Shooting square - how to print?

[Neanderman]

I have a question for all the folks that shoot square: How do you print your photographs? Do you print square? Do you crop in the darkroom and print in a "traditional" ratio?

I crop with the camera. If I want a square print, I shoot a square negative. And conversely.

Ed

 

[Akki14]

Pretty cool using an Ilford Sporti for weddings. If I had known that I would have you booked you for mine!

Ah I only did it as a favour for a friend who isn't very picky but just likes my printing/photography. Didn't even know if it was going to work at all, darkest venue ever. Metered it as far as my little light meter could take it (3200) and saw I needed about 1 stop more for it to be within the aperture/shutterspeed range of the sporti so developed it as EI 12500 in microphen (1 stop more than my expected EI of 6400).
I think her requirements was "use those weird cameras you have" and B&W

 

[Schlapp]

Nice stuff Mr 14

 

[max_ebb]

I was printing primarily 16x20 when I was shooting 6x6 (with a few 20x24). The main reason I switched to 6x7 was that I prefer the more traditional rectangle shaped prints, and I was essentially shooting 6x4.5 with the cropping.

If you crop a rectangle from the top of the frame, it's like shooting a horizontal shot with front rise on a view camera, so there are some attractions to cropping with 6x6 over shooting 645.

Cropping from the top would be using more of the edge of the lens and less of the center. Can that really considered comparable to using movement on a bellows camera or using a shift/tilt lens?

 

[max_ebb]

By the way, a square is a rectangle.

That's true. A square is also a polygon, and a parallelogram.

 

[eddym]

Cropping from the top would be using more of the edge of the lens and less of the center. Can that really considered comparable to using movement on a bellows camera or using a shift/tilt lens?

Yes. When you shift a lens to correct perspective, you are also moving the film plane towards the edge of the lens, just as you would when cropping from a square negative. It's exactly the same thing.
The only real difference is that wide-coverage large format lenses such as Super Angulons are designed to have greater sharpness on the edges than lenses that are not designed to be moved. They do, however still suffer from light falloff, thus the invention of center filters.

 

[Sparky]

In case THIS is the issue the original poster was getting at: When I print square format negs I usually print it on rectangular paper and leave the extra area on each side (or top and bottom). Especially when you want to overmat it. It's just good practice to have your print significantly larger than the matte window - that way you get better print flatness if you're not drymounting.

 

[Maris]

My square negatives are projected to square images on vertically oriented rectangular paper. The left, top, and right borders are equal and narrow.

The bottom border is wide and the space just under the picture area is used for the photograph title and my signature. Further down (usually covered by the over-mat) is my photographers stamp, copyright notice, negative catalogue number, and any incidental details worth recording.

 

[fschifano]

I like the square. It's flexible. Some images demand the square format. Some look better as rectangles. You can compose and print either way. Like someone else has already said, let the image determine the shape. Why would you even consider locking yourself into a square/not square mindset?

 

[Vaughn]

By the way, a square is a rectangle.

BTW, it isn't (but is). A rectangle, as defined in some places, has adjacent sides that are of unequal length. But then again, a square is often defined as a rectangle with 4 equal sides. No wonder math is confusing to some people! You'd think that mathematics would be one field where definitions were a little more well defined!:rolleyes: Both are polygons, both are quadrilaterals. Correcting my kids' geometry homework is educational!

I tend to print full frame -- that is because I am looking for compositions that utilize the format I have in my hands in the first place. But there are always exceptions. I always thought an 8"x8" or 10"x10" camera would be fun to use.

Vaughn

 

[jmooney]

Thanks for all the great responses. I asked because I've never really considered the square format before I always felt it would be limiting but I've taken an interest in it recently and I'm going to give it a go. I think that there are a lot of possibilities for it in my work.

Take care,

Jim

 

[Steve Smith]

I asked because I've never really considered the square format before I always felt it would be limiting.

The square format is not really limiting, it just promotes a different way of looking at things.

It can be wasteful of paper though!


Steve.

 

[Vaughn]

Thanks for all the great responses. I asked because I've never really considered the square format before I always felt it would be limiting but I've taken an interest in it recently and I'm going to give it a go. I think that there are a lot of possibilities for it in my work.

Take care,

Jim

Yes, the movement withing the square tends to be circular, rather than up/down or across and back that one gets with long rectangles. I learned photo with a Rollei...a nice way to see.

Vaughn

 

[redrockcoulee]

I too print full frame, about 7 inches square on an 8X10. In a portfolio book the white space around and especially below the image sets it off real nice. Works for all images except for Brittainies

Really love the square format but for images I conceive otherwise I use the 4X5, 35mm or digital.

 

[pgomena]

I love the square format and always try to fill the frame, but I'm not above cropping if the situation dictates. Sometimes I'm working with a horizontal scene that just has to have some sky cropped out. It all depends on the situation and circumstances. That's why it's the "universal format."

Peter Gomena

 

[waileong]

The perennial question.

Well, when I started out, I always printed full frame (eg 8x12 from 35 mm neg) because I didn't want to waste anything, I could never understand why people printed 8x10, 11x14, etc.

Now I realise that cropping is an essential part of the output process, and that it's not a single-answer problem, ie the answer is not always "print full frame".

Cropping serves many purposes, one of the most important is to support what you are trying to communicate with your picture. You crop elements which distract, which don't add to what you're trying to say, etc.

For a square neg, we have another decision. A picture cropped and presented vertically can have a different feel from one horizontally. Unlike 35 mm photographers, we can leave that decision to the output stage.

Hence my answer is-- I'll print full frame if that works, I'll crop if it works better. To me, printing full frame is not a sacred cow.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Case by case basis. Some images work in the square, others need to be cropped. While some 4x5 negs look really nice cropped into a square, or even a panoramic.
Try not to think about it too much. Just look critically at each negative individually and try to figure out what works best for that particular print. I think it's limiting to lock yourself up in certain aspect ratios just because the negative is shaped a certain way.
- Thomas

 

[moose10101]

BTW, it isn't (but is). A rectangle, as defined in some places, has adjacent sides that are of unequal length.

I haven't seen it defined this way. My favorite definition of a square:

A square is a degenerate rectangle with adjacent sides a and b having equal length.

A square is also a rhombus.

I crop as needed. I'd hate to pass up a shot because I'm carrying a 6x6 instead of a 6x9.