Square Format

[Hassasin]

I think it's natural to compose for the whole frame as that is all one sees. Some scenes can be obvious the whole frame is not going to work, in other cases it only pops up in the end.

Square shooting has its appeal, but not in a sense of being somewhat universal, no-camera-turning approach, so one can figure later what is going to work. In that sense I do use 645 back on Hasselblad (and other system cameras), and not just for film economy. At the same time I never understood what Hasselblad was thinking with their 16V back, vertical 645 restriction. But that is just a side trivia on this subject. Besides this back is a collectors item with price to match

 

[Pieter12]

I think it's natural to compose for the whole frame as that is all one sees. Some scenes can be obvious the whole frame is not going to work, in other cases it only pops up in the end.

Square shooting has its appeal, but not in a sense of being somewhat universal, no-camera-turning approach, so one can figure later what is going to work. In that sense I do use 645 back on Hasselblad (and other system cameras), and not just for film economy. At the same time I never understood what Hasselblad was thinking with their 16V back, vertical 645 restriction. But that is just a side trivia on this subject. Besides this back is a collectors item with price to match

The vertical back was most likely offered because the great majority of Hasselblad users are commercial photographers, and the most common end product was for magazine covers and single-page ads, all vertical format.

 

[Hassasin]

The vertical back was most likely offered because the great majority of Hasselblad users are commercial photographers, and the most common end product was for magazine covers and single-page ads, all vertical format.

And one can slice and dice the frame into any shape required. And for compositional help all there was needed ... a simple screen layover mask. We know that thing did not get much production (or attention) and I believe it is one of the rarest pieces of Hasselblad system.

The rarest might be a back extender made for supersede. I only see it in the Hasselbald System book.

 

[Pieter12]

And one can slice and dice the frame into any shape required. And for compositional help all there was needed ... a simple screen layover mask. We know that thing did not get much production (or attention) and I believe it is one of the rarest pieces of Hasselblad system.

The rarest might be a back extender made for supersede. I only see it in the Hasselbald System book.

True. But you do get four more exposures per roll, a consideration when shooting commercially, either from a cost point of view or the fact that one would have to change rolls or backs less frequently.

 

[VinceInMT]

I think the lack of round images might also have to do with the momentum already created by the shapes of paper, boards, frames, mats, etc. Round can just be inconvenient. Round houses may look interesting but the furniture we get doesn’t make efficient use of floor space.

BTW, aren’t all of our images arriving on the film plane in the round format?

 

[Hassasin]

True. But you do get four more exposures per roll, a consideration when shooting commercially, either from a cost point of view or the fact that one would have to change rolls or backs less frequently.

I misrepresented the back I was referring to, instead of being called 16V, it was actually a … 12V, 12 exposures with forced vertical 645. 16V did not exist. The A16 is horizontal 645 with 16 exposures.

 

[Pieter12]

I misrepresented the back I was referring to, instead of being called 16V, it was actually a … 12V, 12 exposures with forced vertical 645. 16V did not exist. The A16 is horizontal 645 with 16 exposures.

Obviously when you think about it the Hasselblad is not designed to move film horizontally and couldn’t do more than 12 exposures on a roll of 120.

 

[Daniela]

If you are a podcast person you could search for Sasha Wolf’s podcast called Photo Work, where Sasha (an art dealer and photographic artist representative) interviews photographers and avoids gear talk. There is a book of the same name too which I have found enjoyable:

PhotoWork: Forty Photographers on Process and Practice | Aperture

PhotoWork is a collection of interviews by forty photographers about their approach to making photographs and, more importantly, a sustained body of work.

aperture.org

No access to the book, but I've listened to a couple of the interviews and they're very interesting indeed. Thank you!

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

As you can tell if you look at my gallery here, I do a LOT of square photos. My current two favorite cameras are my Rolleiflex 2.8E and my Kodak Chevron, both of which produce square images. I do consider myself overall to be aspect ratio agnostic because I'll shoot just about any camera format if it's the right tool for the image. I've been known to produce anything from square to 6:9 to 1:3 (I have a 6x18 panoramic pinhole). I do find I respond best in my own work to square/square-ish images, and then panoramic images. The stuff in the middle (2:2.5 - 2:3) is stuff I don't see as well in.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

No access to the book, but I've listened to a couple of the interviews and they're very interesting indeed. Thank you!

I've actually used that book as a textbook for a class I teach on developing photographic projects and your personal photographic process.

 

[Photomultiplier]

I absolutely love the square format, it feels totally natural to me. Hard to explain, but has such an calm feeling and leads to a different approach than with rectangular ratios.

