Which photographers prefer to move to the square format?

 

<blockquote>

<p>I shoot and develop traditional B&W with three formats: 6 x 6, 6 x 9 and 35mm. My favorite camera is a Rolleicord.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>A Rolleicord (V) is my favourite camera too.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I notice that the vast majority of my 6 x 6 negatives get printed square</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I like to print mine square too but it doesn't always work.<br>

With non-square formats I tend to favour vertical over horizontal format but I think I might be obsessed as I found myself rotating a folding 6x6 camera by 90 degrees last week!</p>

 

 

I shoot square camera's only, sometimes while composing a shot I think that it will work better rectangular. If I would

have a rectangular camera I would use it, but, because I don't I shoot square and crop later, the result is the same. I

think cropping can enhance an image, it's the end result that counts.

<p>Gary, one artist I have found is Gustav Klimt; had seen these famous paintings many times but never made the connection to his having met the challenge of painting a picture on a defined confined square canvas. There may have been more square paintings by him, but some were condemned of his paintings and some were destroyed, some by German police at end of WWII. Klimt died in 1918. It is possible - who knows if probable - that he was acquainted with early film formats; notice on this list that the very first format 101 was square.<br>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_format<br>

http://www.oceansbridge.com/paintings/artists/k/Klimt_Gustav/oil-big/The_Kiss,_1907-08.jpg<br>

I have just now found this fascinating essay on Klimt's paintings which goes into his liking for square paintings. Well worth reading - I think it may express the undefined attraction some of feel for the square film format.<br>

http://www.all-art.org/symbolism/klimt3a.html</p>

<p>I have used all formats of 120: 645, 66, 67, 69, well except maybe 612.<br>

I have settled on the Mamiya 7, which is 67. The reason is that if I need a rectangular frame, I can use 67, but I still retain the full 66 frame, if I crop. This will ensure a very large negative.<br>

Why not 69? Well, the 69's are much bulkier and they don't have meters. Also I found that I usually shortened the 69 a bit. So after cropping I'm back usually to 67, but only after additional work, which is avoided by using 67.<br>

But I still retain a Rolleiflex 3.5F. I just cannot part with the exquisite shutter.</p>

<p>Robin Smith wrote:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>"I think that Ed is correct that the original square formats for TLRs and Hasselblads are square for practical reasons not because of artistic vision, although 'blad afterwards stressed the "primacy of the square" in their marketing. Interestingly this was swiftly abandoned with the transition to the H series."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Hi Robin the choices both Hasselblad, and Rollei with their Rolleiflex, made, were very precise ones. Have very compact camera systems that could offer the best optical and mechanical quality possible hence the best reliability. That is exactly what they achieved and that is why it has been recognized by professionals the world over that made them their workhorses for the last 70 odd years. The square format has been consequential to these needs.<br>

The only other offers, later in time, were the Mamiya RB then RZ and eventually (in a timeline) the Fuji GX680. The RB was and probably is still if you have one , a great camera but very cumbersome and really heavy, similarly for its optics. The RZ marginally lighter faster to use but less reliable. Very good lenses though, even if not at the same level of both reliability and optics of the Hasselblad Carl Zeiss. I used to assist so many photographers in London before going self-empoyed myself who used either Hasselblad or RZ's...I can truly tell you, never had one single failure on Hasselblad kit (on the equal assumption of well kept and regularly CLA'd equipment) , had instead quite a few due to malfunctioning contacts of lenses on the RZ and if you are on location it's a bugger!!! You can double bodies but if you need to double lenses too it becomes complicated!!<br>

Optically then the Carl Zeiss work better on the digital platform. Demonstration...you can technically still use the RZ (no idea if RB too but probably I'd think you can) quite succesfully with digital backs but it's not as common and as good as the Hasselblad V system used with CFV backs or phase one.<br>

Further demonstartion, on ebay you can get Mamiya lenses for 2 a penny and instead CFE lenses are difficult to find and when available they are still quite expensive. I will tell you more, even 40-50 yrs old Hasselblad lenses, considering their age, still hold their price well at an average of 250-350 Euros depending on lens and condition, not to mention the 40C that still sells at around 500-600 depending on condition. And this is for a 40/50 yrs old lens!!<br>

