The square & the landscape!

Baxter Bradford · Apr 20, 2005

I endorse having a look at how well Charlie Waite (www.charliewaite.com) has done with his square landscapes. Primarily working in colour, he also uses B+W. Having bought an SQA on impulse 5 years ago, discovering his books helped me enormously with landscape and in the use of the square format.
My SQA doesn't get out much now, but I do still appreciate good square images. Think of them as a happy halfway house between Portrait and Landscape format!

mikeg · Apr 20, 2005

Baxter Bradford said:
I endorse having a look at how well Charlie Waite (www.charliewaite.com) has done with his square landscapes. Primarily working in colour, he also uses B+W. Having bought an SQA on impulse 5 years ago, discovering his books helped me enormously with landscape and in the use of the square format.

I bought his two landscape books a year or two ago and I've been going back over them recently. Partly because I've been finding the 35mm landscape format too rectangular! I know you don't have tell me -- I'm weird I find I'm often cropping the sides off my negs during enlarging. It's this reason, and the fact that I'd like a bigger neg, that I've just bought a C220. We'll see how I get on over the next few months!

One thing that Charlie Waite seems to advocate a lot in his work is the use of a step ladder to gain some height. Seems like he takes one on many of his shoots. I must admit, I can't see me hiking across the South Shropshire Hills with a step ladder strapped to my back, my tripod is bad enough, plus this new C220 is no featherweight

Mike

david b · Apr 20, 2005

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

A great example....

eagleowl · Apr 20, 2005

I've always admired...

...the photos of Charlie Waite-and having just visited his website,I admire him even more!
I tried to get one of his books a while back,but (just my luck!)it had been deleted!!!

mikeg · Apr 20, 2005

eagleowl said:
...the photos of Charlie Waite-and having just visited his website,I admire him even more!
I tried to get one of his books a while back,but (just my luck!)it had been deleted!!!

The two that I've got are his "The making of landscape photographs" and "Seeing landscapes". The first one was published 1992 and the second 1999. Both seem to still be available on Amazon UK at GBP 9. They're both good books, the second is slightly more modern, better paper etc. They both deal with his thinking behind his photos for example, why he often uses 6x6. Sometimes he has several versions of the same photo taken at different times, slightly different angles etc, and he explains why one "worked" and the other didn't. Also, he's not afraid to crop if he feels the image needs it. Both recommended.

Mike

pitchertaker · Apr 20, 2005

Seems to me that everyone is making a good arguement for shooting 6x7 -- crop it to a square if the images demands it. I, for one, subscribe to the "crop it to what the subject demands" -- the heck with the format, just make sure one side of the resulting image takes full use of the long side of the negative.

Pitchertaker

Whiteymorange · Apr 20, 2005

A painters opinion

Just a penny's worth of subjective observation on the square. The corners pull more on the composition in a square, and imbalance, that wonderful creator of tension within the frame, is a more delicate thing - easily overdone. All in all, it is very much worth the effort. I have used square canvases for both landscape and for still life painting for years.

Three rules of thumb: Keep the horizon out of the center, use the rule of thirds and break the frame with a strong movement or significant visual line.

There. Free advice and worth every penny!

Whitey

waynecrider · Apr 20, 2005

I agree with the point about flipping a big camera and lens.

Personally I returned to 6x6 because I can pull a 645 neg out of it if need be for an 8x10 print. The square print also reminds me of looking out a window for some reason. It constrains the view and focuses the attention more.

Wim van Velzen does some nice stuff with a 6x6

http://www.fotografiewimvanvelzen.nl/landscape-portfolios.htm

dancqu · Apr 20, 2005

And Now 7 x 7

Juba said:
What`s your view on this? In my case, I need to relearn
composition and perspective with the 6x6, wasn`t easy to
see square. Isn`t a balanced composition harder to achieve
than with the familiar rectangle?

If you stop and think about it you have in mind making use
of each and every square centimeter of film area. A 6 x 4.5 will
put 15 or 16 frames on a 120 roll, cropped to a 3:4 ratio.

Comparitively, formats other than square are much less
convenient to use and they are slower to use. Also they are
heavier and more bulky do to needed viewfinder add-ons. Of
course the camera is always balanced upright and in the
darkroom the image on the easel is also always upright.

I've a RZ-67 needing some clean up and repair. Those
doing the work may be able to disable the screen's portrait and
landscape mode masks. I hope to have a full 7 x 7 screen with a
grid to help in composition. As it is, and it goes for any format
screen other than square, flipping or rotating of the entire
camera or back plus rotation of finder is necessary. I've
made my 6 x 4.5 Bronica usable by adding their very
fine rotary finder; weight and bulk. Dan

gchpaco · Apr 20, 2005

My problem with shooting 6x7 is the 6x7 cameras out there. Having inspected them, the Mamiya RB67 might actually be about the same size as my Bronica S2 (which is quite a bit larger than a Hassy), but it's not really convenient for hiking. The big Pentax is better about this, but I like having detachable backs and not having to flop the camera onto its side. I can't afford the Mamiya 7. The GS-1 doesn't have a rotating back but is probably the most acceptable to me otherwise.

