strong square composition while carrying a 2x3 camera, I don't pass it up for a lesser one that just happens to fit the camera's format. I take the photo that I think is strongest, and then crop the extraneous parts.

 

[Pieter12]

I rarely think in terms of "compositions." I crop as appropriate when I'm printing.

I do. It leads me to tilt the horizon, change angles and point of view, etc. Composition is not cropping, although cropping affects composition.

 

[Paul Manuell]

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

 

[guangong]

Composition is where a picture begins. Of course, there are those,like my late friend Louie Stettner, where strong composition seems to be innate while shooting that they don’t seem to think about it. I’m not in that class. However, it would seem to me that the subject would determine format and composition, whether in or out of the camera.
Incidentally, the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art now has a retroactive show going on of Stettner’s work. He also did some painting and sculpting.
Got a full page critical review in the Wall Street Journal about a month ago.

 

[Ces1um]

I like square format for portraits but I find it difficult to create a sense of depth within a square format for landscape. I have to be a lot choosier with my compositions, but that's not necessarily a bad thing at all. I'm typically happier with the shots that I take in square format but I've taken far fewer of them.

 

[Pieter12]

Composition is where a picture begins. Of course, there are those,like my late friend Louie Stettner, where strong composition seems to be innate while shooting that they don’t seem to think about it. I’m not in that class. However, it would seem to me that the subject would determine format and composition, whether in or out of the camera.
Incidentally, the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art now has a retroactive show going on of Stettner’s work. He also did some painting and sculpting.
Got a full page critical review in the Wall Street Journal about a month ago.

I compose through the viewfinder, so the format is dictating the composition to a certain extent. The square format sometimes leads me to unexpected compositions. The edges of the frame are much more of a factor in the image.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Hoping to get the composition cropped right after taking the shot can be a problem. You can crop off feet and limbs especially if you're trying to match a certain format like I do when I create slide shows for 16:9 format on my UHDTV. SO I've switched to 16:9 (digital camera of course) when I shoot the shots to begin with. At first I found it hard to "see" the composition. But after awhile, I could compose in 16:9 as easily as in 6:7 or 3:2. Of course the compositions are different. But they "work" regardless of the original camera setting.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

For example, these were set in camera for 16:9 and composed in the camera that way. There may be some minor crops in post. But the main compositions were created in camera in 16:9. I'm convinced that you could do the same with 8:10, 4:5, etc.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/alanklein2000/albums/72157694819890421

 

[Paul Manuell]

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

 

[slackercrurster]

About 90% of my candid IR portrait work is square now. My standard work has also changed to square for a good deal of it. It just depends on the project.

Selection from 'NYC Wide Open' (Candid)

 

[mrosenlof]

Like several have mentioned, I compose for the format of the camera I'm using, but in the darkroom, I will crop if it improves the picture. I don't print to include film edges to keep a more uniform look to my prints, so I guess there's always some crop, but often minimal.

 

[jtk]

Composition is where a picture begins...

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.