The square format works well for me. Especially for my waterfall shots in the Columbia Gorge here in Oregon. When I bought my Hasselblad, the salesman told me that i would have to get used to cropping part of the picture, but I liked what I saw from my prints, and have given it little thought ever since. The only time I rectangle crop is for portraits.
The square & the landscape!
-
A
- Thread starter André E.C.
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
Want to Buy JOBO ATL 1500/1000 or JOBO CPP2
- Started by balazsfff
-
For Sale Foto-100 bulk roll, 100'
- Started by MCB18
-
Under Offer Hasselblad ELM battery adapters x2
- Started by blee1996
-
For Sale Leica 14510 leather case for R-E, R4, R5, R6.
- Started by Chrismat
-
For Sale FS: A Pair of NORMAN Flash Tube Covers
- Started by AnselMortensen
Forum statistics
Recently I've been shooting 6x6 again for the first time in over 20 years. I'd been using mainly 5x4 & 10x8 as well as 6x17 but find it's instinctive shooting to fit the format regardless, I compose to fill the whole frame & don't crop when I print.
So while I initially expected returning to a square format might be difficult in fact I found by the end of the first roll it was natural, and easy to work to.
Ian
So while I initially expected returning to a square format might be difficult in fact I found by the end of the first roll it was natural, and easy to work to.
Ian
-
- David Brown
- Deleted
Whatever the aspect ratio, I believe it's possible to take successful photographs of any subject matter or genre. Yes, there are challenges but that's the beauty as well as the curse of photography. Don't forget, you can also crop to panoramic or any other aspect ratio from square (and vice versa). We're not obliged to use the full negative 'as shot'....!
I recently got a 8x8 speed easel.
Old thread, what the heck.
mike
Old thread, what the heck.
mike
That's a great find! I didn't even know they were made.
The sheet that came with mine indicates they made several square sizes
3x3, 3.5x3.5, 4x4, 5x5, 7x7, 8x8, 10x10, 11x11, 14x14, and they would quote prices on custom sizes.
Mike
3x3, 3.5x3.5, 4x4, 5x5, 7x7, 8x8, 10x10, 11x11, 14x14, and they would quote prices on custom sizes.
Mike
The aspect ratio is *almost* the only reason I shoot square format. (The other is for candid style headshots, so I can be quick and not have to rotate the camera...and I also prefer using a WLF for this sort of thing.) The second I first looked into a square format camera, I was blown away by how easy it was to get a good composition. Everything looks good. The hardest part about square format is that I tend to overshoot (many variations on same basic composition) because of this, so waste a lot of time changing film, and a lot of time looking at contact sheets choosing what to print! It is not uncommon that I will blow a roll of 120 on only two or three subjects when shooting my C33. It is not my favorite ratio for for capturing a highly "active" composition, but over all, I think it is the easiest to compose.
Notice I did not say that square pictures are my favorite pictures to view...simply that the compositions seem to "fall" into place the most easily. My all time favorite aspect ratio is 1.5:1.
I love shooting large format and my new RZ, but I find the 1.25:1 aspect ratio to be very difficult to compose. It seems either too "fat" to me, or like it should just be square. (I guess I need a P3!
) I try to compose shots to fit the format, and *always* compose with the intent to preserve at least two edges as shot, but it is still pretty routine for me to shoot with the intent to crop a bit with 4x5 and 6x7cm shots; either to make it square or to make it a longer rectangle. Not so with 35, 6x6, 645, etc.
As for landscapes on 1:1, I can see it being easier with a wide lens. When I first got my Mamiya, I tried some landscape things with it. I did a really fun landscape project with it, where you step into a cyclorama showing a 360 degree view. However, all of the shots were cropped to fit on 8x10 paper, and I used a prism for the shots anyhow. The TLR was in no way necessary, as I wasn't using any of its unique features. In fact, I would have needed a footstool to even compose the shots with the WLF. I am *not* hauling a footstool to the top of Eagle Rock with me! 645 would have been at least just as good, and probably better, in fact. My favorite formats for landscapes are 645 and 5x7. They are not identical ratios, but both are about the same; a little fatter than 1.5:1, but not as fat as 1.25:1. I don't use the C33 for landscapes anymore (though fairly often for "cityscapes", albeit usually hand held). I use an M645 instead for medium format landscapes.
Notice I did not say that square pictures are my favorite pictures to view...simply that the compositions seem to "fall" into place the most easily. My all time favorite aspect ratio is 1.5:1.
I love shooting large format and my new RZ, but I find the 1.25:1 aspect ratio to be very difficult to compose. It seems either too "fat" to me, or like it should just be square. (I guess I need a P3!
) I try to compose shots to fit the format, and *always* compose with the intent to preserve at least two edges as shot, but it is still pretty routine for me to shoot with the intent to crop a bit with 4x5 and 6x7cm shots; either to make it square or to make it a longer rectangle. Not so with 35, 6x6, 645, etc.As for landscapes on 1:1, I can see it being easier with a wide lens. When I first got my Mamiya, I tried some landscape things with it. I did a really fun landscape project with it, where you step into a cyclorama showing a 360 degree view. However, all of the shots were cropped to fit on 8x10 paper, and I used a prism for the shots anyhow. The TLR was in no way necessary, as I wasn't using any of its unique features. In fact, I would have needed a footstool to even compose the shots with the WLF. I am *not* hauling a footstool to the top of Eagle Rock with me! 645 would have been at least just as good, and probably better, in fact. My favorite formats for landscapes are 645 and 5x7. They are not identical ratios, but both are about the same; a little fatter than 1.5:1, but not as fat as 1.25:1. I don't use the C33 for landscapes anymore (though fairly often for "cityscapes", albeit usually hand held). I use an M645 instead for medium format landscapes.
Last edited by a moderator:
Designers that I know cite two reasons why they like the square format. 1) they just like it; it offers them lots of possibilities for design within a prescribed basic geometrical space and 2) they can crop either vertically or horizontally to suit their needs.
My wife shoots square format landscapes because she likes the square. I've heard her explain why, but can't recall her specific words. What it came down to, though, was that she likes the square. How about that? She uses it well. Of course, since she uses a tlr with the taking lens replaced with a zone plate, what she sees is NOT what she's gonna get.
John Gutmann was a surrealist. He shot the Rolleiflex. I think he liked it because since the mirror reversed the image, getting the horizons straight was really hard to do. He preferred the tilt, and I think that the square image, regular and stable, is just about totally upset by stuff like that. Very surrealistic! His stuff is great. Worth checking out, for sure.
Anyway, I think there might be a lot of reasons to use the square, and not all of them will be really easy to explain. Since I have an on-again off-again relationship with the viewfinder, I guess I just don't care very much.
My wife shoots square format landscapes because she likes the square. I've heard her explain why, but can't recall her specific words. What it came down to, though, was that she likes the square. How about that? She uses it well. Of course, since she uses a tlr with the taking lens replaced with a zone plate, what she sees is NOT what she's gonna get.
John Gutmann was a surrealist. He shot the Rolleiflex. I think he liked it because since the mirror reversed the image, getting the horizons straight was really hard to do. He preferred the tilt, and I think that the square image, regular and stable, is just about totally upset by stuff like that. Very surrealistic! His stuff is great. Worth checking out, for sure.
Anyway, I think there might be a lot of reasons to use the square, and not all of them will be really easy to explain. Since I have an on-again off-again relationship with the viewfinder, I guess I just don't care very much.
Click on this guy's "North America" section...seems he can make the square format work alright.
http://www.davidburdeny.com/
I've had good luck with it as well. I think I just like how stripped down and simple it is. Zen-like...whatever you want to call it.
http://www.davidburdeny.com/
I've had good luck with it as well. I think I just like how stripped down and simple it is. Zen-like...whatever you want to call it.
http://www.billschwab.com
http://www.michaelkenna.net
http://www.davideisenlord.com
There are many that use the square, and use it well, for landscape work.
- Thomas
http://www.michaelkenna.net
http://www.davideisenlord.com
There are many that use the square, and use it well, for landscape work.
