Square Format

[guangong]

On the subject of round images, I can think of one that has some history:
View attachment 328423

This is really a technical drawing illustrating proportions of human body and has nothing to do with composition within a picture as under discussion for this thread. This page does display the high quality of draftsmanship associated with all of this artist’s even casual drawings.

On the subject of round images, I can think of one that has some history:
View attachment 328423

 

[Daniela]

Samples of circles. https://www.sfomuseum.org/exhibitions/geir-jordahl-circle-life/gallery#1

Wow, that's beautiful work!

View attachment 328347

Beautiful!

As for me, I shoot mostly 35mm, but go through phases where all I want to shoot is square format. Others have mentioned zen, strength, calm, balance, solidity...I agree, I love it for that.

 

[Vaughn]

Wow, that's beautiful work!
...

And talk about both filling the frame and printing full frame!

 

[Hassasin]

There are times when a composition works with square, no rectangle would make it better.

There are other times when that "convenience-of-not-needing-to-think-which-way-the-camera-is-held got a better of me" I wound up "rectangulizing" final image as sqaure was plain moot to fight with.

But neither of above is all that obvious at snapping the shutter

 

[DREW WILEY]

Well, I go with the ancient Greeks and their Golden Mean formula. If they had gone square, the can't make up their mind "Goofy Mehhh" route instead, they'd probably never be mentioned in the art history books. But square is fine for things like storm drain caps, and those who specialize in photographing them I suppose. Never once have I personally done a square composition; it just wouldn't seem natural. Right now, I'm really at home with 6x9 format, and now tend to crop even my 4x5 and 8x10 shots somewhat more linear.

 

[eli griggs]

126.

Or it's possible they were using 127 which was more popular than 135 for years, IIRC.

Many classic consumer cameras fall under that formating

 

[Vaughn]

There are times when a composition works with square, no rectangle would make it better.

There are other times when that "convenience-of-not-needing-to-think-which-way-the-camera-is-held got a better of me" I wound up "rectangulizing" final image as sqaure was plain moot to fight with.

But neither of above is all that obvious at snapping the shutter

Here's a good one...

Shop Waterwheel Fall by Ansel Adams

Overview Of all the American landscapes that Ansel Adams immortalized through his images, Yosemite was the most deeply personal. In Yosemite he discovered his spiritual home and built his family. He first visited the Park in 1916 and he returned every year thereafter, meeting his wife there and...

shop.anseladams.com

 

[Hassasin]

Here's a good one...

Shop Waterwheel Fall by Ansel Adams

Overview Of all the American landscapes that Ansel Adams immortalized through his images, Yosemite was the most deeply personal. In Yosemite he discovered his spiritual home and built his family. He first visited the Park in 1916 and he returned every year thereafter, meeting his wife there and...

shop.anseladams.com

Square works in many situations. Early on it was a surprising revelation for me. It certainly is well fit for majority of symmetrically balanced compositions, but often enough also delivers powerful image in many others.

At the same time I never subscribed to the idea of taking full frame to the final cut without cropping, as some sort of taboo if done otherwise.

For those who are not sold on square’s validity, these days it’s too easy to just drop square cropping mask on screen and move around the image for instant feedback on how that works out on any image.

 

[Philippe-Georges]

It contains a circle, but it is not round. Many round images were made as ceiling decorations.

A circle can be seen as an infinite rotating square...
They have the same middle point.

 

[polka]

I own a Rolleiflex T that I specifically acquired because I could use with it both 6x6 and 645 format*. I like to compose square for B&W prints, but I use 645 for slide shows. Indeed in this case, I do not feel limited by the mandatory landscape orientation because a slide show on a large screen should always play unique orientation. And for still projection, I prefer 645 framing to 2x3. I would also prefer 6x7 framing but the slide projectors for that format are rare.

Sometimes for prints, I do tatami cropping (2x1) because it is almost panoramic (but not quite).

And never tried circular framing but sometimes oval when I want to get an old time look.

* The Rolleiflex T gives 12 6x6 views and 16 645 views landscape. After, I found also a Rolleikin kit, for 24x36 portrait oriented on 35mm film. With this device, the 75mm focal would be an ideal little tele for portrait work.

 

[guangong]

Since the subjects of photography can be loosely described as found objects, the frame must be formed to fit the subjects, whereas for drawing or painting the subjects can be formed to fit the frame. Cezanne had no difficulty shifting the location of a mountain in a painting. Even AA couldn’t do that. To maintain a rigid “only shoot full frame” or “never crop” attitude sometime seems more like bragging points than making photographs, although full frame for the more selective and contemplative LF makes sense for shooting full frame.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Alex Kilbee's video on square format.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I found that it's better to shoot in whatever format you intend to print in. Otherwise, when you crop, the new format may not allow you what you want. You'll start cutting off feet for example. I also found that whatever format you shoot in, your eye will adjust very quickly to fit the scene to the camera's format.

I discovered this accidentally when I started to make vacation slide shows for my TV and monitor which have 16:9 formats. The video clips were 16:9 but the stills were 4:3 causing black bars on the screen with the stills. So I tried to crop all the 4:3s to 16:9 and had loads of problems. So one day on vacation, I switched the camera to shoot stills at 16:9 just like the videos. It took about an hour to adjust my compositions, maybe less, and then all my shots and videos were 16:9.

So what I found is I could switch from 3:2 to 16:9 to 1:1 or whatever, and I'll format the subject to the cameras' selection. It's really no more difficult composing in any format you select.

Here're a sample of pictures in the Southwest done on in 16:9. At first look, it doesn't seem apparent it's 16:9. The composition fits the format.

Red Rock Canyon, Las Vegas

Explore this photo album by Alan Klein on Flickr!

www.flickr.com

 

[campy51]

In that video there are pictures where the heads are cut off. I think if I posted one of mine for critique with the head cut off it would be probably the first thing someone would tell me. I can't believe the photograph of John and Paul wouldn't be as good if the head was not cut off.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Since the subjects of photography can be loosely described as found objects, the frame must be formed to fit the subjects, whereas for drawing or painting the subjects can be formed to fit the frame. Cezanne had no difficulty shifting the location of a mountain in a painting. Even AA couldn’t do that. To maintain a rigid “only shoot full frame” or “never crop” attitude sometime seems more like bragging points than making photographs, although full frame for the more selective and contemplative LF makes sense for shooting full frame.

This. We have to realize that camera formats are arbitrary, man-made decisions. 4:3 is no more "natural" than TV's 16:9, or 35mm's 3:2 which is really an old movie format. There are also Cinemascope formats of various widths. The cinematographers adjust the scene to fit the cameras' format. That's why movies work in any format. So it is with still pictures we take. The scene has to be composed to fit the camera's format.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

In that video there are pictures where the heads are cut off. I think if I posted one of mine for critique with the head cut off it would be probably the first thing someone would tell me. I can't believe the photograph of John and Paul wouldn't be as good if the head was not cut off.

You;re probably right. I would have preferred it with the whole head. But then again, what I would have given to be able to have shot the Beatles.
For those who want to see this check 2:52 in the Kilbee video.

 

[faberryman]

Since the subjects of photography can be loosely described as found objects, the frame must be formed to fit the subjects, whereas for drawing or painting the subjects can be formed to fit the frame. Cezanne had no difficulty shifting the location of a mountain in a painting. Even AA couldn’t do that. To maintain a rigid “only shoot full frame” or “never crop” attitude sometime seems more like bragging points than making photographs, although full frame for the more selective and contemplative LF makes sense for shooting full frame.

It just depends on where you want to crop, the viewfinder or the easel. I prefer to crop in the viewfinder. Of course, when you crop in the viewfinder, it is not called cropping. It is called framing. I shoot 35mm (and 6x6 and 4x5 and digital) in a selective and contemplative manner, so, following your logic, it makes sense that I would shoot full frame. If you don't shoot in a selective and contemplative manner, say you shoot sports or street, cropping on the easel is a good alternative.

 

[Hassasin]

It just depends on where you want to crop, the viewfinder or the easel.

It's about the fallacy of no-crop after. Mostly propagated by street photographers, but not exclusively.

There is composing before shutter click, and often enough there is re-composing at printing, both part of image creation.

 

[faberryman]

It's about the fallacy of no-crop after. Mostly propagated by street photographers, but not exclusively.

There is composing before shutter click, and often enough there is re-composing at printing, both part of image creation.

Why would street photographers be arguing for no cropping on the easel? That's a new one to me.

 

[Hassasin]

Why would street photographers be arguing for no cropping on the easel? That's a new one to me.

Ha ha, because the story is HCB said so. If you look the topic up you will see how people argue on this.

One logic has it, if you there was a hand sticking out and caught within the frame, it ought to remain, otherwise it isn't true "decisive moment"

 

[Vaughn]

It's about the fallacy of no-crop after. Mostly propagated by street photographers, but not exclusively.

There is composing before shutter click, and often enough there is re-composing at printing, both part of image creation.

And not-cropping is also an equally valid part of the creative process.
The photographers' intent is what is important...crop/uncropped is the result of the intent. People telling other people what their intent should be is a bit silly.

Since the subjects of photography can be loosely described as found objects

Hell no...its drawing the spirit of Place with light. What do 'found objects' have to do with it? YMMD, of course.

 

[Pieter12]

Hell no...its drawing the spirit of Place with light. What do 'found objects' have to do with it? YMMD, of course.

How does that apply to studio work? Or portraits? Abstracts? etc.

 

[Daniela]

And talk about both filling the frame and printing full frame!

More circular beauty here from Marianne Engberg: http://marianneengberg.dk/?page_id=400
She cuts the film into a circle (I wonder how) before using it in a quaker oats pinhole camera. Her whole portfolio and this interview are worth a look.
Super interesting lady to listen to:

 

[VinceInMT]

I let the subject matter determine the aspect ration of the finished work. In my drawings, I’ve done lots of circles and they are present on a substrate that is rectangular or square. That got me thinking about why I sometimes tend to let the camera or film format lock me into a final aspect ration. If the subject speaks to a circular one, why don’t I print through a circular mask on rectangular paper? I’ll have to think about that.

I went to an art museum last night where one room was all photographs and rectangular definitely dominated. In another room, with paintings, lithos, etc., there was a variety of square and other formats.

 

[Roger Cole]

When I got my first 6x6 TLR I marked the focussing screen to show 4:5 and 5:4 rectangles for horizontal and vertical compositions. Nett result was only square pictures. Why? The square in the viewfinder was powerful enough influence me to reject those compositions that didn't look right square.

Curiously, with other cameras that shoot rectangles I never crop to square. It seems I fall into seeing subject matter according to how the camera I'm carrying sees that same subject matter.

This may be a personal psychology thing. I'd say at least 2/3s of the images I print that I shot on 6x6 I end up cropping to rectangles. If it works better square I print it square, but I don't hesitate to crop if that's better too and the viewfinder doesn't seem to compel me to stay with its proportions.