My very humble opinion of the Square format...

a short while back i asked opinions from everyone about square

format vs rectangle format for landscape and other work. i got a lot

of feedback and many valid points. recently i just got back my own

first roll of 120 film shot on a Rolleicord (6x6). This is my first

experience with square format.

 

when i got back the pile of 12 photos back from the developer, i

noticed the following things (besides there not being the usual 37

photos!!!):

 

the pictures seemed very pleasing to the eye when viewed as a

square. it didnt seem 'weird' to me at all. they actually seemed

more uniform.

 

it was nice to pile them up and view them as they were without

flipping them 90 degrees to their side for vertical shots and back

again for horizontal shots... or as many of us accomplish by tilting

our heads slightly to the side instead. with square, i could sit up

straight and view one after the other without any adjustments.

 

some photos didnt seem like they were printed on squares. it is kind

of an optical illusion. when there were subjects that were vertical

(such as trees or people standing), it seemed like the paper was

also a very slight vertically standing rectangle. with horizontal

subjects, the paper sometimes felt like a horizontal rectangle.

 

square format accomodated people subjects very well for portraits

(passport photo type poses). when getting in close enough, i was

able to fit their heads as well as the complete width of their

shoulders and chest (and i could include the background if

necessary). with vertical rectangle portraits, i'm often forced to

cut off the arms of the subject when getting in close (which also

cuts off whats going on in the background). the 'wider' square

format was very welcome for portraits... especially outdoor portaits

where the background is often very important as well.

 

i felt that almost always square format was better for subjects that

stood up (buildings, trees, people, waterfalls, etc). horizontal

rectangle shots seemed the way to go when the subject lay flat

(rolling hills, seasides/beaches, cars, etc). i guess im just not

very enthusiastic about vertical shots (even though 30-40% of my

photos are taken in the vertical position out of necessity). on the

other hand i love panoramic landscapes.

 

so i concluded the following: if i ever need to take a vertical shot

on a rectangle format, i would rather be using sqaure format. on the

other hand, rectangle has its advantages in horizontal mode...

especially with landscape.

 

but if the subject doesnt contain too much empty flat sky and is

filled in with trees or something interesting, then square format

for me would be more pleasing in the viewing process.

 

with outdoor individual portaits, i would definately go with square.

with group shots, either is fine with me. but again, i enjoyed

viewing the square formats in the final results.

 

i guess the two formats that compliment each other very well would

be the 6x6 square format and the 6x12 rectangle format! i bet i'd

take about 99% of my 6x12 shots in the horizontal format. looks like

im in for spending another few thousand dollars for 6x12!!!

 

your comments and additions are very welcome. i'm sure i've left out

some very important points. hope you guys take the time to give me

your opinions.

What do you shoot your 6x12" on?

 

I don't like the square format too much myself. I use 5"x4" and more rectangular formats. It's nice to hear someone liking this. I've got an old Hasselblad which I might start using again (if only I can get it to work...)

My guess is that you are a previous user of 35mm cameras and are thus 'biased' toward the horizontal format - which is the way 95% of photographers use the camera. Its probably a natural tendency since our eyes are side by side rather than one above the other. Most people rarely think of turning the camera sideways, even to take a photo of someone standing up. Most of my photos are of people and I find I take maybe 90% with the 35mm camera turned sideways. I would always prefer the rectangle to the square. This is not to deny that the square format is very pleasing for many shots. But for people photography especially full-lengths of people standing, too much of the negative is wasted with a square format. If you are using a Rolleicord Va or Vb, they made a 6x4.5 adapter kit for it.

"i guess the two formats that compliment each other very well would

be the 6x6 square format and the 6x12 rectangle format! i bet i'd

take about 99% of my 6x12 shots in the horizontal format. looks like

im in for spending another few thousand dollars for 6x12!!!"

 

I would agree with that. My most used cameras are 6x6 and 6x12. But

it is really a personal bias. Obviously great work is done with

cameras with different aspect ratios. The results are important. The

choice of aspect ratio is simply one less limitation photographers

have in their equipment. At least for those who like to shoot full

frame.

TOM... you asked, "What do you shoot your 6x12 on?".

actually i dont have a 6x12 camera. i wish i did. i'm just guessing that a 6x6 and 6x12 would compliment each other quite well. i really like panoramic landscape photos. i'm afraid that one day i'm going to be spending a few thousand dollars to get myself a 6x12 kit!!! hope my wife supports me if i do (especially financially!).

