Square Format
-
A
- Thread starter CMoore
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
Want to Buy Color by Beseler Print Processing Drums
- Started by logan2z
-
Want to Buy Jobo 3005 expert tank for 5 sheets of 8x10
- Started by blee1996
-
For Sale FS: One of a kind Canonet QL17 GIII, PANDA
- Started by dirkfletcher
Forum statistics
At times i do..... it often depends on the subject.... at other times,.... which camera i happen to have with me
I like square alot. I used to shoot a lot of 6x7. Now it's 6x6 or 6x9.
Yes.
I have rectangular cameras and do good work with them, but I prefer square prints.
MattKing
Moderator
I prepared these prints square intentionally - for a 2018 group show I participated in. They are all scans of prints.
Some were shot on 6x6, others were shot on 6x7 and printed cropped. I had the possibility of square prints in mind when exposing the 6x7 negatives, but the final decision was made later.
Some were shot on 6x6, others were shot on 6x7 and printed cropped. I had the possibility of square prints in mind when exposing the 6x7 negatives, but the final decision was made later.
Sometimes the composition calls for a square image, sometimes not.
I for one, find the square format appealing.
I for one, find the square format appealing.
Aspect ratio of the gods.
Andrew O'Neill
Moderator
I like them both.
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2009
- Messages
- 3,589
- Format
- Medium Format
Just because the negative is square does not mean that the print must be square. From the viewpoint of dynamic composition, a square is a difficult frame. This does not mean that a square frame cannot be used at times. Similarly, one doesn’t have to print full frame for 35mm, or any other format. I don’t know of a painter who only uses a single dimensional frame for every picture.
Of course, as with practically every other topic, there will be some who swear by square. If they are pleased with their results, good for them. But composition is about guiding the eye throughout within the frame. A photographer doesn’t have the same freedom to adjust elements of a picture as a painter. Photography isn’t easy. But that is why the occasional success is so satisfying.
Of course, as with practically every other topic, there will be some who swear by square. If they are pleased with their results, good for them. But composition is about guiding the eye throughout within the frame. A photographer doesn’t have the same freedom to adjust elements of a picture as a painter. Photography isn’t easy. But that is why the occasional success is so satisfying.
4 TLR's, Bronica EC, RB67 w/Graflex RH/12 film back for 6x6, Holga, 3 p/s digitals set to square and even my phone set to square are my most used cameras.
I like the balanced composition of square especially for b/w.
I shoot 35mm as well but I find I don't like the "rule of thirds" composition as much as I tend to like centered subjects. I just find them more visually appealing.
I like the balanced composition of square especially for b/w.
I shoot 35mm as well but I find I don't like the "rule of thirds" composition as much as I tend to like centered subjects. I just find them more visually appealing.
I prefer the square format on my Hasselblad; easy to compose and no need for turning for portrait vs. landscape.rectankle composition can still be done in the darkroom!
I believe we've had this discussion before. My first camera was a Yashica TLR that took sqyuare photos on 127 film. I shot mostly slides, I have no idea where they are now, but I do have a lack and white print from then.
I later started shooting 35mm (I really wanted to be a photojournalist). Then about 8 years ago, I started working on a book and came to the conclusion that I wanted all the photographs to have the same orientation. So instead of shooting all verticals or horizontals, I cropped all the images square even though they were shot 2:3 ratio. I became addicted. Soon after I acquired an MF SLR and came back to film and I haven't abandoned the square format since. Except for street photography, almost all my work ends up square, no matter the original. I did make an excursion into the panoramic format (thank you Josef Koudelka). At one point, I worked on a book that didn't end up getting published, called Square Solace. Here is the essay I wrote for the introduction:
SHOOTING SQUARE
There is an inherent equilibrium to the square format. No dimension dominates, it is balanced and solid. That alone brings a certain solace, a settled quality to the composition. What the photographer does within the square can maintain that peace or disrupt it by how he or she frames the scene.
At the same time, what I discovered when I started shooting square format photos is that the square is not what we expect to see, it is not our natural perspective. So it takes both the photographer and the viewer a bit off-kilter. The edges of the frame are more intrusive as it were--they are equally close, and composition becomes more obvious and important.
The traditional horizontal format feels natural somehow, maybe because we have two eyes positioned horizontally. But even the vertical format is familiar through books, magazines, and today’s smartphones. (I can’t get over the number of vertical videos that are shot, even though many are viewed on a horizontal computer or TV screen.)
Apparently constraining, the square format is actually a liberation. When shooting square, classical rules can be ignored, left by the wayside. A flat horizon running through the exact middle of the frame, a horizon that is wildly tilted, elements dead center, all these may become more valid in a square. And these new relations can challenge what we had learned to believe was there when we looked at the world.
I later started shooting 35mm (I really wanted to be a photojournalist). Then about 8 years ago, I started working on a book and came to the conclusion that I wanted all the photographs to have the same orientation. So instead of shooting all verticals or horizontals, I cropped all the images square even though they were shot 2:3 ratio. I became addicted. Soon after I acquired an MF SLR and came back to film and I haven't abandoned the square format since. Except for street photography, almost all my work ends up square, no matter the original. I did make an excursion into the panoramic format (thank you Josef Koudelka). At one point, I worked on a book that didn't end up getting published, called Square Solace. Here is the essay I wrote for the introduction:
SHOOTING SQUARE
There is an inherent equilibrium to the square format. No dimension dominates, it is balanced and solid. That alone brings a certain solace, a settled quality to the composition. What the photographer does within the square can maintain that peace or disrupt it by how he or she frames the scene.
At the same time, what I discovered when I started shooting square format photos is that the square is not what we expect to see, it is not our natural perspective. So it takes both the photographer and the viewer a bit off-kilter. The edges of the frame are more intrusive as it were--they are equally close, and composition becomes more obvious and important.
The traditional horizontal format feels natural somehow, maybe because we have two eyes positioned horizontally. But even the vertical format is familiar through books, magazines, and today’s smartphones. (I can’t get over the number of vertical videos that are shot, even though many are viewed on a horizontal computer or TV screen.)
Apparently constraining, the square format is actually a liberation. When shooting square, classical rules can be ignored, left by the wayside. A flat horizon running through the exact middle of the frame, a horizon that is wildly tilted, elements dead center, all these may become more valid in a square. And these new relations can challenge what we had learned to believe was there when we looked at the world.
I like square. I often look for scenes that will fit a square or frame a non-square scene such that it works in a square boundary.
This is the PNC Roof Garden (part of the Museum of Fine Arts) in Houston, Texas. Ilford Delta 100, Rolleiflex 3.5E Xenotar.
This is the PNC Roof Garden (part of the Museum of Fine Arts) in Houston, Texas. Ilford Delta 100, Rolleiflex 3.5E Xenotar.
I love square format; I find it balanced and zen. I hardly ever shoot things that move or try to create "tension" in an image, which is often said to work better in rectangular.
@Pieter12 said it very well, I have nothing to add, really:
@Pieter12 said it very well, I have nothing to add, really:
Last edited:
I don't like square but I like the cameras that are square the most.
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2009
- Messages
- 1,235
- Format
- Multi Format
I really like square format. Nearly all of my MF cameras are square - one folder is 645 and another is 6x9. 3:2 is fine for my 35mm though at some point in the near future, I'm going to try the Judy Fiskin style of masking a 35mm camera to square.
Similar with me... I like the 35mm 2:3 ratio, so for MF I shoot 6x9... BUT I also like the full frame 6x6 square for some reason... hate 6x7/4x5...
I specifically avoided square format for a long time. I was pretty set on 2:3 for years, and even when I started shooting 6x6 cameras, I always did so with the intention of cropping to 4:5.
I've gotten a lot less aspect ratio dogmatic over the years. I just use whatever aspect ratio works best to help convey what I'm trying to convey. Sometimes that's 1:1 and sometimes it's 16:9, or even wide panoramic ratios. Most commonly my photos work well printed in a 4:5 ratio, but I rarely try to force a specific ratio anymore.
I've gotten a lot less aspect ratio dogmatic over the years. I just use whatever aspect ratio works best to help convey what I'm trying to convey. Sometimes that's 1:1 and sometimes it's 16:9, or even wide panoramic ratios. Most commonly my photos work well printed in a 4:5 ratio, but I rarely try to force a specific ratio anymore.
To some extent my choice (in the past) has been dictated by the camera. I loved my Mamiya 6MF.....& sold it over concerns about the electronics. I took that camera everywhere. Both the 75 & 50mm were spectacular. I really like the results from my Rolleiflex....but i carry it somewhat less often than i did the Mamiya 6.
Well it's surely not a religious mandate; in film I shoot largely square (cruise my gallery here) but that is mostly a matter of using what I have. In medium format 6x6 there's an SLR, TLR, and a folder. But I do have and use a 6x9 folder. My mirror-less DSLR can be configured to shoot a bunch of different aspect ratios and I usually go with the 3:2. Some other digi's default to 4:3 which I think is more appealing at some levels -- I would likely take on a 6x7 or 6x8 film camera if I were looking to ramp up my GAS.
What's important is to remember there's no international law that says "thou shall print the entire negative!"
What's important is to remember there's no international law that says "thou shall print the entire negative!"
Some formats are harder for me to work with than others (35mm comes to mind as a tough one) but I don't dislike any. Square is my favorite though.
I learned with a Rolleiflex, but thought I needed to fill the full sheet of 11x14 photo paper (the required size print in my photo class...I just took it too literally). Taking it further, I started to print 7"x19" images from the sq negs. I re-discovered the square and have loved it ever since, even though I have migrated to 4x5 to 5x7 to 8x10 and 11x14 and back around again.
I modified a broken darkslide to make 11x11 negatives...crop in-camera, basically. Used it once or twice, but not overly excited about it. I tend to see in the format I have, which includes modified darkslides to make 4x10 and 5.5x14 images. But I do love the square...
A platinum/palladium print -- subject centered, but still has a bit of tension/movement (keep the image small - it is only a 2.25" x 2.25" print)
I modified a broken darkslide to make 11x11 negatives...crop in-camera, basically. Used it once or twice, but not overly excited about it. I tend to see in the format I have, which includes modified darkslides to make 4x10 and 5.5x14 images. But I do love the square...
A platinum/palladium print -- subject centered, but still has a bit of tension/movement (keep the image small - it is only a 2.25" x 2.25" print)
Attachments
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |