Square printing

[127]

re wasting paper

I found printing square really efficient on paper - the 2" cut off the top off an 8x10" makes perfect test strips for the next print.

On the other hand when I print full page, I'm always digging round for scraps. It always seems a waste to cut up a fresh sheet just for testing. Much nicer to know there'll be a whole bunch of pre-cut scraps in the box...

Ian

 

[John_Brewer]

A few years ago I had and enjoyed a Mamiya C3 and could 'see square' admitidly crudely. The negs were almost always printed square - they sorta worked for me. In my complete stupidity I sold the camera to finance a Brony ETRC which I still have but rarely use. How I wish I still had the C3, bigger neg, no parralax error with the paramender, capable of good close ups with a little maths....

Re 'wasting' paper, surely you print the image cropped the way it works best. Any other way is a waste of paper imho.

 

[jd callow]

Re 'wasting' paper, surely you print the image cropped the way it works best. Any other way is a waste of paper imho.

A trueism (sp?) if ever there was.

 

[Ed Sukach]

Ed, how often do you print round?

I don't. Never have. I have seen *interesting* work printed in a square format, but rotated 45 degrees, so that it was "diamond" shaped.

Hmm... round. I'll think about that...

 

[Cheryl Jacobs]

jdef, LOL!

 

[Jorge]

I came across this passage in my reading on albumen printing.

"The best shape for the print will often be governed by the prevailing lines in the picture, and especially by the general character of the outline. Where a number of parallel lines, vertical or horizontal, prevail in the subject, an oval or circular shape will often materially help the picture, and prevent the formation of angles, which must become striking if the rectangular shape be adopted. On the other hand when tile principal lines fall in curves, the rectangular shape will be most suitable. In no case, however, is a perfect square desirable. The oblong form should in all cases be chosen : whether the greatest length should be vertical or horizontal, will be governed entirely by the subject."

ON MOUNTING PHOTOGRAPHS.
BY G. WHARTON SIMPSON

LOL....Should have told that to Hasselblad and Rollei before they sold millions of their cameras.....

 

[jd callow]

bump....

 

[kjsphoto]

I fell in love with the square format many years ago and havent put it down sine. Most of the the time I use the complete square image and sometimes I will crop but I just like the feeling I get with I see square. It is just something about it that draws me to it.

 

[Dave Miller]

I came across this passage in my reading on albumen printing.

"The best shape for the print will often be governed by the prevailing lines in the picture, and especially by the general character of the outline. Where a number of parallel lines, vertical or horizontal, prevail in the subject, an oval or circular shape will often materially help the picture, and prevent the formation of angles, which must become striking if the rectangular shape be adopted. On the other hand when tile principal lines fall in curves, the rectangular shape will be most suitable. In no case, however, is a perfect square desirable. The oblong form should in all cases be chosen : whether the greatest length should be vertical or horizontal, will be governed entirely by the subject."

ON MOUNTING PHOTOGRAPHS.
BY G. WHARTON SIMPSON

Sanctimonious crap.

 

[mobtown_4x5]

Screw that guy- I AM a square.

 

[gr82bart]

For test prints, I print 6x6 on 8x10 RC paper. When I'm ready for a 'good' print, I've only printed 10x10 on 11x14 'good' paper with 0.5" margins top and sides. So far I kinda like the top center w/border look.

Sometimes I'll print 8x8 in center as well. I tried 10x01 in center, but it doesn't look as good to me on 11x14 paper. I haven't tried any other size paper yet.

Art.

 

[bjorke]

(Bump jdef)

jdef, you didn't put a date on that quote.... 1910? Earlier?

It's probably telling that the square format has been essentially non-existent throughout the history of painting prior to photography, save for decorative works like clock faces and table tops (and their distant relative, abstract painting, e.g. Kandinsky -- who was definitely post-Fox-Talbot!). Publishing too -- the square format has ever been relegated to novelty status. Most 6x6 gets cropped (even Hasselblad's "Medium Format Advantage" book mostly hypes 6x6's cropability). Only the occasional original print and most album cover photos seem to survive in their equal-angled form... too bad!

Going through older art theorists like Delsarte et al, they don't even MENTION the square -- it seemed completely off their radar (to use a anachronistic metaphor).

Given the popularity of Holga and its inevitably-vignetted corners, maybe the square is actually, compositionally speaking for these "new pictorialists," just a circle with some pointy bits?

KB

 

[bjorke]

(BTW, two "stealth" formats for the square: Instamatic and SX-70)

 

[rbarker]

I'm probably a squaratic, as I often think of the Hassy as a 645 that doens't need to be rotated. When I'm in a square mood, however, I often find that taking a step or three closer to the subject tends to bring out the potential square compositions in my brain. Then, I check for those niggly intrusions along the 4 edges before firing.

 

[arigram]

Since I got my Hasselblad I haven't gone back to the rectangle.
The square feels so much more intimate and right for me.
I actually do I lot less thinking about composition in square than with the rectangle.
There are rare times where I need a panorama or a vertical image, but I just have to crop the right way. That restriction mosty comes from having only one lens (the 80) so sometimes it becames a problem to compose without "intrusions".
On paper too, I find the larger border on the bottom and the smaller on the top folllows the aesthetic I got from studying chinese/japanese painting and so I am quite pleased with it.

 

[rogueish]

I shoot 6x6 and 35mm and will print "full frame" or crop the heck out of it. Sometimes square, sometimes not. Occasionally I'll even crop the top and bottom of a 35mm to make it long (or tall) and thin. I have two prints from the same 6x6 neg. One printed square and the other heavily cropped. Both work for me and suggest 2 almost different moods.
Square, rectangle, triangle, round, hey what ever works!
Oh and the last thing I do as I squeezing the shutter is sneeze.

 

[Nick Zentena]

I've always thought the ability to compose on the easel was the advantage of doing your own. If it works square print it square.


Personally I think 4x5/8x10 are really square. I know the math majors will jump up and down but they're so close to square that I think they're square.

 

[gr82bart]

Since I got my Hasselblad I haven't gone back to the rectangle.
The square feels so much more intimate and right for me.
I actually do I lot less thinking about composition in square than with the rectangle.

This is exactly the same feel I have. We're square souls!

Art.

 

[Lee Shively]

I think it depends. You can print square from 35mm, 6x4.5 and 6x7, rectangular from 6x6 and a wide panoramic from any of them. If it works, it works.

 

[Charles Webb]

For me personally, I am not tied to amy format unless the patron paying for my services requests a horizontal, vertical or square. I try to fill the frame and at times have been burned by the square format of the Blads. Tough to crop to a 8x10 print with a full frame 6x6. Many magazine covers are square,
but many also request Verticals and a few even horizontal. I try to cover all the bases when I am not sure how a shot is going to be used, by shooting the subject in such a manor it can be cropped to any shape an editor chooses.

For my own work, I let the subject matter dictate or guide me in how it best can be rendered. I do not pretend to be an artist, just an image maker.