- Thomas
Just an example of a square color landscape photo I took.
Rolleiflex, probably Kodak 160 VC color negative film.
Oak, Spring, Western Foothills of the Sierras
Scanned 8x8 RA4 print I made.
I don't think any rectangular format would have worked the same way with this particular image.
Vaughn
Rolleiflex, probably Kodak 160 VC color negative film.
Oak, Spring, Western Foothills of the Sierras
Scanned 8x8 RA4 print I made.
I don't think any rectangular format would have worked the same way with this particular image.
Vaughn
Attachments
Last edited by a moderator:
But Vaughn, how would we know? All we have is what you show, and it's a square already!
Very beautiful image. Almost makes me want to do color again!
Very beautiful image. Almost makes me want to do color again!
Hey, Bowz,
You'll have to take my word for it
. Not that I don't think that someone (or myself) could not have taken a great rectangular image right there, right then, but it would work in a way that was very different.
I do not do much color -- but sometimes color just works.
Vaughn
You'll have to take my word for it
. Not that I don't think that someone (or myself) could not have taken a great rectangular image right there, right then, but it would work in a way that was very different.I do not do much color -- but sometimes color just works.
Vaughn
This thread is getting me quite depressed
Loads of great unprinted Square negs, just developed another 9 rolls yesterday, but I have no darkroom access for about 3 months, and no neg scanner here either . . . . . but the negs are great, luckily I can read a neg so I know exactly how I'll print them.
Ian.
Loads of great unprinted Square negs, just developed another 9 rolls yesterday, but I have no darkroom access for about 3 months, and no neg scanner here either . . . . . but the negs are great, luckily I can read a neg so I know exactly how I'll print them.
Ian.
Ahhh, the curse of having more negatives than one can print (for whatever reason). Should we all be so blessed (or cursed!)
Vaughn
Vaughn
Cursed, blessed, how many four drawer filing cabinets full, some of the film not even really seen by eyes of my own (after art director is done rejecting them :confused
- how little money, how little time. Let us count our blessings/curses!
I actually broke down and used a smiley. Against my religion, but hey, I guess they are useful.
I'm already there - too many negs to print. But it's good to have that reserve, because sometimes when I go back through them, I find things I didn't see before.
Four drawer file cabinets - I'll say! I could probably not even fill one long drawer yet.
I view it as a curse, because a lot of the film is from a time I didn't have the amenities to print. Now that I have the amenities, it's easier to focus on what's fresh, which leaves little time for the old stuff. But sometimes certain pictures or series fare better if they ripen for a while... That's the blessing part of it. Sometimes I even go back and find negs in the collection that might be useful for a new project. Another blessing.
Go with that smiley, Bowz!
- Thomas
Four drawer file cabinets - I'll say! I could probably not even fill one long drawer yet.
I view it as a curse, because a lot of the film is from a time I didn't have the amenities to print. Now that I have the amenities, it's easier to focus on what's fresh, which leaves little time for the old stuff. But sometimes certain pictures or series fare better if they ripen for a while... That's the blessing part of it. Sometimes I even go back and find negs in the collection that might be useful for a new project. Another blessing.
Go with that smiley, Bowz!
- Thomas
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2008
- Messages
- 81
- Format
- Large Format
I find square landscape photos usually very balanced but it took me a long time to learn to compose square landscapes myself. Is takes a different kind of seeing. And if the square does not work, one can always crop.
Frank Bunnik
www.flickr.com/photos/asialover
Frank Bunnik
www.flickr.com/photos/asialover
noumin
No problems composing landscape in a square format here, but i try not to
be too dogmatic about it. To me the groundglass is an area I can play with,
if it suits the picture I will crop.
But I do have a problem with the enlarging : Let's assume I've got three pictures,
the first a square (make it an 8" by 8" size), the second 4:5, the third 2:3, now,
how big do the other two pictures have to be, so that they appear to be of same size
and therefore equally important, this is driving me nuts ...
be too dogmatic about it. To me the groundglass is an area I can play with,
if it suits the picture I will crop.