The Fuji gx680 then is such a monstrousity if you are asking me. Great camera in a sense (bulky), great and very complex engeneering (great and complex ingeneering doesn't always mean greater reliability) and this for achieving what? Effectively as others said a 6x8 camera where you can "crop" the neg in order to step down to another lower format.<br>

In order to make such a "monster" practical to use you need to be ...back to the square!! Yes that is the principle of a rotating back the only way to have practically a portrait mode, imagine otherwise having to turn on its side a 5Kgs camera!! Yes 5kgs + loads of batteries because you need them to operate this camera. And again 5kg, so if you are on location imagine the following scenario 5+5=10 so sat least ten kilos just of main body and 2nd spare body this versus Hasselblad say 503cwd at 1155gr so 2310grs so both main and spare body!! I guess you might start seeing WHY the square format became the most widely adopted and the best optically and mechanically. Simplicity, best optics and as a result a compact reliable system.<br>

To answer then your argument of the H system yes they went to rectangular format and no surprise it's digital, conceived 60yrs later and there is a motor inside to cock the shutter so why not!? Professionally in any case even the "square" of the V was used "square"...ever seen a square fashion magazine?? Practicality man, practicality... ;-))) But then you'd see an exhibition of Avedon or Bailey and all "squares"...</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"Cropping is like walking out in an untidy manner, it suggests an untidy mind"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Nick Knight, Avedon, David Bailey...all notorious "disorderly people"....LOL</p>

<blockquote>

<p>When it comes to the practical business of marketing images to publications, it was long a preference of art directors to have square format and somewhat looser composition because they and not the photographer decided whether an image was best used as a horizontal or vertical. Photographers with 35mm and/or DSLR cameras, especially with zoom lenses, tend to crop too tightly, leaving the AD no room for trap or alternate cropping options</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Now, the above text quoted from Don Douglas is clearly coming from someone who knows what professional work and requirements mean.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Gianni - wouldn't it depend on whether you were selling images to an art director, vs. selling images to a client?</p>

<p>In the former, loose compositions would be best. In the latter, tight comps would be best.</p>

<p>So, as always, it goes back to shooting with the final product in mind, from the start.</p>

<p>Hi Doug an Art Director is my client, but yes I do see your point. If you work direct to the end user and you are your own A.D. and have direct dealings with your client yes you'd be the one ultimately "calling the shots", but then you cannot tell me that a professional photographer is not "worthy" or even disorderly if he doesn't "crop in camera", such a statement being very superficial and oblivious of the reality of so much of the commercial world that saw many of the photographers that made photography what it is nowadays!!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Optically then the Carl Zeiss work better on the digital platform. Demonstration...you can technically still use the RZ (no idea if RB too but probably I'd think you can) quite succesfully with digital backs but it's not as common and as good as the Hasselblad V system used with CFV backs or phase one.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It would be a big mistake to attribute the lower usage of digital backs on the big Mamiyas to lower optical quality. The main reason is simply that the MFDB sensors are so small that a 6x8/6x7 camera has a massive "crop factor", and it makes sense to use a 6x6 camera instead...and even more sense to use a 645 camera, which is why the only actively developed MF SLRs still left are 645s (Mamiya/PhaseOne, Hasselblad/Fuji, and Pentax).</p>

<p>BTW yes, you can use RB67s with some digital backs, but the choice is wider with the RZ67.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Further demonstartion, on ebay you can get Mamiya lenses for 2 a penny and instead CFE lenses are difficult to find and when available they are still quite expensive.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You could be confusing cause and effect here. It is in considerable part <em>because</em> they are difficult to find that they are still expensive.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Ray Butler wrote:<br>

It would be a big mistake to attribute the lower usage of digital backs on the big Mamiyas to lower optical quality. The main reason is simply that the MFDB sensors are so small that a 6x8/6x7 camera has a massive "crop factor", and it makes sense to use a 6x6 camera instead...and even more sense to use a 645 camera, which is why the only actively developed MF SLRs still left are 645s (Mamiya/PhaseOne, Hasselblad/Fuji, and Pentax).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Ray , I never wrote that I attribute lower usage of digital backs to lower optical quality. I wrote that Hasselblad cameras made, for their size due to its square format a better platform. I also quote from my own post:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The only other offers, later in time, were the Mamiya RB then RZ and eventually (in a timeline) the Fuji GX680. The RB was and probably is still if you have one , a great camera but very cumbersome and really heavy, similarly for its optics. The RZ marginally lighter faster to use but less reliable. Very good lenses though, even if not at the same level of both reliability and optics of the Hasselblad Carl Zeiss.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>So I said, if you wish to read again, that Mamiya made to great cameras with great optics but non "as" reliable as Carl Zeiss and despite being great lenses still a notch down from Hasselblad as and I talk from experience there are more chromatic aberrations to be corrected on Mamiya lenses used on digital than on CFE lenses used on digital. My main point though and I wish to stress that, was not so much on the quality difference - note "difference" not "lack of" - but on reliability on assumption, in both cases, of equipment as carefully and regularly CLA'd. This was my point and I stick by it 100%.<br>

Of course then "crop factor" is yet another additional big element in the RZ being less popular as a "digital" platform.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>You could be confusing cause and effect here. It is in considerable part <em>because</em> they are difficult to find that they are still expensive.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Once more I don't understand what you are saying different from me and I believe I am not confusing anything at all. CFR are <em>rare </em>for a very good reason, whoever has them keeps them as they are excellent and fully compatible even with the H system by means of a CF to H adapter. Try having a look at procentre.co.uk (UK Hasselblad) how long CFE lenses stay on USED EQUIPMENT web page. A week or two and they've sold. The used Mamiya lenses don't have much of a market as professionally not too many people want to keep them so they flooded the market, hence they are a 2 a pence. So what are we saying here that is so different.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Once more I don't understand what you are saying different from me and I believe I am not confusing anything at all. CFR are <em>rare</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p><em>CFR should have read CFE, obvious mistyping mistake I wish to apologize for...<br /></em></p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>What makes you PREFER the square format?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Absolutely nothing.</p>

<p>"Absolutely nothing" - So you don't have a format preference then? </p>

<p>In 35mm, I shoot almost everything vertically; and I get tired of rotating the camera and shooting in that awkward position. If there's a 35mm camera that shoots vertically when the camera is held horizontally, let me know. I've only found one way to have that: put a Rolleikin adapter in a Rolleiflex TLR. It will give you vertical shots with the camera in normal position. Plus, you are only using the center of that fantastic Zeiss lens, and the results on 35mm film will blow you away. </p>

<p>I attribute one of the reasons that a lot of people like square photography to the fact that a lot of people in the say 30 to 70 age bracket got their first contact with 'artistic' photography on an inherently square format; the record sleeve. Keep in mind that a lot of the great albums had some kind of great art of photography on them and they all had one thing in common all are square.<br>

And even when the pictures aren't square the framing of the album covers still was. So for a lot of people the only or at least some of the first 'art' they have come in contact with is square</p>

<p>CD covers are square - 4-3/4 inches, give or take 1/64"</p>

<p>CDs ended the art of cover design as we knew it. Far too small.</p>

 

<p>I find the perfectly symmetrical square format, like well-rounded people, to be quite a bore. The rectangle is biased toward its object, and more interesting.</p>

<p>"I find the perfectly symmetrical square format, like well-rounded people, to be quite a bore".<br>

Uninteresting subject matter is boring, not the choice of format.</p>

I love the square format but I wish they were cheaper to process.

Here in UK, prices are outrageous. I just started my love for 120 but feeling the damage in my wallet already.

I guess for long term, probably best to get myself a 35mm rangefinder to play with and rollei for special occasion only.

<p>I'll just be weird and say it speaks to me in a way regular formats don't.<br>

It's perfect for protraits-the square reflects and redirect attention to the subject. the square emphasises the person in the image, not the background (as much)<br>

also, you don't need to turn the camera sideways for pictures. vertical and horizontal composition can be made asis.</p>