MF SQ Composition

[seabee1999]

Good day all, I recently acquired a Bronica SQ kit and looking for some recommendations on books to read concerning composing images in a square format vs the normal rectangle. If anyone has any nuggets of wisdom to pass on, that would be appreciated as well. Thank you for your time.

R/
David

 

[rolleiman]

I've preferred the square format for years. One big advantage is when shooting on a tripod, you've no worries about having to revolve the camera awkwardly on its side to get an upright format shot. (only the Mamiya RB67 series had "revolving backs" to counter this, and they weigh a ton!) Basically you frame the picture till it "looks right" in the viewfinder, then if you want a vertical or horizontal shot out of it you merely crop in a bit at the enlarging stage. However the square shape itself shouldn't be dismissed, many pictures look best that way. I've had pictures published as a square shape.
If you are definite that a rectangular shape is required, then leave a bit of "give" around the borders. Many viewfinders will have rectangular lines near the edge both horizontally and vertically to guide you.

 

[batwister]

I'd suggest looking at Robert Adams' work. There's little you can't learn from his compositions.

Square format requires a very particular sense of balance, which I feel the rectangular frame does not. You will find that the square can be restrictive in some situations, but this will inform a more specific approach and discipline - which will only make your pictures and style stronger. If a composition doesn't feel right, it probably isn't. Something to mention is converging verticals, which can be that much more jarring with the square. So I'd suggest practicing keeping your camera parallel to your subject for a period until you get a feel for the limits in this regard. As always, this applies especially to architecture and any straight lines in close proximity - arguably with trees too. I always check the spirit level on my tripod from both back and side, unless I'm trying to achieve some kind of effect in perspective - which is rare.

 

[vpwphoto]

I love the square and it loves me.
Honestly I have a hard time cropping pictorials into rectangles. Of course business portraits need cropped.
I do find myself cropping DSLR frames into squares.

Just use the thing, I don't know of any particular book/author going on about the square. Argentium view cameras makes and 8x8 with 8x8 holders.

 

[jeffreyg]

Plus 1 for the advice you have received. and just a minor addition -- if my subject might look better either horizontal or if vertical is the case I will print not quite square by say a half inch. It maintains the the square intention but is just enough asymmetrical to fool the eye.

http://www.jeffreyglasser.com/

 

[cliveh]

Look at the images of Bill Brandt.

 

[Sirius Glass]

For years Hasselblad said the square is the perfect format. So you can't go wrong with square.

Besides you do not have to hold the camera on its side to take a portrait.

 

[DWThomas]

I guess I'm just not obsessive enough, but for me composition is pretty much an intuitive process. I generally have some vision in mind before I bring the camera into play, but then fiddle around with the aiming, framing and distance/zooming until I see something I like and trip the shutter. Maybe this comes from bouncing around between formats ranging from 1:1 to 3:2 at random. I get enough attaboys on my work to assume I'm not totally off base. But alas, it does make it difficult to explain 'how to do it!' :confused:

As has been said, with square, there's no portrait/landscape mechanics to fiddle with, that's one less distraction. And one is still free to crop to other than square if it 'just feels right' when one is printing. Occasionally I find something balks at square, but not really very often. Anyway, there are lots of square photos, both here on APUG and out on the Internet at large, to possibly offer some ideas and inspiration.

Maybe the answer is not to think too deeply about it?!

 

[vpwphoto]

Occasionally I find something something balks at square, .

!

+1 Art directors.
If you have to have a 5x7 or magazine cover crop.. sometimes you have to "loosen up" more than you might think.
H-Blad made a crop insert thing for the viewfinder. The masks for the filmback were SILLY.. but I did use the viewer mask now and then.

 

[ParkerSmithPhoto]

Be sure to check out Keith Carter, if you haven't already. He is the king of square format.

The square is in fact the most intuitive format for everyone. Kodak used to make square shooters, Polaroid, now you have Instagram and others that shoot squares on the iPhone. I believe that, no matter their level of experience, every single person will make better photographs with a square camera.

 

[Dan Henderson]

You have received good advice: just go out and shoot with the camera. If you stop thinking about it your eye will find compositions that fit the square format. Sometimes your eye finds a horizontal or vertical rectangle that works better, so just crop at the enlarging stage. That is your right, and responsibility, as a printer.

 

[Dan Daniel]

If the square has you confused, shoot as much as you can. Either it will start making sense, or you'll be looking for a 6x4.5 back.

And when not shooting, look at people who have used it.

A couple of people not named-
Michael Kenna- http://www.michaelkenna.net/imagearchive.php
Lee Freeidlander- http://whitney.org/Exhibitions/LeeFriedlander/Images
Diane Arbus.

 

[seabee1999]

Thank you all for this insight and help so far. Please keep it coming. I will look at it all that has been said so far and ponder it over as I am out shooting. I have used some of my composition approaches that I would use for "normal" rectangle shooting with the square format when I took the camera out this past weekend for a trial run. But from what I gather, it is intuitive and should be somewhat easy to transition between the 2 formats.

R/
David

 

[ntenny]

Argentium view cameras makes and 8x8 with 8x8 holders.

Great, now I have GAS.

But since no one cuts 8x8 film, is it clear that there's any real advantage over shooting 8x10 and cropping at print time? I mean, I yield to no one in my love for square formats, but it seems like if you're going to remove a 2x8 strip from every sheet, you might as well expose it instead and have the slight extra flexibility.

To the OP's question, I think on the whole good composition is where you see it, independent of format. The one thing that strikes me about square formats is that they really won't let you get away with bullet composition (unless you're *trying* for an artificially symmetric, geometric image).

-NT

 

[epig]

Look at work by Keith Carter, Rolfe Horn, Hiroshi Watanabe, Michael Kenna, Joseph Hoflehner and the numerous photos here and flickr groups like Hasselblad, Bronica SQ, Pentacon Six etc. to see what works and especially what doesn't work.

The rule of thirds still applies with the square.

Eric

 

[vpwphoto]

Another of my pipe-dream ideas, is to print 5x5" negs in my Bessler 45mxt.
The 5x7 format frustrates me as I am limited to contact prints... although I have a 5x7 Elwood, that I just don't have the room to set up. It is HUGE.