But I do have a problem with the enlarging : Let's assume I've got three pictures,
the first a square (make it an 8" by 8" size), the second 4:5, the third 2:3, now,
how big do the other two pictures have to be, so that they appear to be of same size
and therefore equally important, this is driving me nuts ...
Either I'm lucky (or maybe a lousy photographer 
), or maybe it has to do with also doing some painting and drawing -- I find I quickly adapt to whatever the frame shows. I have about three different rectangular aspect ratios plus square in my collection of cameras, and I really don't think much about it. Of course, I'm also not adverse to cropping however I see fit when I'm printing if I see an idea that feels better to me. That said, there are some occasional subjects that do seem to call out "make me square!"
DaveT
), or maybe it has to do with also doing some painting and drawing -- I find I quickly adapt to whatever the frame shows. I have about three different rectangular aspect ratios plus square in my collection of cameras, and I really don't think much about it. Of course, I'm also not adverse to cropping however I see fit when I'm printing if I see an idea that feels better to me. That said, there are some occasional subjects that do seem to call out "make me square!"DaveT
I guess if all film did stop being produced within the next ten years, or if for some reason I could not physically get out to photograph, I would have enough negatives to print as long as I was physically able to print without having to resort to enlarged inkjet negs from digital capture. So I guess that is a blessing. LOL!
Part of my way of photographing (and printing) is to use all of the neg, whether it be square, 5x7 or 8x10 (or 4x10). Like Dave, I have no problem finding images that fill the negative, so I tend to do so. I use a modified darkslide to get two 4x10 images on my 8x10...I just flashed on the idea of taking another darkslide and modifying it to get 8"x8" images. It would be very simple to do, and it would get me to think more about the square when I am out with the 8x10. A neat thought. Since I contact print with alt processes and like to show the rebate around the image area of the film when I print and display the image, I really don't "think square" when I carry the 8x10. The weight of the modified darkslide would be nothing.
Vaughn
Part of my way of photographing (and printing) is to use all of the neg, whether it be square, 5x7 or 8x10 (or 4x10). Like Dave, I have no problem finding images that fill the negative, so I tend to do so. I use a modified darkslide to get two 4x10 images on my 8x10...I just flashed on the idea of taking another darkslide and modifying it to get 8"x8" images. It would be very simple to do, and it would get me to think more about the square when I am out with the 8x10. A neat thought. Since I contact print with alt processes and like to show the rebate around the image area of the film when I print and display the image, I really don't "think square" when I carry the 8x10. The weight of the modified darkslide would be nothing.
Vaughn
I don't know, for sure, but I have a couple of instantly occurring thoughts.
1) You want them to look equal. So print them so they look equal.
Forget all theory. Just look at them.
2) Try printing them all to the same area. Square inches, square
centimeters, etc. For example, the square equivalent of an 8x10,
would be an 8.94 square.
Will either of these work? Let us know.
noumin
@ bowzart
Concerning the appearance of formats, I've been doing some maths
and sketching. On the attachment you can see various formats
(square, 4x5, 645, 35mm, 612) and they are all of the same area.
To me the square appears slightly smaller than the rest of it and the
612 slightly larger than the rest of it. But I'm not sure as, to me, the
difference is minute.
OTOH, if the difference is minute, why bother at all ? If you want a picture
of a series of pictures to stand out above the others, I think you really
have to move up a size (8x10 > 12x16), then it stands out. But if I print them
all the same area, within a certain range, none of the pictures will stand out.
Much ado about nothing then.
Concerning the appearance of formats, I've been doing some maths
and sketching. On the attachment you can see various formats
(square, 4x5, 645, 35mm, 612) and they are all of the same area.
To me the square appears slightly smaller than the rest of it and the
612 slightly larger than the rest of it. But I'm not sure as, to me, the
difference is minute.
OTOH, if the difference is minute, why bother at all ? If you want a picture
of a series of pictures to stand out above the others, I think you really
have to move up a size (8x10 > 12x16), then it stands out. But if I print them
all the same area, within a certain range, none of the pictures will stand out.
Much ado about nothing then.
Attachments
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |