Square Format

[Vaughn]

...
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.

My 4x5 has a non-rotatable back -- to change orientation, you turned the camera on its side....or removed the four bolts that kept the camera on the standards, rotate the camera 90 degrees within the standards, and put the bolts back in. I did the latter in the field a couple times until I dropped a bolt into a creek. Turning the camera over on its side using the head was easier, but I found that if I had the camera set up for horizontals, I tended to see more horizontal compositions, and visa versa.

 

[Adrian Bacon]

I really tried hard to like square, and I personally just can't fully get there. For me, 2x3 is where it's at. I generally crop everything to that, even 4x5 and 8x10 sheet, and I almost exclusively shoot 6x9 in 120.

 

[awty]

Another example where square works (at least for me). This is Pearl Street in Vicksburg, Mississippi. I took this from the railroad tracks, which give a bit of elevation. Fuji 160NS, Hasselblad 501CM, 100 mm ƒ/3.5 Planar CSi lens, tripod-mounted.

View attachment 328322

A centered subject will usually always work in square, its often just a waste of real estate to do it any other way. Adding other aspects makes it more interesting.

 

[MattKing]

My sister just gave me a couple of (color) photos that i assume my Mom or Dad took of me and two friends at our house in 1971.
They are square. I do not think my parents had anything but a Kodak "Instamatic" type camera.
Would that have been, maybe, 126.?
110 was not square was it.?

Yep, almost certainly 126. 28mm x 28mm, but after masking down reduced to ~26.5mmx26.5mm.
A 110 film frame, and a 4/3 or M4/3 sensor size are almost exactly the same size - 13mm x 17mm.

 

[Dan Daniel]

A centered subject will usually always work in square, its often just a waste of real estate to do it any other way. Adding other aspects makes it more interesting.

And what is wrong with wasting real estate?

 

[madsox]

I first learned to shoot with a 6x6 TLR (Minolta Autocord), and I got used to finding compositions that would fill that format with some balance. Learned to shoot and love the 35mm format and ratio, and now that I'm moving back into analog shooting (I've been digital for years), I'm looking at using that Autocord again as well as a 6x7. So i guess I prefer square-ish formats, which I'd never thought about specifically before.

Nice thought exercise, thanks OP!

 

[guangong]

The only format even more difficult for creating a dynamic picture is a circle, that is why circular paintings are even more rare than square paintings. Now if you want to zero in on one element in a picture and no other, then square is the way to go. Kodachrome guy’s photo makes my point and is a success for what it does...especially with steps running straight up to the house. You are forced to look only at the house. Very good,shot. So there is no rule about not using a square for those rare times when it works.
Keep in mind that the concept of relating various elements within a picture to the frame, that means the edges of the picture, was the great innovation of Western painting.
An idle question, but how many paintings, drawings, or etchings of note are square? Forgetting “square” for the moment, does this meant that my Makina 67 or Fuji 670 can only be used to take pictures that are 6:7 ratio? I enjoy using my Rollei, Hassy, and Super Ikonta B, but not because I want to shoot square pictures, but because of the freedom of later refinement in composition.
For me the camera that requires greatest concentration on all elements within a picture is Minox because there is no wiggle room when printing since negative is tiny.

 

[CMoore]

126.

Thank You.....and

Yep, almost certainly 126. 28mm x 28mm, but after masking down reduced to ~26.5mmx26.5mm.
A 110 film frame, and a 4/3 or M4/3 sensor size are almost exactly the same size - 13mm x 17mm.

..... Thank You

 

[MattKing]

The only format even more difficult for creating a dynamic picture is a circle, that is why circular paintings are even more rare than square paintings.