 

DAVID... yes you are right. i do take mostly 35mm format. but im not biased towards horizontal format. i take a lot of vertical shots... between a third and a half of them are vertical. it really depends on necessity sometimes. and mostly it depends on composition. but i think when i see a vertical shot i subconciously think to myself, "hmmm, i wonder whats to the left and right of the photo." and thus i guess i would prefer a square format so that i can peek a little more to the left and right (and also, it wouldnt be a vertical photo any longer if it were sqaure). but you are right, a 35mm photographer tends to keep the camera horizontal. i guess thats why they place a shutter release button on vertical grips... to get those guys to be more creative!!! :)

Asim, no need to spend a "few thousand dollars" to get into the 6x12 format... check out

our Fotoman 612 at www.fotomancamera.com

well the Fotoman 612 is 1250 dollars but add a lens and you will need "a few thousand dollars". Especially if the most typical minimum landscape setup consists of 3 lenses, wide, standard and telephoto. A wide plus a standard will cost $2000 already, then add the camera... :( BTW sorry to ask a new question in this thread, but how easy and time consuming is it to change lenses in the field with such a camera?<br>

On topic again, I agree that 6x6 in many cases can turn out very well. But, when imagining another centimeter at a side, the resulting 6x7s would look more gorgeous in my mind! The 6x6 often seems too confined and straightforward for the way I tend to look. I think 6x7 would be my preferred format for vertical shots. It looks less static than 6x6 and less unpleasantly tall than 35mm. I noticed that since I started using my Bronica S2A 6x6, I also started to shoot much more verticals with my 35mm camera!<br>

6x12 would be my dream format for horizontals. 6x17 seems to much of a slice to me and demands really elongated subject matter, i.e. shots where you otherwise would crop off empty space from bottom and top. And you would be changing film way too often ;)

I have been using the <a href="http://www.fotografiewimvanvelzen.nl/publication02.htm">square</a> for most of my photography for years now.

<p>

I am still very pleased with this format and the results. But doing more and more landscape work here in the Netherlands (which tends to be, well, quite flat) gets me thinking about using a 6x12 along! 6x17 would be simply too much for me. When I crop my 6x6s (that is not too often), I often crop to a 1:2 format.

<p>

But before jumping into a new system, I want to compose my photos to a 1:2 cropping, still using the 6x6. See if it is really something that I want and need.

<p>

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

The more I use it, the more I like a square format.

Whenever I look at a square picture it reminds me of looking thru a window. It

seems a very normal view, especially because of the longer vertical.

 

If you find that you tend to compose in the rectangular format, why not get a

ruled gg and use the lines for those compositions. You have enough film to

crop a picture out, especially with the better Zeiss lenses. There's no point in

buying a 612 right off till you move beyond the abilities of the current

equipment to sastify your needs. Don't let it become a game of fulfilling a

preceived want, which becomes a very expensive fools game.

Hi All,

I am also a square shooter, I have my S2A masked off for both vertical

and horazontal crops to make a 8x10.

have a nice day

Denny

in my opinion film formats have been given more or less

arbitrarily by the

industry, regardless of the artistic concerns of the

photographers.

 

i suppose that in the origin paper mills decided the formats to be

used as a standard,

which finally influenced up to the aspect ratio of our computer

screens today.

 

the only format, and curiously the most popular ( 24 x 36 mm )

determined by

the ur-leica ,is finally also an imposition of the industry towards

the artist and it is

the format I dislike most.

It is such a weird format that "jumbo" prints are relatively

new, and it does not fit without loss in any currently available

paper format or magazine.

 

i would also say that only aficionados to painting will buy a

standard size canvas at the art

store or at the mall, pros mostly decide the size and aspect ratio

of their canvas

for the project they have in mind at the moment .

 

I think photographers should do the same... have a project,

decide the final print size,

decide the film format.

I think we mostly do it the wrong way : start with a given

format, find a subject that fits and then crop to fit the image into

the given paper

format.

 

in trying to be practical and not to idealistic... for my personal

projects the format i use

and that gives me the most freedom is the square.

 

since the square has no variables ( 1 : 1 )it has a lesser

influence in you composition,

besides you don't need to turn the camera around like crazy

trying to fit your

subject in the given frame.

 

an other point is if you photograph mostly landscapes... you

could easily stitch two or three

squares together to get a beautiful panoramic view without the

hassle of a 6 x 12 or 6 x17

( i sold my technorama 617, and I regret anyway )

One of the original advantages of the square format was the

option of placing a color or density strip to the side that wouldn't

be used in the final print. With Photoshop that is no longer

important.

 

I still like 6 x 6 anyway. :)

 

Art

The square is great. I was shooting very old beat cars today in a used car lot that I finally got access to after trying for 2 years. I was shooting a Rolleiflex 3,5E and a BrooksVeriWide 100 which produces a 6x10 negative and is slightly bigger than a Nikon FM. It has a fixed 47 Schneider Super Angulon, the equivalent of a 20mm on a 35 camera. The Brooks is a killer camera and one is currently listed on the classifieds for 820.00. Much better than spending thousands.

