Square Format and Enlarging

[RedSun]

Since there is no square print paper (not talking about rolls), we'll have to crop the 6x6 format negative. So when you shoot photos, do you take that into consideration when you frame? Or that is an after-thought?

How many of you would crop the paper to fit the negative?

Here I'm not start a debate on the square format, just some practical questions.

 

[BrianShaw]

I tend to print (or have printed) square images as square images. I tend to crop square images to rectangle when it enhances the composition or message. In both cases I use (or pay for) rectangle paper... with the exception of machine-made 4x4 or 5x5 proofs.

 

[Too old to care]

When I was working as a wedding photographer I had my proofs and final prints printed square (5x5, 10x10, etc.) When they were printed bigger, then they went to rectangles (11x14, 16x20). For my personal work I do much the same if printing square makes a difference, but mostly I do standard rectangle sizes. I do not think about it when taking photos, and sometimes I regret that. On my 330F, I have a grid plate in the finder, on my 501C I do not.

 

[DWThomas]

I compose to whatever format I'm shooting and print the same -- mostly. I enlarge my 6x6 cm stuff to about 10.5 square on 11x14 paper, but normally trim 2.5 inches or so off the long end and use it for test strips. At my relatively low printing volume it works out pretty well.

 

[BrianShaw]

When I was working as a wedding photographer I had my proofs and final prints printed square (5x5, 10x10, etc.) ...

For portraiture type work, I tend to always crop square to rectangle except for the initial proofs. For almost everything else I seem to see (and print) square when using a square format camera and rectangle when using another camera. Perhaps I am too literal and too bound to the physical format of the camera hardware. In terms of matting/framing, I would much rather work in standard rectangle sizes: 8x10, 11x14 and 16x20 than anything else.

 

[winger]

I compose to whatever format I'm shooting and print the same -- mostly. I enlarge my 6x6 cm stuff to about 10.5 square on 11x14 paper, but normally trim 2.5 inches or so off the long end and use it for test strips. At my relatively low printing volume it works out pretty well.

+1

No matter what camera format I'm using, I crop the image to where I think it's strongest. I have a four-bladed easel which makes it easy to put a square image wherever I want it on the paper. I've even printed square images from 35mm frames and rectangular images from 6x6 frames. Having extra paper around the image is not an issue for me. I don't worry about whether an image fits to a "normal" mat/frame size either because I cut my own mats and just make the outer dimension fit a regular frame size no matter what the mat opening is.

 

[wildbill]

If I don't want square prints, I shoot a format which isn't square.
cut off the extra paper and use it for test strips.

 

[Vaughn]

Generally I do not crop the image on the negative, that is, I print full-frame. But for me, it is the image that determines the final presentation, not the size or shape of the paper I have on hand.

If I am worried about 'wasting' paper by putting a square image on a rectangular piece of paper, then I could trim the paper and use the trimmed part for test strips or smaller prints. But actually, I have never considered putting a square image on rectangular paper as wasting paper...and the extra space above and below the image area just means it is very easy to handle the paper without damaging the image area. If I make an 8x10 contact print for display (rather than just to record what I have on the film), I put it on 11x14 paper and don't sweat the extra paper...though if it was readily available, I'd be happy to use 10x12 paper.

I learned photography using a Rolleiflex and made my first prints without help in the employee darkroom when I worked at the Grand Canyon in 1977. I took photo classes at the university after that. In the beginning class we were required to use 11x14 paper and I cropped the images to fill the paper...I though we were suppose to. It was very nice to discover that we did not have to and I began printing full-frame.

 

[Vaughn]

+1

No matter what camera format I'm using, I crop the image to where I think it's strongest...

A valid way to work. I approach it from the other direction and create the strongest image that fills the whole sheet of film. It is just the way I enjoy working.

 

[BrianShaw]

A valid way to work. I approach it from the other direction and create the strongest image that fills the whole sheet of film. It is just the way I enjoy working.

That is my preference. I'm sometimes surprised by how often it works... and how often it doesn't. My worst nightmare is looking at a neg and wishing I got "just a little bit more" into the frame.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

You should not let the shape of the paper dictate how you print your images. The subject matter and how good it looks should dictate how you print and crop. Always.

