I once wrote an essay on square composition. Unlike a horizontal or vertical image, the square is neutral and composing is sometimes more challenging since the format doesn't;t lead you to see the image in a predetermined way.
Who are the masters of square composition?
-
- Thread starter ProfessorC1983
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale 9 Rolls FUJI Fujifilm SUPERIA PREMIUM 400 27 exp 3 pro packs
- Started by orbitaldebris
-
For Sale Nikon Nikkor-H 85mm f1.8 AI'd
- Started by Oldwino
-
For Sale DAHLE 552 (20-inch) Trimmer
- Started by Renato Tonelli
-
Sold Leica M2 Camera ("Body Button", No Self-Timer Type) CLA'D
- Started by Renato Tonelli
-
For Sale Agfa Super Isolette CLA'd Medium Format 6x6
- Started by Oldwino
Forum statistics
Outstanding work on that site Kenneth. Thanks for sharing it here!
I agree.
So, Larry Fink
From http://www.larryfinkphotography.com/
Is it with a wide-angle lens and proper lighting?
Me, too, I have a much harder time with 6x7.
Fritz Henle...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritz_Henle
https://henlegallery.com/fritzhenle/
..although a number of his images on his gallery site seem to have been cropped to non-square proportions... ???
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritz_Henle
https://henlegallery.com/fritzhenle/
..although a number of his images on his gallery site seem to have been cropped to non-square proportions... ???
Last edited:
There is the online magazine. "Square" https://www.squaremag.org
I agree. The viewer isn't "directed" in a way they are with rectangular images.
I'm not sure that studying other people's square photographs is the way to go. Camera-work is better.
In practice if you use a camera that shoots square and has an accurate view-finder then pointing it subject matter tells you everything you need to know. If the arrangement looks good in the viewfinder then an exposure will automatically deliver a well composed picture. If not, don't shoot, move on and try elsewhere.
Remember, in the arts, your personal judgement, if fully thought through, cannot in principle be wrong.
It is easy to answer who ain't. Just dump it in the middle and you'll get your master badge.
Knda like this:
This works because the subject is dead center, enhancing the overall quietness of the photo. An off-center or tilted composition would be at odds with the sense of the subject's state.
You could dump boobs and pretty face anywhere and it will works. If it would be ugly Betty you won't even notice this photo.
A good point, and I would say it would depend on how one best learns. For some it could provide fodder for the imagination...'points of departure' was how one of my favorite professors put it. For others it might just clog up their process.
I learned with a Rolleiflex with a waist-level finder. I never used a 35mm much at all. Then onwards to large format. I have never liked the viewing frames and learned without them, but they are a good way to learn and to work for many many people. I like the input of what will surround the selected portion of the scene for the entire time I am considering if and where I'll be setting up the camera. Not so much as looking for a piece of the scene to isolate, but how to gather the whole scene into the small area selected.
An interesting way to work with the square is to lead the eye in a more circular manner, but it also lends itself to very quiet contemplative compositions (Kenna). But squares can work all sorts of ways. Two platinum contact prints from the Yolla Bollys. One that has a surprising amount up upward thrust for a square, and the other a little more quiet...an early evening-light portrait. I suggest looking at them life-size. I compose for contact prints, so enlarging them on the screen will give a different 'look' to them.
Attachments
Yes it depends on your photography style. I think square is many times better for me because I don't want to "direct" or "off-balance" the photo, usually it feels a bit cliché to do so. That is just my taste. Square is honest
The space around her has made her more vulnerable than just the pose alone. Very clever. Pretty girl she should be in movies.
She is off center.
And just enough that it is not a quiet calm image without being obvious about it..
From the past, I would suggest Eugene Meatyard. I visited him at his home in Kentucky in 1960 and was treated to a collection of powerful and well-crafted 8x8 photographs. A talented man, Gene died too young.
http://www.artnet.com/artists/ralph-eugene-meatyard/
http://www.artnet.com/artists/ralph-eugene-meatyard/
Sorry; missed the earlier Eugene Meatyard post.
I like the work of this swedish guy, Gerry Johansson. It seems he doesn't have a personal website so, unless you buy one of his books, you need to search his pictures on the web....
https://www.spaziolabo.it/mostre/gerry-johansson/
https://www.google.com/search?q=Ger...g_0HHRqCC0s4ChD8BSgBegQIARAD&biw=1280&bih=881
https://www.spaziolabo.it/mostre/gerry-johansson/
https://www.google.com/search?q=Ger...g_0HHRqCC0s4ChD8BSgBegQIARAD&biw=1280&bih=881
That is good composition.
| 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:  |