Printing square format non square.

[Ko.Fe.]

Excuse me if it was before.

I like TLRs. Handling experience.
But my vision is not square.
And I'm finding it perfect on 8x10 prints. Is it wrong in terms aesthetic conditions?

Cheers,
Ko.

 

[David Brown]

No.

 

[bdial]

Not at all.
A TLR is convenient for that since you don't need to hold the camera on its side to get a vertical.

Way back when, when I was a military photographer using a Rollei, EVERYTHING got printed 8x10. One of my early lessons was don't frame too tightly so that it could be cropped to the standard size. I got yelled at a few times by the lab rats for not leaving them enough room.

 

[Alan9940]

I hardly ever crop to any conventional size to print to any standard format. Don't let the camera format determine the final crop...crop away!!

Best regards,
AlanH

 

[BrianShaw]

Some pictures are square and some are rectangle. Let them be whatever they are.

 

[RobC]

There's no rules, you can crop it how you like. There a few strange people out there who insist that it should never be cropped and file out their enlarger negative masks so you can see it hasn't been cropped but pay them no attention, they're weird.

 

[Vaughn]

I may be weird, but I do not insist that others be.

By all means chop your square all up! But be open to not cropping -- a square requires a different approach, that's all.

 

[wiltw]

For creative purposes, where you are displaying your own works in a gallery, etc. crop freely to best suit the photo content.

But -- if selling photos to consumers -- keep in mind (for their benefit) that they will have a hell of a time finding mats and frames for any non-standard aspect ratios and sizes and spend a lot of money for custom mats and/or frames!

 

[Sirius Glass]

No rules. Crop and print as you see fit. Try out printing square, after a while you will find compositions that work square.

 

[Vaughn]

I have never sold an unmatted print (well, almost never) -- I like to have control of the entire photograph -- including mat type, color and size. For me, presentation is part of the piece...it all has to support my image.

But to each their own...

 

[gone]

I would agree w/ the consensus here. Make it any way you wish. But for some strange, bizarre reason, whenever I see a rectangular format pic that I like and later discover that it came from a square format camera, something in me rebels and is disappointed. I have no idea why. This also happens when it's a 35mm format that has been cropped to square format.

Whenever I compose a shot w/ a TLR, 4x5, or 35mm camera, that's how I print it (for the same compositional reasons). But, that's just me. If I don't know that a pic has been cropped, then it doesn't matter. It would probably take years of therapy to understand why, but the why is unimportant. It's just the way it is. At least I don't file the neg carriers out to prove that. They sometimes get filed because they're often a little too small, and cropping my image on their own.

 

[removed account4]

make your photographs the way you want the way you want to make them
... there are always people who will tell you that you are doing everything wrong ..
they are usually the people you shouldn't listen to

have fun !
john

 

[mooseontheloose]

I agree with what the others have said. There are no rules. And, even if there were rules, I think they were meant to be broken, especially with cameras like TLRs. Most of them have one lens only (which can be quite limiting) and were designed to be cropped (as mentioned before, no need to turn the camera around to take a shot). Personally I like square and I tend to print square, but I often find that there are images that look better in a rectangular format and I have no problem printing them that way.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Thanks to all for good explanations!

I need to file just one mask for now, 6x9 for contact prints.
But I'll admit, I printed from 6x9 to 8x10 few times.

Cheers, Ko.

 

[RobC]

But I'll admit, I printed from 6x9 to 8x10 few times.

Naughty boy, slapped wrists.

 

[Vaughn]

Momus -- If you find a good therapist, send me his/her number!

I tend to see and compose for the format I am using. When I come across an image that falls outside of the proportions of the format I am using, I usually just smile and enjoy the fact that I saw it and carry on. I have seen some of best possible images when I have not had a camera with me -- not bad luck, it is just that the camera was not there to get in the way of seeing.

 

[ParkerSmithPhoto]

I greatly prefer to print full frame, because I like to see and compose the full frame, so I have both a Bronica SQ for my square pics and a RZ for my mostly vertical portraits.

If I'm out with the SQ and want to make a vertical portrait, I just crop it, no big deal. Probably 95% of the work I do is full frame, and I like it that way, but I'm all for whatever works to make a great picture.

 

[blansky]

I shot a Hasselblad professionally for 35 years and shot thousands of pictures and never printed one square, ever.

I can appreciate square, but for my stuff for some reason I never really liked a square format.

 

[RobC]

Be there or be square

 

[gzinsel]

no

 

[Jerevan]

I used to be a lot more into the "no crop" school earlier but nowadays, I just don't care - if the print needs something? Well, then do it.

 

[cliveh]

Look at Bill Brandt's compositions.

 

[jeffreyg]

Although I use 4x5 at times, I do most of my images from 2 1/4 x 2 1/4 and mostly on a tripod. With the square I don't have to change the camera position vertical or horizontal just include a little extra space in the composition and crop accordingly or keep it tight and square.

http://www.jeffreyglasser.com/
http://sculptureandphotography.com/

 

[Sirius Glass]

Just because I shoot square does not mean that all the prints will be square, but you can count on the fact that they will not triangular either.

 

[moose10101]

Half of my 35mm shots end up being printed square. I let the subject dictate the ratio, not the camera.