I make 8x8" square photographs on 11x14" paper, with 2.5" on top, 3.5" on bottom, and 1.5" on the sides. Looks fabulous to me.
Similarly I make 6" square photos on 8x10" paper and 12x12" prints on 16x20" paper.
Strangely, when shooting the 6x6 camera I almost always end up printing square too. When shooting rectangular formats I crop like a mad person to get the prints to look the way I like them. Go figure. It's as though the square viewfinder lends itself to composing really well.

 

[Bob Marvin]

I have plastic grid line overlays on the groundglass of my Rollei and Arax 60 that show ease composing for verticals and horizontals. I dislike square images and compose for one or the other, but do appreciate the ability to occasionally change my mind in the darkroom.

 

[MattKing]

If you like square paper: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?atclk=Size_10x10%22&ci=802&N=4288586366+4294954360

If you look through the archives here on APUG, I think you will find this subject comes up regularly, especially if you include the people who have the same problem with printing more rectangular films (135) on to 8x10 papers. Inevitably, you learn that some people almost always print full frame, while others are happy to crop.

In my case I'm flexible, but I will often try to consider print shape and size when I have composition flexibility.

Some times I think we should establish an exchange, whereby everyone who prints to something other than the paper's aspect ratio can sell their extra strips of paper to those who don't.

 

[Vaughn]

That is my preference. I'm sometimes surprised by how often it works... and how often it doesn't. My worst nightmare is looking at a neg and wishing I got "just a little bit more" into the frame.

I resemble that remark, though occasionally I find the I wish that I has swung the camera a half-degree or two in another direction. Difficult to print something that is not on the negative -- cropping is much easier! But this is one way of improving one's vision...the disappointment of missing an image can be a stronger motivator for improvement than just thinking "I'll just crop later".

 

[nsurit]

I often print square and generally print full frame attempting to crop in camera. When matting I like a bit more space at the top of my print as I hinge mount. My process typically involves a step which I'm not allowed to discuss here, however I will tell you I apply my own light sensitive material to paper I have cut from much larger sheets. I coat test strips from the smaller pieces produced when breaking down the larger pieces of paper. So, in answer to your question, where I using paper sized and sensitized by someone other than myself, I'd probably trim it and use the trimmings as test strips. Bill Barber

 

[vpwphoto]

I love the square... Art directors either cursed or loved it. (most preferred it). Not so much fun for portraits that will go to 8x10 or 5x7 (especially the 5x7). Mamiya sold a lot of cameras on the argument the square was silly.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

Since there is no square print paper (not talking about rolls), we'll have to crop the 6x6 format negative. So when you shoot photos, do you take that into consideration when you frame? Or that is an after-thought?

How many of you would crop the paper to fit the negative?

Here I'm not start a debate on the square format, just some practical questions.

I print square images from my Rollei, I trim the paper beforehand and use the cutoff strips as test strips. Sometimes I compose for a rectangular print and print accordingly. Sometimes an image works both ways!

 

[Vaughn]

I print square images from my Rollei, I trim the paper beforehand and use the cutoff strips as test strips. Sometimes I compose for a rectangular print and print accordingly. Sometimes an image works both ways!

And since I print both in platinum and in carbon (which reverses the image -- mirror image), I find some images work either way, and some do not. But usually I compose an image to work primarily in one of the two processes and not both.

Attached are carbon and platinum prints of the same negative (Tech Pan in a Diana camera).

 

[brian steinberger]

I am another square lover. I have two mamiya 6's because I love the square format and I love rangefinders. I also have a bronica RF645 and Nikon F100 for when I want to shoot rectangular format. I compose according to whatever format I'm shooting and print that way though sometimes I do find cropping of a 6x6 neg produces a more pleasing image. But that's the versitality of the 6x6 format and why it was the popular wedding format. You can also imitate a bit of front rise with the square format by leveling the camera and cropping the bottom part of the negative after. This only works for a horizontal crop however you could gain "shift" by cropping vertical.

Having said all that, I never crop my rectangular negatives to square.