6x6 composing

Hi,

 

I'm considering purchasing an old Bronica SQ or Hassy 500 to improve

my portrait shots (I can't stand evaluating 35mm negs), but would

also like to use it for other types of pictures, so I wanted to find

out from those of you in the 'know' how different it is composing

images for the 6x6 format as opposed to a rectangular format? Is

there any benefit to 6x6 over 6x4.5 other than not having to rotate

the body?

 

thanks

Some people like the square. I love it. In fact, I tend to crop most of my "large format" (meaning my 6x6, 6x7 and 4x5 negs) to squares. I'd suggest trying it out first. Either rent a Hassy for a couple days or pick up an older TLR (Yashica) to play with. You'll find out pretty quickly whether it's for you or not.

I like the square as well and usually print full-frame. The four corners seem to pull equally, lending the frame to compositions divided on a cross, an X, or the diagonal or circle-within-square, for me. I don't think about this too much while I'm photographing, but looking at the results, that is how they seem to line up.

 

Go to a bookstore with a good photo section and look through the albums to find the square-format shooters for examples. They're not too hard to pick out.

Curtis - I have two square cameras, Mamiya 6 and Rolleiflex

2.8F, as well as 6x7 and 6x4.5. For me, the image dictates the

composition regardless of the camera I'm using. If the best

composition is square and I'm using my Pentax 67, then it is

printed or matted square. Conversely, I have many horizontal or

vertical images cropped in my Rolleiflex viewfinder. I've never

understood the slavish devotion some show for using every

square inch of every frame. Maybe I should try to be more

attuned to the frame size; I guess I'd get "more for my money" if I

could be attentive to those details. So my answer to your

question is that there is nothing special. I think many people like

the square for portraits, especially head and shoulders shots,

because it simplifies printing. I think it works well for portraits

because it fits the subject matter. I've also used my Rolleiflex for

a series of one-half to full-body portraits, and crop the sides to fit

8x10 paper. That works well too, for me.

Grant,

 

What sizes do you enlarge you negatives? I'm guessing you don't do the standard rectangular formats, right?

 

Thanks

6x6 gives a sense of spaciousness and completeness that I just don't get with 645, which I feel to be cramped and not sufficiently different from 35mm. It gives rise to a much more contemplative experience. You'll either feel this or not, and you'll need to get behind a viewfinder to find out.

 

If you're interested in compositions for photographs other than portraits, you'll find a hundred or so on my web site www.photography001.com

Hi!

I shoot 6x6 with an old Yashica C. I like the square shots for portraiture, as well as landscapes. In printing them, I've found it's better for me to over-enlarge the print beyond the edges of the rectangular paper. I hate to crop off 2 or 3 inch slivers of paper which usually get thrown away. I'm tight.

David,

 

I looked at your web site and loved the images. I hope to some day acheive your level of skill.

Let me ask you the same question I asked above, which is, what sizes do you enlarge to, and do you have to crop the image?

 

Thanks

"how different it is composing images for the 6x6 format"

 

It's different.

 

Good compositions take work, especially if you're used to rectangular compositions.

 

There are some books which have specific focus on square compositions, like Ernst Wildi's out-of-print "The Rolleiflex Book."

 

If you want to experiment before plunking down lots of money on a 6x6 SLR, buy a Holga modified for 6x6 ($45 or so at holgamods.com). Or, as a friend recently did, pick up a user-condition early model Yashica TLR for $70.

When I print square, I got all the way from 8x8 up to 14x14. I cut my own mats, so that's not an issue for me. If you don't want to do that, then finding proper homes for your square prints can be tough.

Funny you should say that about mats but over the holidays, I had some 5x5 color prints made (the standard for 6x6 format like 4x6 is to 35mm). I had NO expectation on finding a matt but my local Target store actually had 8x10 matts with 4x4 cutout! They also had some 4x4 frames marketed to wedding photos.

Curtis, thanks for the complement and for visiting the site. The square images on the site are generally from 6x6, and maybe one or two rectangular landscapes are cropped from 6x6. The birds are all 35mm, and the others are a mixture of 35mm, 6x6, and large format.

 

I enlarge many of my 6x6 negs to 5x5" for albums and to give away, and usually to 8x8" or 11x11" for display, occasionally larger. I used to print very large more often, but I've come to prefer smaller prints and the tonality of smaller enlargement factors (or maybe it's just shortage of wall space in my Manhattan apartment!).

I love the square for landscape: you can use foreground and show the width of a place in the same time.

<p>

I also use square prints a lot in my wedding albums, which stands out nicely from the 5x7" prints from 35mm (I tend to have 1/3 of all album prints in square).<br>

It also works as a marketing thing; even a lot of traditional hasselblad shooters crop to rectangular. I often don't.

<p>

<a href="http://www.fotografiewimvanvelzen.nl">Wim</a>

Hi Curtis<p>I posted a question a while back titled <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=001u6q">Do YOU love the square?</a><p>You could also take a peek at my site at <a href="http://www.keithlaban.co.uk">www.keithlaban.co.uk</a> which features many 6x6 images.<p>Yes, the square is very special!

<blockquote>Hi Curtis,

<p>

I too find the square format very satisfying and tend to use this composition

for most of my imaging. It is not for everyone (some people really hate the

square format) but for those of us who enjoy the challenge to compose within

the 6x6 format, it can produce pleasing images of a variety of subjects.

<p>

For portraiture it produces strong images and is ideal for this subject but it

can be equally as good with many other subjects. I have used it successfully

for portraits, nudes, product shots, landscapes, editorial images and so on, I

recently used the 6x6 for some closeup "flower portraits", which have proven

to be popular with my customers, so it works there too.

<p>

If you have liked images you have seen, cropped or shot in the square

format, then give it a try, I'm sure you'll enjoy it.

<p>

Kind regards,

<p>

Peter Brown

<p>

<a

href="http://www.peter-brown-photographer.com">http://www.peter-brown

-photographer.com</a>

 

</blockquote>

Although many people like square images, I do not--I never print

square. Nevertheless, I love the 6 X 6 format. Do not

underestimate the convenience of never having to turn the

camera on its side (actually, since i use A Rolleiflex TLR that

would be difficult :-) I usually know at the time of shooting

whether a picture will be vertical or horizontal, but its very nice

IMO to be able to make the final decision in the darkroom

Most fashion photography is done with a rectangle. This is one

of the reasons I prefer the square. It's different and therefore a bit

more unique.

 

<p>

<img src=" http://images2.fotki.com/v15/photos/2/29529/180958/

Jettpose-vi.jpg"> ©2003 <a href="http://www.tristantom.com/">

Tristan Tom</a>

<p>

I also prefer the squre for landscapes for the same reason as

above. Also, there is someting more pure and meditative about a

square landscape composition.

I'm a fan of the square, and I'd like to think that I've picked up at least a tenuous grasp on how to compose well for the square. I prefer not to crop, either in 35mm or 6x6 format; I try to set up so I get it right the first time. Cropping tells me that I wasted film and should have found a way to better use the frame. But perhaps that's just me.