Depends on your definition of "painting"
https://www.etsy.com/ca/market/collector_plates
An example - it is Vintage from the 1990s!:

 

[Pieter12]

The only format even more difficult for creating a dynamic picture is a circle, that is why circular paintings are even more rare than square paintings. Now if you want to zero in on one element in a picture and no other, then square is the way to go. Kodachrome guy’s photo makes my point and is a success for what it does...especially with steps running straight up to the house. You are forced to look only at the house. Very good,shot. So there is no rule about not using a square for those rare times when it works.
Keep in mind that the concept of relating various elements within a picture to the frame, that means the edges of the picture, was the great innovation of Western painting.
An idle question, but how many paintings, drawings, or etchings of note are square? Forgetting “square” for the moment, does this meant that my Makina 67 or Fuji 670 can only be used to take pictures that are 6:7 ratio? I enjoy using my Rollei, Hassy, and Super Ikonta B, but not because I want to shoot square pictures, but because of the freedom of later refinement in composition.
For me the camera that requires greatest concentration on all elements within a picture is Minox because there is no wiggle room when printing since negative is tiny.

Could it also be that it is more difficult to cut a perfect circle or make a circular stretched canvas?

But some make circular photos as a practice, Susan Patrice comes to mind: http://aeqai.com/main/2019/03/fotofolio-susan-patrice/

 

[awty]

And what is wrong with wasting real estate?

View attachment 328329

Nothing
My reply was in relation to a centred subject.

 

[ic-racer]

I went back to this site many times with both rectangular and square format cameras. In the end I like the square format best.

 

[etn]

35mm is not square. what else is there to say.?

There are more choices in MF.? Yes there are.

But i am not shooting MF, i am shooting 35

Apologies. I misunderstood your previous post like you had the choice between different aspect ratios with 35mm. Whereas you meant you like the choice of 3:2. Now I get it

 

[henryvk]

I went back to this site many times with both rectangular and square format cameras. In the end I like the square format best. *snip*

Tbf those are both terrific but I like the square one better too.

 

[guangong]

Depends on your definition of "painting"
https://www.etsy.com/ca/market/collector_plates
An example - it is Vintage from the 1990s!:
View attachment 328334

I was considering the one exception is religious ikons in my comments, but wanted to keep my remarks brief. Thanks for making my point.

 

[guangong]

Could it also be that it is more difficult to cut a perfect circle or make a circular stretched canvas?

But some make circular photos as a practice, Susan Patrice comes to mind: http://aeqai.com/main/2019/03/fotofolio-susan-patrice/

Not every painting is done using canvass. Wood, plaster wall, paper are only a few of the other supports that are used.

 

[henryvk]

Could it also be that it is more difficult to cut a perfect circle or make a circular stretched canvas?

But some make circular photos as a practice, Susan Patrice comes to mind: http://aeqai.com/main/2019/03/fotofolio-susan-patrice/

It might suffice to make a circular frame and/or mat.

 

[Pieter12]

Not every painting is done using canvass. Wood, plaster wall, paper are only a few of the other supports that are used.

It is still difficult to make a perfect circle with those materials. And I have yet to see a circular plaster wall.

 

[CMoore]

Apologies. I misunderstood your previous post like you had the choice between different aspect ratios with 35mm. Whereas you meant you like the choice of 3:2. Now I get it

It would seem i also did not grasp what you were asking either.

 

[guangong]

It is still difficult to make a perfect circle with those materials. And I have yet to see a circular plaster wall.

One can very easily draw a circle on a plaster wall. I can draw a near perfect circle with chalk on a blackboard. With a bit a string or a compass a circle is not at all difficult. A circle on wood or paper is not really a challenge
I don’t see the point about a “perfect” circle.

 

[Pieter12]

One can very easily draw a circle on a plaster wall. I can draw a near perfect circle with chalk on a blackboard. With a bit a string or a compass a circle is not at all difficult. A circle on wood or paper is not really a challenge
I don’t see the point about a “perfect” circle.

The edges of a square or rectangular photo or painting are usually pretty straight and clean (unless rough or evenness is part of the intended presentation) and easy to achieve and exhibit. A rough, out-of round circle tends to look awkward and amateurish, once again unless that is the intended presentation. Circles, ovals, and arced shapes tend to look old-fashioned and affected.

 

[MattKing]

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

 

[Pieter12]

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

 

[Paul Ozzello]

I don’t have a square to spare

 

[Vaughn]

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