On the other hand, i despise the 3:2 35mm ratio as much as i love 1:1.
3:2 feels just wrong. It is either too long or too short. I only used 3:2 during my digital detour a few years ago and never liked it. And i do not like to crop, i want to be able to shoot
everything full frame in camera just as it is.

The 5:4 "fat rectangle" ratio of 4x5/8x10 on the other hand feels very good. It has more air to breathe than 3:2, figuratively spoken.
I like composing in 5:4 almost as much as in 1:1 but i prefer 1:1. Sometimes however, there are situations where 1:1 can be tricky. (Waterfalls or other subjects that are really stretched)
Maybe even 5:4 is easier to get working with subjects that are suitable for 1:1 than the other way around.

Beyond 5:4, for me it starts to be interesting again at 2:1 or 3:1, but those highly specialized ratios would constrain me too much.


Conclusion: 1:1 for almost everything with occasional use of 5:4

 

[madsox]

I absolutely love the square format, it feels totally natural to me. Hard to explain, but has such an calm feeling and leads to a different approach than with rectangular ratios.

<snip>

Conclusion: 1:1 for almost everything with occasional use of 5:4

So, you're not a big fan of 16:9 digital?

 

[Photomultiplier]

16:9 AND digital, brrrrrr....

But as with all art-related topics, there is no definite answer. Anything may work sometimes or not.

 

[Pieter12]

16:9 AND digital, brrrrrr....

But as with all art-related topics, there is no definite answer. Anything may work sometimes or not.

Josef Koudelka abandoned his Fuji 617 to shoot a digital Leica S2 with the sensor and viewfinder screen masked to 17:6.

 

[Photomultiplier]

Please! Enough horror stories for today! I am already getting nightmares

 

[Pieter12]

Please! Enough horror stories for today! I am already getting nightmares

Such a delicate soul.

 

[Photomultiplier]

To be precise: In this case, not the 6x17 format scares me, but the fact that he got rid of the Fuji.

6x17 would be very tempting for me, but the price for a Fuji 617 or Technorama is a bit steep, a least for such a special occasion gear.
I could imagine great opportunities for this format.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

So, you're not a big fan of 16:9 digital?

16:9 is wonderful especially if you're shooting video clips which is also 16:9. Then when you play it back, everything is 16:9 and fills up the monitor and TV screens. It eliminates the black bar at each side.

 

[Pieter12]

To be precise: In this case, not the 6x17 format scares me, but the fact that he got rid of the Fuji.

6x17 would be very tempting for me, but the price for a Fuji 617 or Technorama is a bit steep, a least for such a special occasion gear.
I could imagine great opportunities for this format.

He found the Fuji cumbersome and the digital Leica to his liking. I don't know if Leica gave him the camera, or just made a one-off for him. I'm sure if you wanted to buy one it would be more than either the Fuji or the Linhof.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I learnt photography with the square format... Mamiya C330. I think it's a great format when you want to emphasise shapes. I wanted a bigger negative, so I moved to 6x7. I find myself going back and using 6x6 more and more... Time to go for a wander with the Rolleicord...

 

[JerseyDoug]

I shoot both 1:1 in 120 and 3:2 in 35mm. I find that many of my 3:2 images are improved for printing by cropping to 4:5 or 1:1. I almost always find that my 1:1 images work best printed square. I have a stock of frames and mats for 1:1, 4:5 and 3:2 so that isn't an issue.

 

[Arthurwg]

Anyone who doubts that you can make spectacular square portraits should have a look at those made by Irving Penn with his Rolleiflex.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Why not add Avedon? - but square is just one more reason I find his portraits obnoxious. And I have piles of my own late brother's Rollei SL66 negs in storage, if I wanted something square to print. Where's that film stretcher when I need it?

 

[John Wiegerink]

Why not add Avedon? - but square is just one more reason I find his portraits obnoxious. And I have piles of my own late brother's Rollei SL66 negs in storage, if I wanted something square to print. Where's that film stretcher when I need it?

Better yet, if square is so great then why aren't we flooded with square printing paper? I shot square and 6X7 for my weddings and while I really like my Hasselblad, 6X7 wins hands down. I just don't print square, but maybe I should force myself to. Nah!

 

[Dan Daniel]

Everyone is missing the definitive answer, the largest and most popular distribution of creative images in history, ALL of which were square. LP record album covers. Beatles? Square. Dylan? Square. Mitchell? Square. Need I keep going. It's squares all the way down. If all these other formats were so great, they would show up here, but no... Game over. Squares 100 billion, every other possible format, 0.

>mic drop< .....