Square

[Jerevan]

Haven't you used the three-eyed fellow (or some version of it) as your avatar?

And answering the question regarding squares - no, I don't crop. Full frame or bust.

 

[BrianShaw]

Victor never meant for us to print square, he merely designed the camera so it could be set up and shoot horizontal or vertical without turning the camera.

You people are bastardizing his concept and should be ashamed of yourselves.

I invited him to dinner tonight. After we settle in with a cigar and brandy, I'll ask if this really was his concept.

 

[jamie]

Since we have two eyes we see rectangular, only one eyed people see square. Probably the ones with the eye in their forehead.

If you see rectangular then you've obviously been spending too much time in front of the tv or computer screen.

All jokes aside...we don't see rectangular. If you must find a geometric form that compares best to our field of view than it's more likely elliptical (although I think it's a little more complicated than that).

Anyways. No disrespect intended but your argument for cropping square pictures is kinda silly in more than one way.
Firstly, it rests on the assumption that a photograph has to capture exactly what we see. If that were true there would be no point in shooting b&w or even a high saturation color film. There also would be no point in using wide angle or tele lenses since they do not correspond to our fov.
Secondly, and this is more important, if you think we see rectangular you should also agree that the rectangular is horizontal and not vertical. Have you never taken a vertically oriented photo?

 

[blansky]

Secondly, and this is more important, if you think we see rectangular you should also agree that the rectangular is horizontal and not vertical. Have you never taken a vertically oriented photo?

Vertical is just a rectangle with our heads turned sideways.

And yes I have. When I lay down I see vertical.

Michael

 

[David Henderson]

About 80% of my photography is composed square and projected/printed/and submitted as square. I crop very few square images, though I do have a 67 rangefinder that I use when the photograph I want to make doesn't suit the square format.

Can't understand why anyone is puzzled by square photographs though- many of the best known MF photographers make/made square photographs. Probably 50% of the photographer's sites I have bookmarked feature at least a majority of square images. It's scarcely a rare phenomenon amongst MF users.

 

[André E.C.]

Vertical? Horizontal?
Dunno what you guys are talking about.

Square is beautiful!

Cheers

André

 

[Ranger Bob]

I've shot Hasselblad for 30 years as a pro and have cropped every picture I've ever taken and have never once printed square.

Victor never meant for us to print square, he merely designed the camera so it could be set up and shoot horizontal or vertical without turning the camera.

You people are bastardizing his concept and should be ashamed of yourselves.

Since we have two eyes we see rectangular, only one eyed people see square. Probably the ones with the eye in their forehead.


Just and opinion,


Michael

Oh, OK...

 

[pgomena]

As most have said, I, too, love the square format. I always try to fill the frame, no matter what the format at the moment. I am not averse to cropping, however, as not all images can be fit to the square. I find myself cropping excess blank sky in landscapes, for instance.

35mm always has proved a bother to me. It looks funny centered in an 8x10 piece of paper, and cropping to fit the paper often doesn't work. Maybe that's why I usually print it on 5x7 paper, and maybe also why I don't use 35mm much anymore.

Peter Gomena

 

[jamie]

Vertical is just a rectangle with our heads turned sideways.

And yes I have. When I lay down I see vertical.

Michael

Are you serious or am I not getting the joke?

You certainly do not see vertical when you lay down, at least not in the same way as a photo is a vertical.

Anyways, for the sake of the argument I have, until now, agreed on using geometric forms to describe how we see. This, however, is IMO completely wrong. While the optical system of our eyes may have some similarities to a camera's lens our sense of sight clearly does not work like a camera. If you want I can elaborate on this at a later time since I have to go now. If you already got my point...even better!

 

[Philippe-Georges]

I always try to use the whole neg, this means printing with the black borders.
There are a few reasons why I do this :
- The negative, regardless the format, is so little according to the dimensions of the subject.
- When composing in the finder I try to include all what I want in to the frame so, by cutting in the dark room i have the feeling I am mutilating what I have initially done.
When working with the Hasselblad, yes the pictures are square and with the Leica or Linhof they are rectangular.

 

[mediumformatphoto]

To answer, yes, I absolutely print square and shoot square for MF. I could care less whether Victor Hasselblad or Victor Victoria shot and printed square.

Now, what is really funny (or sad, depending on how you look at it), are the many digital denizens out there who crop their digital images to squares, just so they appear to be shot with, dare I say, real medium format! Not only that, but also use a Photoshop plugin to make it look like it has film borders.

IMO, the square format will always stand-out as unique and eye-catching, and that's why it will never go away.

R.J.

 

[Ranger Bob]

People really do that?

 

[Philippe-Georges]

Now, what is really funny (or sad, depending on how you look at it), are the many digital denizens out there who crop their digital images to squares, just so they appear to be shot with, dare I say, real medium format! Not only that, but also use a Photoshop plugin to make it look like it has film borders.R.J.

This tells a lot about the 'digital mentality', of course they are free to do what they want to, but it seems a bit like fakery to me...
I wonder if they feel 'conformable' whit the fact they do not use film.

Philippe

 

[wclavey]

Until about 10 months ago, i would have answered the question this way:

I have shot 6x6 for the past 35+ years. My shooting has become slow and deliberate, especially on composition, so I am not surprised that 99/100, I like the square image and print it that way. My son, who has a much better printing eye than I have, however, often prints my square negatives in some rectangular version.

Then 4x5 came into my life. For the past 10 months, I have been trying to make something out of the 4x5 format. I can make good technical exposures (density, exposure) but the images have no life to them... no compositional value. It has become entirely frustrating to the point where I have begun to say the dreaded words: I think I should get rid of this camera and all the film and accessories I have accumulated over the past 10 months. (My wife just laughs...)

After this experience, I think I actually see square. I have pictures ...same content, same tripod position, even the same film in some cases... where the 4x5 image is boring and the 6x6 is great. So I can no longer rationalize it the way I would have. I think that some people (me!) actually see square.

 

[JJC]

It took me a while to see square, but now that I do, I'm not going back.

 

[Struan Gray]

Westley, I shoot 4x5 and crop square. The ground hasn't opened up under my feet yet.

 

[BrianShaw]

Westley, I shoot 4x5 and crop square. The ground hasn't opened up under my feet yet.

Ha, ha... I did that just yesterday. When I finished I had to ask myself if I felt good about what I did. After washing my hands I felt better. I, too, still have solid ground under my feet... it's the ominous-looking storm cloud above my head I'm worried about.

 

[Struan Gray]

My only regret is carrying what is essentially a 5x5 camera and merely shooting 4x4. If 5" aerial film was easier to handle I suspect I'd be shooting square on film even in LF.

Then there's the 12x15 which is really a 15x15......

 

[wclavey]

Westley, I shoot 4x5 and crop square. The ground hasn't opened up under my feet yet.

Actually, I'm with you there! Except that if I wanted to shoot square, I'd take the TLRs out. I look at all these great 4x5 images in the gallery, that are 4x5 format, and that's what I want to create... and that's what I can't see.

 

[Peter Black]

It has become entirely frustrating to the point where I have begun to say the dreaded words: I think I should get rid of this camera and all the film and accessories I have accumulated over the past 10 months. (My wife just laughs...)

Westley, you have a very understanding wife!

 

[Struan Gray]

Actually, I'm with you there! Except that if I wanted to shoot square, I'd take the TLRs out. I look at all these great 4x5 images in the gallery, that are 4x5 format, and that's what I want to create... and that's what I can't see.

I see all those great athletes crossing the finish line in under ten seconds, and that's what I want to do ... and that's what I can't do.

Go with the flow grasshopper, go with the flow.

I can't stop you yearning, but for me at least LF is worth the bulk and hassle, at least when I have time and logistics to dedicate to photography. 4x4 for me is significantly bigger than 56x56 mm, and gives effort-free grainless prints at my normal 12-14" print size. Plus you have movements. Plus in my current abstract kick I like the way I can take low-depth of field images of larger structures. Dead Link Removed image would have been near-impossible to take with 6x6.

 

[wclavey]

It has been many years since I have had the chance to work with another, more experienced photographer as a mentor, and based on my learning style, I learn much better when I work with someone in a hands-on way. I have basically been teaching LF to myself, through books and all the great material contained on this forum. But realistically speaking, I think my 4x5 output would improve (quality-wise) if I had the chance to spend a few focused sessions with a good 4x5 photographer. I thought I could train myself to see that way, but, as I have lamented, I think my 35+ years of comfort with the square format drive my compositions. I'd love to be able to make images like the one you attached or like I see in the Gallery.

 

[Samuel Hotton]

Perhaps being a bit silly, What about round? Some of the images from the Kodak #1 and Kodak #2 cameras with their 2 5/8" and 3 1/2" images look quite classy in the round. I've matted several enlargements from my 6x6 cameras in the round and received positive comments. Images are not required to have corners, one can think out of the box if one wants.

Sam H.

 

[tom_micklin]

Victor never meant for us to print square, he merely designed the camera so it could be set up and shoot horizontal or vertical without turning the camera.
Michael

Whatever his reasons for designing it square, I've found it to be a very comfortable way to compose images - especially since I don't necessarily intend to print them that way.
I very seldom print a square. Only when that's the way the image works best. I must have skipped school the day they taught us that cropping wasn't ever allowed.
Tom

 

[davetravis]

I tried square once, and hated it!
I've always printed in the standard sizes and didn't like having to chop so much off to fill the easel.
Although, for a different presentation I do enjoy other's work that is square.
Just not in my darkroom!
DT