Does the Square Aspect Ratio Carry More Baggage?

I think with TLRs, vertical parallax is less objectionable than horizontal parallax. Also the shape lends itself to using two hands at waist level, whereas a horizontal camera works better at eye level. In practice, I almost always used the mirror in the cover to focus and the sports finder to compose. I never bought a prism, but that would have worked better.

 

I really liked my Rollei, and used it almost exclusively in my last two years at a newspaper. Rolleiflex is an incredibly over-designed instrument. There's a little reflex mirror that pops down for eye-level focusing when you open the sports finder. There's a roller inside to sense the added thickness of the film, to start counting. The film is metered with a knurled roller, rather than a cam like a Hasselblad. The frames are perfectly spaced. The shutter and aperture settings can be coupled by twisting the hub on one. The other knob reads the EV value of the shutter/aperture combination. That's just for starters.

Edited March 2, 2018 by Ed_Ingold

I think if I had my time again (or, more importantly, the time and space to work with film), I’d give the Rollei TLRs a go.

Coming from painting photo realistic images in my youth I don't see aspect ratio (square or rectangle) creating wasted space that puts limits on how the subject can be arranged within a frame to communicate a compelling idea. Apposing space in size, location and relationship to subject is how I was taught to deal with the confines of any aspect ratio frame.

 

If all you have is a square format and a single subject such as any object, there are a myriad of ways to arrange that subject within the frame from moving closer to farther away, up/down, side to side. It takes mindfulness and a bit of a gut feeling to look at not just the subject but how to make the subject divide and fracture the space to form other shapes around it. It's all about arranging shapes and forms within the frame and any aspect ratio can be used with this mindset to amplify an image's emotion, attitude and atmosphere.

 

You have to ask yourself do you see shapes and forms when you look through any aspect ratio formed viewfinder or do you just see a subject to shoot? Each POV will lead to different compositions, some good, some bad.

Here's a good example of uniquely composed portrait within a squarish aspect ratio that illustrates how the subject's shape is arranged to appose or contrast against the surrounding shapes in the room. You can literally divide up and create individual compositions just by cropping or zoom in closely with any aspect ratio frame. The subject is not dead center but is still the focus of attention.

 

A Maid Asleep | Johannes Vermeer | 14.40.611 | Work of Art | Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History | The Metropolitan Museum of Art

 

Do you see shapes or do you just see a woman sitting in a room?

Large and medium format cameras were popular in the news business because you could crop the image severely and still produce an acceptable print. When is the last time you saw a square photo in a newspaper, or a square magazine? By the late 50's, film had improved to the point that MF replaced the ubiquitous Speed Graphic. Cameras with the so-called "Ideal Format," 2-1/4"x2-3/4" (6x7) cropped up, notably in Omega rangefinder cameras. The Nikon F changed all of that. It took advantage of the same advances in film technology, but provided a virtually unlimited range pf interchangeable lenses. You could now crop in the camera. You were no longer restricted to basically one lens for s Speed Graphic (127 or 135 mm) or Rolleiflex (75 or 80). There were other lenses, of course, but I never knew anyone to use them for news.

"You have to ask yourself do you see shapes and forms when you look through any aspect ratio formed viewfinder or do you just see a subject to shoot?"

 

This is dead on. Without getting too obtuse, the eye sees shapes and forms and the mind gives them meanings and names (Whether the word for a thing or the idea of a thing comes first is a subject that's been debated almost forever but they certainly both exist). Obviously you pick a subject for a reason or reasons and that decision is based on the idea of the thing. Eg., a pitchfork against a barn wall is one thing and a bottle of wine on a table is another.

 

In both cases, once you've chosen the subject, 90 percent of the work is seeing, understanding and using the shapes, lines, textures and other formal elements. Eventually, if you have a clear idea about what you're shooting and some practice, the framing and composition can become second nature. The format doesn't even matter.

Large and medium format cameras were popular in the news business because you could crop the image severely and still produce an acceptable print. When is the last time you saw a square photo in a newspaper, or a square magazine?

 

That got me thinking (in a somewhat humorous vein) about historic photographic events that might have been given an alternate public perception. As an example if Lee Harvey Oswald being shot by Jack Ruby was photographed at close range by a square aspect ratio camera with Ruby not even in frame if that famous Oswald expression of pain on his face would've looked as if he was being tickled to death by his police escorts.

 

A google image search brings up numerous frames of varying aspect ratios of this famous scene most likely from cropping, all include Ruby's gun in hand within frame.

Obviously you pick a subject for a reason or reasons and that decision is based on the idea of the thing. Eg., a pitchfork against a barn wall is one thing and a bottle of wine on a table is another.

 

In both cases, once you've chosen the subject, 90 percent of the work is seeing, understanding and using the shapes, lines, textures and other formal elements. Eventually, if you have a clear idea about what you're shooting and some practice, the framing and composition can become second nature. The format doesn't even matter.

 

That Vermeer painting got me thinking along the lines you just described about turning a subject into an idea by arranging it within the frame according to what is known about the subject. I kept focusing on the fact that where ever one places a pretty woman within a frame regardless of how well she's lit, what's she's wearing or not wearing, I notice the woman first off.

 

And then I thought about playing around with that type of directing the viewer's eyes, but I notice that I've basically reversed engineered what I've already seen in the Vermeer painting and disappointingly realized I can never consciously think along these lines because everything is a feeling to me and not a plan to manipulate the viewer. At least the Vermeer made me aware of other ways I could use subjects that easily draw attention to them self and play around with that.

In both cases, once you've chosen the subject, 90 percent of the work is seeing, understanding and using the shapes, lines, textures and other formal elements. Eventually, if you have a clear idea about what you're shooting and some practice, the framing and composition can become second nature. The format doesn't even matter.

Though I do think sometimes the photo itself is the subject rather than something that's in the photo being the subject. In that case, I'm not so much composing around or to a subject as much as the composition itself becomes part of the subject (which it actually does in all photos, even those that are more subject oriented).

 

I think the format always matters, to be honest. A photographer may or may not CONSIDER format when shooting and format may well not (though it certainly can) obviously affect decisions, but it still matters to the composition and feel of the photo that ultimately results. To me, format is part of composition. I don't compose in a vacuum. I compose inside and/or into a shape. Sometimes I do it in camera, sometimes by cropping later. Again, that may done, as you say, as a matter of second nature, but even if second nature format is still at work, no matter how unconsciously. And it's having an effect on viewers once the photo is complete, IMO, again, whether they're conscious of it or not.

... even if second nature format is still at work, no matter how unconsciously. And it's having an effect on viewers once the photo is complete, IMO, again, whether they're conscious of it or not.

 

Good point. And it's interesting to think about what we bring, individually, as viewers, to the experience of viewing photos in different formats. For many people, square formats look more like "art." My grandfather, on the other hand, would just connect them to the family photographs he took as a young man.

 

I didn't mean to dismiss the importance of format to the viewer. I meant to say that for photographers it shouldn't make that much of a difference.

I kept focusing on the fact that where ever one places a pretty woman within a frame regardless of how well she's lit, what's she's wearing or not wearing, I notice the woman first off.

 

Yeah funny thing about women, particularly nudes ;).

 

I teach composition, among other photo-related things, and I'm not sure I buy into the idea of leading the eye around the frame, either. If you look at another painter, Degas, his work very much reflects the photographic era in which he worked. He cuts things off along the edges, crops things oddly, etc.

 

Composition either works or it doesn't. Trying to predict where an individual's eye might go seems vain and as you say manipulative.

For many people, square formats look more like "art.”

:) Interesting you say that. In the thread where we’re talking about photographing selfie-takers at tourist spots, I was going to ask Sanford what he would think of his shot in color.

Trying to predict where an individual's eye might go seems vain and as you say manipulative.

Vain and manipulative defines a lot of art!

 

One of my mentors talked a lot about eye movement and how important it is to composition and how a photo will read. So, I've often thought about and composed and post-processed with eye movement in mind. Nothing wrong with a photographer being a bit of a stage director. After all, when we decide on depth of focus we're determining eye movement to a certain extent. When we cut something off at the edge of the frame, we're "manipulating" eye movement.

 

It's why, for me, using the term "still" to describe a photo is misleading. We talk about "stilling" a moment. But many good photos tell a story and the stilling of the moment is in support of the story being told. That story plays out in time, as the viewer is looking. The viewer looks here and there and around the photo. Pointing the viewer to do that in a certain way can be very integral to what the photographer is expressing.

 

Warhol and Duchamp were about as manipulative as they come, and I doubt either would shy away from it. Impressionists? Incredible manipulators. The Pictorialists? Of course. Vain? Dali, anyone?

Edited March 3, 2018 by Norma Desmond

I thought what I proposed as viewer manipulation as the idea being conveyed and whether composition would make that register to the viewer.

 

So I thought of ways to place a woman in a frame as if she's a "Where's Waldo" character by placing her in a huge pile of garbage. But then that might be taken as a political statement on how society treats women instead of the intended idea of... "See How A Woman Draws Attention No Matter How She's Presented?" as conceptual portraiture.

 

I remember seeing something similarly done in the '70's for an Esquire magazine cover (maybe by George Lois) but it was intended to make a political statement on an unrelated subject.

square, rectangle, circular they all have their own baggage

Way, way back, my first camera was a 44x44mm, TLR. At 11, I knew no better and thought nothing of it. When I moved to 35mm film, I thought little of it, really only concerned that a framed print could be produced from the negative. Oh, I do remember how I loved the way that 44x44mm slides filled the screen, when viewing slides.

 

Now, in the digital age, I crop 1:1, 2:1, 3:4,5:4, 5:2 etc., as the subject dictates. Mostly these are viewed digitally. When I print, I tend to print large and have a custom frame.

I just carry a TLR and a 35mm with me when possible so I don't have to crop as often.

"I just carry a TLR and a 35mm with me when possible so I don't have to crop as often." Mike

 

Sort of have a feeling of guilt when I crop....a feeling of being unworthy..

"Composition either works or it doesn't. Trying to predict where an individual's eye might go seems vain and as you say manipulative."

 

I agree comp works or not but disagree with the assumption that because leading the viewers eye is manipulative its somehow negative. Where does that come from? Think about the implications of that statement. Is a great book any less because the author "manipulated" the reader? Manipulation in the frame is totally part of the picture (pun intended). If you give any thought to composing your photo in the frame, you are manipulating the frame. So maybe we should just stick with Composition works or it doesn't.

As an aside, in the heyday of TLRs, the photo magazines like Modern and Popular Photography very regularly had articles on improving composition by cropping 6x6 images, so there was some realization that "square" was not for everything.

 

In fine arts, there is much discussion of the golden ratio and many artists have approximated that "golden mean" in their works (LINK)

I love the square. But I do wish Hasselblad had made more 12V backs that gave a vertical 645 image. The very few I've seen for sale have been very expensive, and unlike the A16 horizontal backs that 12V doesn't add frames.