force myself to 6x6

[darkosaric]

I am to sure is this proper forum group, but...

I shoot mostly leica format, 99% black and white.

I enjoy 6x6 from other artist. But when I try - it simply does not work as I should like. I tried to force myself, I had rolleiflex, holga, and agfa isollete. It is not working. I sold my rolleiflex, but I still have agfa and pinhole holga.

Do I need to keep trying? Maybe to read some more about square format? Or just admit it is not for me?

It is not important here that medium format is bigger, better etc., grain is not my concern, it is format shape of 6x6 that I am after.

Also I don't like croping, I like to use full negative and get fine black frame.

 

[Ian Grant]

You need to have the right reasons to use 6x6, it maybe that you just don't get on with the square format and should really consider 6x4.5, 6x7 or even 6x9.

You're last sentence seems to indicate you have problems with the square format, as you bring up cropping

I shoot 6x6, 6x17 as well as 5x4 & 10x8 now, but find I always compose to fit the format I'm using, it's experience and gut instinct.

Ian

 

[WolfTales]

6x6 square definately takes some getting used to as well as retraining. Keep at it, hopefully with practice it'll come around.

What you can also do is shoot 6x6 with 645 in mind so you can print in a rectangular format later on (ie leave a little dead space on top or on the side on the negative and just not print that space whilst in the darkroom). The benifit to this is that you don't have to turn the camera to shoot in portrait

 

[Ian Grant]

6x6 square definately takes some getting used to as well as retraining. Keep at it, hopefully with practice it'll come around.

What you can also do is shoot 6x6 with 645 in mind so you can print in a rectangular format later on (ie leave a little dead space on top or on the side on the negative and just not print that space whilst in the darkroom). The benifit to this is that you don't have to turn the camera to shoot in portrait

Darko specifically says he doesn't want to crop, as he prints the rebate as a black edge.

Ian

 

[steven_e007]

Your avatar portrait is a nice square, as is Ian Grant's...
Maybe you need tolook at lots of square pics until you grow to like them? If you never do, well, maybe it isn't for you.

I love 6X6, but must admit this is because I loved working with big negatives so much more than 35mm... but I couldn't afford a 6 X 9 enlarger or camera, so stuck with 6 X 6! The appreciation of the format came later. But then, the 35mm format is only two 1920s cinema format frames stuck together and everybody learned to get used to it.

I read a good piece of advice in a photography book a while back, which was to wonder around an art gallery and look at some old masters, noting the aspect ratios they used. They seem to come in all sorts of wierd shapes and sizes, including circular and oval. I think restricting ourselves to any particular aspect ration is a strangely photographic bit of behaviour

 

[MattKing]

Darko:

You indicate that you like 6x6 work from others. This tells me that you like the format, but are having trouble visualizing the result when you use a square viewfinder.

I don't know whether this would help, but it might be an interesting experiment.

Take your 35mm camera out and search for images that you intend to crop to the square. In other words, try to free yourself from seeing in rectangular ways.

Matt

 

[darkosaric]

Darko:

Take your 35mm camera out and search for images that you intend to crop to the square. In other words, try to free yourself from seeing in rectangular ways.

Matt

well, this is actually good idea

 

[keithwms]

Maybe 35mm -> 6x6 is too big a leap for you, why not try 645 for a bit and see what you think.

As I think I wrote somewhere, to me, the square is inherently more balanced and feels more static and more constructed, in a compositional sense... whereas 35mm format usually gives me a more impromptu result. You might think about whether that is the case for you, or at least if your expectations of 6x6 are different from what you aim for with 35mm. What probably will not work is to try to shoot 6x6 in the same way that you shoot 35mm.

Anyway, I don't think you can 'force' anything successfully in photography. If you don't need/want to do it, then that will show.

 

[Ian Grant]

My favourite formats were always 35mm & when I went 5x4 (LF) a 6x9 back, but that was a few years ago. I used 6x6 with a Mamiya C33/3 system in the late 70's and never thought about the format.

I think the secret is not to think format , just accept and compose to what ever frame you have, I might be out with 6x6 and think oh that's great for 6x17, but I have to shoot with what I have. Where there's a will there's a way.

6x6 is a format I hadn't used since the early 80's but I love it, and still use others, but a Yashicamat or Rolleiflex is now one of my main cameras, I might also be carrying a 6x17 & 5x4.

Ian

 

[Sirius Glass]

I think the secret is not to think format , just accept and compose to what ever frame you have, I might be out with 6x6 and think oh that's great for 6x17, but I have to shoot with what I have. Where there's a will there's a way.

Steven Stiles said it best, "If you can't be with the one you love, love the one you are with."

Steve

 

[Frank Bunnik]

It took me more than a year to get good square compositions but once I got it, it was easy and I saw most compsitions as a square in my mind before even taking the camera in my hand to make a photo. Take your time and practice a lot.

 

[rawhead]

I got a 6x6 (Pentacon Six TL first, Kiev-60 next, and Bornic SQ-B so far last) because I found myself cropping my DSLR shots to square quite often, and realized that I like it a lot. In that sense, I trained by cropping rectangular shots

 

[Ian Grant]

Steven Stiles said it best, "If you can't be with the one you love, love the one you are with."
Steve

Stills Just like his former band member Graham Nash makes LD

Ian

 

[arigram]

Why do you need to force yourself?
Is the square that important to you if its not working out?
I started with the 35mm rectangle and from the moment I moved to a Hasselblad, the square format immediately made sense to me and from the very beginning not only I had no trouble composing in the square, it surprised me how natural it felt.
But, that's just me. I don't have an experience with other formats so maybe it was just the square that works with me.
I wouldn't have forced myself to it.
You can adjust to a new format, you can learn it, you can work and play with it and you can accept the inherit difficulties that are present in the learning process. But, when you feel you need to force yourself, then maybe its not right for you, or just not "your time" yet. It would be like being involved in poetry and trying to force yourself to compose in haiku. If you try to learn it and it keeps feeling unnatural, then drop it. No need to torture yourself. A frame is more like a state of mind than just a set of visual boundaries. People apply certain aspects to a composition that may or not be arbitrary and personal. One photographer may find the square to be static, I find it very dynamic. Some may want the "breathing space" a rectangle gives and might feel that the square is too stifling and so on.
There is a learning process involved with any new medium, but forcing yourself is the wrong state of mind and even if you become "successful" in it, it will fell very contrived and dare I repeat myself... forced.
Let it go and might come to you. There is no sense in giving you stupid guidelines and silly compositional rules, you have to discover the format yourself.

Why do you want to use the square so much?
What do you find attractive in other people's square photography?
I see that your compositions in the rectangle are excellent and they feel very natural. They really show that you are comfortable and composing easily in that format and they "fit like a glove".
Also, the few square pictures you have, are not bad at all. They feel right as well and are well composed. If you didn't complain in here I wouldn't have known.

 

[benjiboy]

I've used both 35mm and 6x6, and still after more than twenty years sometimes find it awkward to switch between them especially when I haven't used the format for some time, just as I have problems "seeing" in monochrome when I've been shooting in colour for a long time, but that's another can of worms.

 

[Rick A]

I started shooting 6x6 in 69 with a Yashica D, it always felt natural to me. Most of my 35mm is composed square, not deliberatly, but it just happens(maybe I have tunnel vision). I've never fretted over which format I use, only what I shoot. Try shooting 35 and square together-carry both cams, and shoot identicle scenes. It shouldn't take to long to start seeing square.
Rick

 

[darkosaric]

thank you all for kind words
I like square because it forces you to think differently, and it looks and feel different, but again that is a problem in my case
I guess I need more time.
I think I will leave it for a while, and later when I feel need to start a square again - I will grab my 6x6 camera.

 

[noumin]

Force yourself to 6x6 ? To me photography is also about enjoying it while doing it, having to force
yourself into something within your photography doesn't sound very good to me, it sounds much more like an exercise in discipline, or : photography is something one have to confront, but, where does the pleasure remain ?

If you admire other peoples square shots, well, it's THEIR potography and the square obviously suits THEM, and because you like it, does not necessarily mean that it suits you, do your own thing and do it your way. A good idea might really be what others already suggested - start
cropping - don't take the negative as a fixed frame but as an area you can play with. Try to find out what can be taken away so that the picture has more balance, impact, clarity ... (you complete the list). Something will eventually evolve out of this, maybe you find out that the 35mm rectangle is for you - great - maybe you find out that the square is for you -great - just be open on what happens and don't force yourself into something, I think that's a terrible thing to do, especially without necessity.
And, it's been said before, people change over the years, so something what your struggling with today, may be completly natural to you tomorrow.

As for my way through the formats : I started with 35mm, then I wanted a bigger negative, so I moved to 4x5 and later down to 6x6. With 6x6 the pictures instantly fell right into the square, no problems at all. Today I notice that more and more panoramic shots are creeping in (I don't force it, it just happens), I can't afford a 612 so I crop, I don't care about cropping, it's the result that counts.

 

[Q.G.]

What if you change "force myself to" into "challenge myself"?
Now there's a lot of fun in the offing!

 

[nyoung]

Do I need to keep trying? Maybe to read some more about square format? Or just admit it is not for me?

Sounds to me as though you are a "trained" artist - ie one who has had some art school training in the formal traditions.

The square doesn't easliy fit into the "rule-of-thirds" traditional composition paradigm. The other rules fit better in the square - repetition, symmetery, balance etc.

Try visualizing your square frame with corner to corner diagonal lines crossing in the middle. Then compose on the notion of using three of the four resulting triangles instead of the traditional thirds of the rectangular frame.

 

[darkosaric]

Sounds to me as though you are a "trained" artist - ie one who has had some art school training in the formal traditions.

No, actually I am electronic engineer, never been in any art school.
Also, I am relatively new in photography: 3-4 years.

 

[apkujeong]

I found 6x6 odd at first after years of 35mm, but suddenly something clicked. So my suggestion would be not to worry about it, stress will just inhibit you.

 

[Steve Smith]

No, actually I am electronic engineer, never been in any art school.

Me too. I have to force myself to be artistic. Luckily, it's much easier now than it was thirty years ago when my pictures were technically perferct shots of tediously boring compositions.


Steve.

 

[dpurdy]

I get annoyed sometimes with the powerful center pull of a square. It is much easier for a composition to have side to side motion with a rectangle. But I still love the square of the Rollei most of the time and to me it isn't just square, it is a circle with corners.
Dennis

 

[Christopher Walrath]

Darko:

You indicate that you like 6x6 work from others. This tells me that you like the format, but are having trouble visualizing the result when you use a square viewfinder.

I don't know whether this would help, but it might be an interesting experiment.

Take your 35mm camera out and search for images that you intend to crop to the square. In other words, try to free yourself from seeing in rectangular ways.

Matt

Matt's got it nailed down. We are trained to see things in portrait or landscape (3:2 or 2:3) and not in the square. The brain takes the visual input and makes a rectangle out of it. You need to rewire your thinker to accept visual input in the context of the square. Try taking a smallish piece of cardboard that can fit into your pocket and cut out a square from the center. Take it with you EVERYWHERE. Once in a while, if you find yourself looking at a scene you might like to photograph it is probably because things subconsciously lined up in the 3:2 format. So go out of your way to whip that cardboard out and make it fit within the square. It could take time. But you are giving your computer a relearn, an upgrade.

If things don't work out you can always ship the camera to me. I'll cover postage. ;p

Good luck.

'It's hip to be square.' - Huey Lewis