Square format, and the feelings it create.

[Pieter12]

If the photo is good there is no waste of anything. No matter what you do or don't crop or trim, the end result is what it is about. If it is about pennies spent on paper or film area not used, this is not the field for you.

 

[Mike Lopez]

If the photo is good there is no waste of anything. No matter what you do or don't crop or trim, the end result is what it is about. If it is about pennies spent on paper or film area not used, this is not the field for you.

Agree to a point, but it’s quite gratifying to be able to explore and utilize the full dimensions of any format and not have to discard anything. Try it sometime. I’ve made full-frame portraits in every format from half-frame 35mm up to 4x5, and it’s very satisfying to be able to use the entirety of every format, from squares to long (6x17) panoramics. Who said anything about cost? That’s a mistaken assumption you made.

 

[Vaughn]

Trim to the composition. Life is not that hard.

Agreed...I trim by using the camera lens and format (then contacting full-frame), except for rare occasions...if a square image can out-scream all the incredible full-frame images around me and all I have is the 11x14, then an 11x11 print could be in my future. If one hikes all day with an 11x14 and four holders, one does a lot of editing before even setting the camera up. I almost forgot -- I also trim in the film holders; masking half the neg to put two panoramic images on each sheet (two 5.5x14 or two 4x10).

Others trim before, some after, enlarging. Some don't trim, but cover with a window mat. I find the way I trim to be a wonderful and thoughtful way for me to work. Certainly not everyone's cup of tea. Life is not that hard and the views are worth the effort.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Or open your eyes, compose to the format, and you need not waste paper and film.

I do compose for the format, but square paper is rare.

 

[Pieter12]

Or open your eyes, compose to the format, and you need not waste paper and film.

The white borders around a square image on rectangular (not square) paper are not a waste. Look at Diane Arbus' prints.

 

[Down Under]

... except the one who was the son of royalty, he could afford a 3 Hasselhoff bodies about 5 lenses and 6 backs (that cost 900$ each). every 6 months lenses and bodies and back were sent to hassy to be worked on, which was like the helicopter rental priced into the cost of doing business. he and his wife ate a baked potato for dinner whenever I was there, and he
so who knows maybe he couldn't afford it and was playing the fake it till you make it game... like they say, one way to be a rich photographer is to be rich before one started. its a nice fantasy to think that everyone could afford top end gear a sweet studio and 2 assistants, its probably tv that propagated these myths.

Was this the beefy prince whose portfolio of royal castles ended up on a series of postage stamps?? Way way back when
I could afford to travel to those places, I saw an exhibition of his images in Bath (UK), and thought they were amateurish snaps, predictably composed and printed dazzlingly well, most likely by the most expensive prolab in the country. He happens to be back in the news now, but not for his photography...

I did like his wife. Saw her at a race course champagne party (again, way way back when I was considered 'in' enough to be invited to those places) and thought she was really a woman after me own heart, as the British say.

Anyway, on to 'square' photography. As someone who has shot 6x6 almost all his life (Yashica D, Rolleiflex, Rolleiflexes, Rolleicord and Hasselblads, not in that order but as a list), I find 12 on 120 to be ideal for my needs. It's how my mind works. Rolleis are very zen, a most polite and unobtrusive camera to work with, the lower perspective when using the WLF disarms those who feel threatened by the more aggressive act of holding up a rangefinder/viewfinder to one's eyes.

TLRs and 12 on 120 in general is/are ideal for more 'static' subjects - portraits, yes, if one can resist the urge to go too close (fortunately, the Rolleis only focus down to about one meter, unless one uses the wonderful Rolleinar close-up lenses the camera doesn't intrude into the sitter's personal space and all stays nice and calm), not so much landscapes unless one concentrates on what I like to call 'fixed images' (= parts of landscapes), in which case it all becomes zen minimalist and very calm and relaxing. In my early years (1960s and 1970s) I took mostly news, documentary work, architecture and weddings, the latter two lent themselves more to rectangle composition, so I bought into the Linhof Teknika range, which blighted my life for a few years until I finally traded up - to a Hasselblad, which for me made things even worse. So 12/120 was not my 'ideal' format until I went back to my Rolleis, and all was well again.

Oddly, I now have and use two Rolleiflex Ts which I love - but they both have 16 exposure kits, as does my Rolleicord Vb, and give 6x4.5 (in fact 4.5x5 but let's not be too dogmatic about this), so go figure. Squares, rectangles, whatever - when something works for me, it works.

Another post I just picked up -

I do compose for the format, but square paper is rare.

Think laterally. Square on a 5x8 (half 8x10) sheet of enlarging paper or on a full 8x10 sheet. You do trim your own in the darkroom, don't you? If not, buy a paper trimmer. New dimensions in your life will open up!!

 

[Mike Lopez]

The white borders around a square image on rectangular (not square) paper are not a waste. Look at Diane Arbus' prints.

You sure are making lots of assumptions about what I said. I, too, like Diane Arbus. She also tended to use the entirety of the frame. (Although I can’t necessarily say that about her early work, shot on 35mm). But did she save any pennies in doing so? Who cares.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Agree to a point, but it’s quite gratifying to be able to explore and utilize the full dimensions of any format and not have to discard anything. Try it sometime. I’ve made full-frame portraits in every format from half-frame 35mm up to 4x5, and it’s very satisfying to be able to use the entirety of every format, from squares to long (6x17) panoramics. Who said anything about cost? That’s a mistaken assumption you made.

As a long-time shooter of 35mm slides for projection, I tend to do that with every camera and format and film even though I no longer project film slides. I do however make video and slide shows for my 16:9 4K TV. SO I;ve been framing my digital camera to 16:9 when I shoot digital stills and of course digital videos. I still frame to the viewfinder with my RB67 medium format and 4x5 sheet film cameras. Habits are hard to break.

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

Every time I print from 6x6 I end up with a rectangular crop. Lots of 6x6 negatives and nary a square print.

I've never cropped a 35mm/6x9/4x5 negative to make a square print. Anybody do this?

 

[Pieter12]

Every time I print from 6x6 I end up with a rectangular crop. Lots of 6x6 negatives and nary a square print.

I've never cropped a 35mm/6x9/4x5 negative to make a square print. Anybody do this?

All the time.

 

[Pieter12]

Or open your eyes, compose to the format, and you need not waste paper and film.

I don't think I made any assumptions about your statement about wasting paper. Possibly your are assuming something about my reply. Maybe you should clarify.

 

[MattKing]

I've never cropped a 35mm/6x9/4x5 negative to make a square print. Anybody do this?

Yes (although more from 6x7).
I let two things determine issues of cropping:
1) the subject and image itself; and
2) how I intend to display the results.
I've presented in group shows where all the prints were in matched, square frames, but the negatives were a mixture of 6x6, 6x7 and 35mm. The images were suitable for display together as square images, so that is what I did.
I'm never likely to not take a photo that suits a square print, just because I don't have a square format camera in my hand.
If my camera has slide film in it, and I'm planning to project the results, my approach may be slightly different.

 

[Arthurwg]

I mainly shoot 6x6 and occasionally 35mm. So after reading all this I think I'll sell my 6x7 Mamiya 7, which I rarely use and rarely use successfully. Thanks for that.

 

[guangong]

Trim to the composition. Life is not that hard.

ditto!

 

[bluez]

I thought quantum mechanics was all about never really knowing where anything is, and just statistically predicting it. I'd rather have an image stay put in a rectangular frame on a wall, so I can actually view it.

Otherwise, I can prove Einstein was wrong all along. Gravity is a function of time. Everything gets heavier, slower, and sags more over time. Even the same cameras get heavier. The warp in the time-space trampoline doesn't need any math at all;
and I don't like looking at the weight scale at this point in my life anyway. And every patrol cop around munching donuts is evidence that a hole in something only makes the nearest big object with a corresponding intake hole even bigger over time.

Also, according to quantum mechanics, you don't really know if the picture exist before you look.

 

[DREW WILEY]

That's good news, because there are many times I have wished the picture before me didn't exist, especially with current gallery trends.

 

[Pieter12]

That's good news, because there are many times I have wished the picture before me didn't exist, especially with current gallery trends.

Once you've observed it, it exists in those dimensions at least. However, you can either close your eyes and will it to disappear (doesn't ever work for me), ignore it or turn around and leave. Those last two work for me.

 

[NB23]

Square is so nice.

 

[DREW WILEY]

... or enter a black hole, Pieter. Turn off the gallery lights. Better the unknown than the distasteful known. But based on the immediately preceding posted image, it seems we're already entering an Einsteinian curved universe, somewhere around the perimeter or a swirling black hole, wherein the square Flat Earth Society inevitably disappears. Didn't Weegee already get distorted when he was sucked into that?