I've actually settled for a 6x9 folder for bigger than 6x6 in MF; it's lightweight, portable, good results, and rectangular. And anyway I like the way square compositions work.

Bill Mobbs · Apr 20, 2005

Whiteymorange said:
Just a penny's worth of subjective observation on the square. The corners pull more on the composition in a square, and imbalance, that wonderful creator of tension within the frame, is a more delicate thing - easily overdone. All in all, it is very much worth the effort. I have used square canvases for both landscape and for still life painting for years.

Three rules of thumb: Keep the horizon out of the center, use the rule of thirds and break the frame with a strong movement or significant visual line.

There. Free advice and worth every penny!

Whitey

Now here is some advise I can use. It is worth every penny and more!

Thanks Whitey

jmilliron · Apr 20, 2005

david b said:
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

A great example....

Thanks David! The square format is challenging to me but at the same time, I find it very refreshing. Might go so far as to say its revitalized my interest in photography.

-jason m

seoirse · Sep 23, 2008

Sorry for re-activating an old thread...

Take a look at a website which demonstrates the power of the square image...

www.strand-photo.com

Regards,
S.

dpurdy · Sep 23, 2008

Michael Kenna is no slouch with a square.
People are different. I get the format of my camera ingrained in me so I see how it sees.. which is why I like the Rollei with only the one lens length. That vision parameter is permanently stamped in my brain. When I get tired of looking through a normal square I take a short break with a different camera.
Dennis

haris · Oct 3, 2008

I have nothing against it, and have seen square landscape photographs I really like.

mono · Oct 3, 2008

I shoot more 6x6 than 35 mm and I never think about it.
I have no problems at all composing square!

Thomas Bertilsson · Oct 3, 2008

I don't know. My first medium format camera was square format. I've tried to stay with the square format to simplify things. I crop sometimes, but I don't really think about it. I just consider the image area available to me on the ground glass and use what's there. If there's a distracting element, or something that sticks out, I just crop it later.
It doesn't seem that important to me.
- Thomas

Vaughn · Oct 3, 2008

I learned to photograph with a Rolleiflex -- I love the square. Instead of a linear side-to-side (or vertical) eye movement across the image, the square encourages a circular eye movement. Wonderful to work with. But then I also like working with 4"x10" also.

Vaughn

Schlapp · Oct 3, 2008

I love 6x6 but, living up here where in the main the landscapes are fairly flat, it is rather a challenge. Having said that, after messing with 6x9, 35mm and even 5x7, I still prefer 6x6.

Jim Noel · Oct 3, 2008

Leon said:
I think the best advice I've received so far was Les McLean telling me to not be constrained by my viewfinder. I do shoot square in the landscape (although not for true vista type landscapes) and generally print square too, but since paying heed to Les' advice, I have opened up a new world of opportunities from my 6x6 negs - crop, crop, crop!

I am with Leon. The square provides the opportunity to use any part of the image vertical or horizontal when printing. I seem to use either a square format camera or a panaromic. The common 4x5, 8x10 rectangle is boring to me.

keithwms · Oct 3, 2008

Squares tend to be my preferred ratio for landscape and scenic. At least half of the landscapes and scenic shots that satisfied me were squares or close to square.

I do like 4:5, 5:7 and 6:7 and 6:8 for landscape & scenic, but these are all considerably squarer than 3:2.

Different strokes for different folks.... thank God we don't all think and shoot the same way.

Shmoo · Oct 3, 2008

I think that since we have binocular vision and our natural view is somewhat rectangular, it's natural to go rectangular for landscapes. For that reason, I bought a 645 camera...but I use my 6x6 Rolleicord more. Go figger.

Gary Holliday · Oct 3, 2008

I couldn't live without the square, picking out the abstract in the landscape. Placing things dead centre and looking for symmetry. I find the rectangle unbalanced!

pfarand · Oct 3, 2008

I love the square format and am always looking for inspiration. Here are two fine examples of the format: Josef Hoflehner http://www.josefhoflehner.com/ and Magnum photographer Peter Marlow http://www.petermarlow.com/

wclavey · Oct 6, 2008

Like so many others here, I have shot 6x6 since I got one of my first cameras back in 1960 and I print 95% of everything I shoot square as square... I feel more comfortable seeing that way from 40+ years of doing it... and when I have a boring 4x5 image, I often find that there is a great square image hiding in it.

When I do crop one of my 6x6 landscapes, I find that the most often crop is to a 3x6 image (2:1 L:W) which is a great landscape format for the right image. I think that a 6x12 back for the 4x5 would be a great addition to the kit, for that reason (although I know that I can crop a 6x12 image out of a 4x5 negative...).

But the fact is, I would still mostly shoot and print square.

The square & the landscape!

haris

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency