Artistical shots in 1:1 format/crop?

Do you think that the 1:1 format/crop is suitable for an artistical

shot? because i believe that an artistical composition is more

balanced when it's in 4:3 or 3:2 format (i mean.. a wide point of

view, not a square photo that concentrates all the attention in the

center, cause we don't want that, do we?) I also think the square

format tightens up the subject and creates no perspective (or a flat

one). I'm AGAINST 1:1 artistical-photography. How about you?

Square format has it's purposes. Maybe you should say you are against poorly composed

photography instead. Could you really be against a form of photography or artistic

expression? I think a square format is more challenging, but I'm definitely not against it.

Mihnea,why do you think asquare photo concentrates all the attention in the center? It is not necessarily so.<div></div>

<a href="http://www.keithlaban.co.uk">Keith Laban Photography</a><p><i>" I'm AGAINST 1:1 artistical-photography. How about you?"</i><p>It's bad enough that they shoot 1:1, worse still when it's artistical.

I'm against trolls. How about you?

The end product is what counts.

 

I take 1:1 on my Hasselblad and love it even though it presents compositional challenges

at times. It is not necessarily a bad thing that attention slides to the centre, the rule of

thirds being a medieval construct designed to teach artists of the time some basic rules of

composition. Our liking for it, perhaps, stems simply from familiarity. (And what does

familiarity breed...?) Someone once pointed out that "true" human perspective would

result in photgraphs vaguely spectacle shaped with two tiny points of sharp focus - no-

one yet makes film or sensors this way...

 

I am FOR all photography.

 

Jim

<P>I suppose any proposition is valid in a philosophy forum, but really, saying you are against square images <I>per se</I> seems rather sterile and pointless.</P><P>Images stand or fall on their own particular merits. If you assess every image in terms of a set of rules, you are missing the point of "artistical-photography".</P>

I think the true expression of all true high artistic endeavour can only be found in the

triangle. Look at the pyramids, I mean, they are still a wonder of the world. It is due to

their triangular nature. Whilst it is true that the regularity of the equilateral triangle often

tends towards the banal in the photographic image, it is still superior in every way to the

round, oblong, square or (heaven help us) octagonal pictures that we see all around us.

One only needs to look at the work of such greats as Weston, Eggleston, Brandt & HCB to

realise that there was a reason that they used the isoceles triangle almost exclusively for

their important work.

 

I am AGAINST all photography that is not presented in a triangular format.

 

All else is merely the spastic ejaculations of dilettantes.

any shapes a good shape for a picture. robert, why are you so nasty all the time?

Your post makes no sense. Who says that a square composition places everything in the center? The person who makes the composition decides where something is placed. Square, rectangle, triangle, etc, who cares what the shape of the frame is? Do what you as an "artistical" person deems the most appropriate for the most effective image. It almost seems rediculous to discuss this because there is no image on the table. You bring up only "artistical photography" which is very generic. What about vertical format? You have to use the format you think is most effective for the specific composition.<div></div>

Yes, triangles are definitely the most armonic shapes. I do not agree with 1:1 shots as putting them in front with 3:2 / 4:3. I like the photos you've posted.. but i would still have preffered the same subjects shot in 'wide-view'.

 

The square tightens the view, is like looking through a small hole. It's also something exact (the equivalence between width and height), it's like watching a painter drawing his artistical works with a ruler.

 

I'm not exactly against 1:1, but i preffer the same shot taken in 3:2 / 4:3. So this is my next question, wouldn't those shots (1:1) look better in 'wide-view'?

(Let's also mention that the human's vision is in wide-view.. we do have 2 eyes..)

What a lame idea. I often wonder how people who are interested in photography can be at the same time so close minded and dogmatic. Being AGAINST things in general is stupid. I can't imagine how many other things the poster is AGAINST. What a stupid existence.

"Let's also mention that the human's vision is in wide-view.. we do have 2 eyes"

 

great, if your purpose is making art is to show me something I can see already. Why don't I just go walk around with my eyes and look instead of looking at art.

Matt, I'm against bad pictures, i'm against techinques that affect the value of a photo. I'm also against discrimination, rasism and plenty of things, ain't we all?

 

Brian, photography is capturing aspects of life (the walks you talked about), not just digital effects.. . Illusionsm/romantisism .. they're not exclusive arts. I rather preffer the natural methods (realism, classicism).

 

I hoped we can have a decent discussion.. you're answears aren't very rude.<div></div>

I apologize if my answers seemed rude, but you came with a very strong statement against the square format without any specific examples. Although I agree that some are better square and some rectangular, without a specific image, you've eliminated a compositional possibility way too early. Also, I don't understand why you cropped mine to a vertical when before you were talking about a wide point of view. I don't prefer realism or recreating the scene to show someone exactly how it looked. I like my stuff graininy, rough, odd angles, etc, and that's just me. My composition is different than your version, and that is fine. The differences in opinions, ideas, etc are what make us all individual. Think of how boring it would be if we all thought the same way.

That's true.. ! That's the kind of answer i was waiting for.. I'll take some time to reflect upon it. Anyhow.. one thing i've got to say: the answear i'm looking for probably doesn't exist in our world; i'm actualy trying to find out how does the absolute esthetic look? .. when we all know beauty is relative.. I may like 3:2, you like 1:1.. there's no absolute truth!

 

PS: Matt's answer seemed rude to me, i'm sorry i haven't mentioned.

Minhea, I think it's fair to say composition determines ideal format (well illustrated by Dave's excellent shot above).

 

Of course, if your working in other formats, eg 6x7, you may need to crop. I think this supports Brian's point.

 

A shot of a duck with young moving across water on a PN user's personal site has been cropped horizontally, I would guess, by at least 75% to a very narrow rectangle.

 

I doubt if there is any single ideal format.

 

"the true expression of all true high artistic endeavour can only be found in the triangle" Robert, you've just written off 99% of Western art since the early renaissance. I'm sure this wasnt your intention (aren't I magnanimous).

 

Grant.

i can't believe that only one of you has come out with me in adulation of the triangle.....99%

written off indeed. The sadness is that leaves us with only 1% of true ART out there. It's a sad

world. I attach my own humble crop below of Brian's photo, so as to perfectly illustrate my

thesis.

 

rx<div></div>

....and I haven't even touched on the HEPTAGONALOID RHOMBUS.

The question is regressive. The answer is recursive.

All of the above.

--I have a life. I make photographs. I am out of this group as of this moment thanks largely to the hostile and negative posts within the spirit of "H.P." If "H.P" evinces the aspirations of this forum, then I have no part of it. Life is short. Spend no more time here.--

 

hey pico you got all nasty at old hp cause he called you on yor fibs and here yo are back at it agin. you ever gonna tell the truth round here?

Jimmie, a word to the wise: I'm gratefull for your support but you're in danger of falling into the same trap as the person you're annoyed by. Much better to ignore him and contribute positively to the forum. Learn from my mistake and don't get drawn into these feuds, it just isn't worth it.

So I tucked my hair up under my hat...and went in to ask him why.

 

Shapes, shapes, everywhere shapes!

I am against Doric columns. I think Ionian are much more balanced and more exciting and interesting and lead the eye in a more balanced way.Now,let us have a testable propositon about the geometry of the square.