I use a Graflex Wide body camera with a Schneider 47mm/8.0, and I like the iamges I am getting with this simple camera. I have 6x6, 6x7 and 6x9 backs for this camera. It does not provide as wide images as the Brooks Veriwide does. "Of course", I also use Rolleflex RLR cameras which give me square 6x6 images. Different formats allow me to see things differently.

Asim is having the happy visceral response that many have upon using the square format

for the first time. You can rationalize it a thousand different ways from a practical

standpoint but it is really an issue of formality. It's about the art of the frame. It's about

seeing through the square and not just cropping it square later. There are an infinite

number of rectangular proportions but there is only one square. Oooohmmm.

Michael,

 

I feel like I know what you're saying but I don't understand!

 

Surely squares can come in different sizes? Why does proportion matter?

 

In my photography books, I got the impression that square shooting was a development which naturally followed the circle of coverage. Instead of making circular photographs (well, oval vignettes), squares enabled better coverage of lenses without light fall off, no?

 

I'm scratching my head....

Oddly enough, round (circular) photographs once were a progression from the square.<br>Eastman's Kodak 1888 camera's round pictures were that shape because internal reflections inside the camera were creating so much trouble that they decided to mask of the corners (where the problem was worst) using a 2.5" circular mask, and have circular images.<br><br>By the way: light fall-off of course increases with distance from the center/optical axis. The corners in a square frame are further from the center than the sides of the frame, and thus more likely to show vignetting. To hide vignetting, the same "Eastman trick" should be used: circular images.

Asim, as far as 6 x 12 is concerned, I'm just negotiating over some of this equipment at what has been offered as a very good price - certainly not as much as a few thousand dollars. The manufacturers of a professional swing lens panoramic are offering me some at a much reduced price. If you are interested, please feel free to email me.

Asim: The square format, as others have said, eliminates horizonat/vertical choices and awkward camera manipulations. Although probably 80 percent of my work has been with 35mm cameras, as I rexamine fifty years of work, my best portraits have always been with the 6x6 square format.

 

And there's another variable at work here. With a 35mm you hold it up to your face and aim it like a rifle; with a Rollei, Yashica Mat, Minolta Autocord, or Kowa 6, etc., the camera is below your face and you look down through it to compose and focus. Once done, you can talk to your subject, make eye contact, direct your subject. Hard to do all that with a camera plastered to your face.

 

As someone put it so well, 6X6 is like looking through a window...

Hi TOM.....

 

I had an exuberant moment there with my post, in the midst of what was/is a very

pragmatic discussion of advantages and disadvantages of square v. rectangular. Perhaps

not appropriate or relevant in this thread. I am speaking from a purely formalistic

standpoint. Every different rectangular framing proportion imposes a different way of

editing what we see out there and hence involves itself tremendously with the perception

of the final image....6X7, 35mm, 4X5, 6X17, 360 Panorama! etc. They're all strong visual

statements, chosen by the photographer and significantly influence the viewer. A square,

unlike it's

many rectangular cousins, and perhaps LIKE a circle, doesn't impose any direction, vertical

or horizontal. It just IS...in other words, it does not involve itself as much with what you

are seeing. I'm getting very Zen here, but that's the way I think of square framing: I feel it

conveys more pure seeing in an image.

 

It is very much an artistic choice. It is the only way

to explain why a camera, like a Mamiya

6 rangefinder (square frame), was

ever offered. There is no practical reason in the world why a camera that can be easily

rotated by the photographer, for vertical or horizontal shooting, would be of a square

format! On the other hand, it is entirely understandable why a TLR or any waist level

camera is square framed: because of the impracticality of rotating such a camera. A

Mamiya 6 is square

because it WANTS to be square and a TLR or any waist level, HAS to be square

because of the way you must use it. Why am I telling you this? Because it illustrates the

difference between the practical considerations of format and the formal or artistic.

 

I'm sure I've made this clear as mud!

Michael Matsil... clear as mud.. sort of. But you raised a point that got me thinking - well I was actually thinking about this yesterday whilst photographing out on the street with my Mamiya TLR (6x6). I dont usually rattle off a roll too quickly - I like to take the time to observe however sometimes I get to frame 12 too quickly and I wonder what this system (TLR) would be like if it were 645 (landscape format). This brings me to your line:

 

"it is entirely understandable why a TLR or any waist level camera is square framed: because of the impracticality of rotating such a camera."

 

To many it would simply mean 'more frames'. However I quickly thought about how different the use of the camera would be. How much smaller the camera would be. And in turn how differently one would 'assume' to be using it. Wouldnt the user be using in much the same fashion? And still not be able to turn it on its side? And still not be square, And still have a waist level finder... In other words I think a given format dictates the way a user will initially approach 'ways of seeing' - after that the user can bend this vision all he or she wants.

"to many it would simply mean more frames" - I was refering to 645