Square framing, centered subjects and symmetry in photography - the poor relatives?

<p></p>

<p>Most images we look at, whether photographic or painted, are presented in anything but a square frame. The various rules of composition and the desire to have the frame impart some impact to an image usually convince us to frame an image in a portrait or landscape format. We attempt to balance the elements within the image even though our principal subject is often set quite asymmetrically within the frame (so called Golden rule, rule of two-thirds, etc.). Placement of the main subject in the center of the frame is often frowned upon.</p>

<p>Why do we reject more often than not the square frame or the centered subject in any frame format? Let's consider the square frame first. Our eyesight field is described by a “frame” that is somewhere between a square and a circle, but I think closer to the former shape. It is true that we do see things most clearly only within a very small field of view, of the order of 1 degree or arc, or less, which leads us to scan just about everything we look at, but our peripheral vision operates within a rather fuzzy and rounded square. I have been shooting recently a lot more with my Mamiya 6x6 camera than my other film cameras, and I think it is probably due in part to my desire to remove the imposition of a rectangular frame, perhaps also in some small way to the desire to photograph as I physically see, but also to explore the calm, the equilibrium and the "freedom" of a square frame, even if my subjects are not always very peaceful or devoid of anxiety.</p>

<p>Why are so few images based upon a central location of our main subject in a frame? Our buildings can tell us something about this, I think. Although we tend to enjoy asymmetry in our architecture, this was not always the case and certainly not in classically taught architecture. While the great beauty of rural Medieval buildings often came from their simple lines and volumes and asymmetry of openings (the windows and doors being placed where they were most useful, not for any compositional reason), for several hundred years cookie cutter designs of symmetrical Renaissance and Palladian buildings were king, with every state building, important public or commercial structures and even personal houses bearing classical symmetrical designs, with central doorways and nicely arranged windows on either sides, with chimneys and their pots dancing in tune to the rest. Peace, solidity, equilibrium. While the change to more asymmetric design started well over a hundred years ago, it has really only been modern architecture in the last 80 or 90 years that has eschewed classical symmetry and has achieved balance in different ways, somewhat like art and photography throughout much of its history.</p>

<p>Undeniably, we have been shown in our apprenticeships that asymmetry is most useful and that centering a subject is less dynamic. We have also been shown that the more common portrait and landscape framing (up to about 1 to 1:1.5, sometimes more) is more powerful than a square frame.</p>

<p>Because I tend to believe that square frames, centered subjects and symmetry are more powerful than we tend to think of them, I have been using these elements in some of my photography. What do you think about them, for or against, and if you were to use them more often, where and how?</p>

<p>Although I have little experience in making images in which the subject or subjects are centered, or elsewhere in using and printing a square format, they are appealing to me. A centered person may constitute a portrait where the person’s main characteristics are somewhat more freely exposed than if they were in a dynamic with other elements in the scene. Another case may be where two opposing elements or groups of objects or creatures can be placed about the center, in order to contrast their position or their character. Equilibrium in a scene can also be emphasized by the central placement of subject or subjects. Each of these can be worked within a rectangular frame. The square frame, on the other hand, can remove the imposition of horizontal effect (calm, balance, etc.) or vertical effect (nervosity, energy, etc.) and perhaps allow a freer communication of content? In any case, it may reflect more how we see. My feeling is that extreme rectangular framing (1:3 or greater) often acts more as a decorative element than as a compelling encapsulation of an image. But we are far from the square and the centered subject image, to which I look forward to your views in regard to their possible philosophical importance.</p>

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=2347092"><em>Arthur Plumpton</em></a><em> </em><a href="/member-status-icons"><em><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub4.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" /></em></a><em>, Jan 24, 2010; 05:01 p.m.</em></p>

<p><em></em></p>

<p><em>Most images we look at, whether photographic or painted, are presented in anything but a square frame. The various rules of composition and the desire to have the frame impart some impact to an image usually convince us to frame an image in a portrait or landscape format.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Arthur,<br>

The brain tends to associate anything in landscape proprtions as calm, at rest, peaceful.<br>

Portrait aspect ratios impart a sense of stateliness, among other tbings.<br>

Square aspect ratios are, well, just boring.<br>

That's the short answer. The long answer takes a bit longer, as you may imagine.<br>

Basic graphic design courses address this, as well as art appreciation courses.</p>

<p>Bill P.</p>

<p>I can tell you that I know of one extremely gifted photographer who agrees that square is the canvas shape of choice. Bernie, aka Foureyes, is someone whose work I've followed for years. He has a slight presence here at photo.net, http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=941594, but is also at home elsewhere on the internet. http://www.4eyesphoto.com/</p>

<p>I believe it is somewhat more difficult to get the square format to work, but if you figure out how to do so, by choice of subject and framing, it is often very powerful.</p>

<p>Bill P: I don't agree at all that square is boring. It's true that landscape and portrait formats have instinctive atavistic associations (which is presumably why conventional "apprenticeship" emphasises them), but those associations vary with the <em>degree</em> of divergence from square. Very wide landscape shape (maybe >2) induces unease. Very tall narrow portrait shape tends to claustrophobia. Square is balancce − and balance is <em>not</em> the same thing as boring.<br>

Arthur: my field of vision approximates to an ellipse or rounded rectangle, roughly 1:1·4 in aspect ratio. I always assumed that everyone's was the same as mine, but perhaps it varies from person to person?<br>

To your main question on shape ... I have two "modes" of photographic seeing, and I often don't consciously switch between them − they tend to follow the type of work I'm doing. The first is to compose within the viewfinder of the camera I'm using (square or rectangular). The second is to let the subject dictate the framing − a virtual frame <em>within</em> the viewfinder, the rest of the viewfinder being discarded at the time of exposure and cropped away in printing.<br>

Moving to centrality: the position of picture elements varies from case to case, I have no rules beyond what seems right for the picture at hand. However ... central placing often associates for me with full-face portraiture in which the subject engages eye contact with the camera. (Having said that, I took a square still life today which works for me).</p>

<p>I actually really like the square format in many cases and when I use it, I create images that I feel work within it--never crop them except when for commercial use--I don't, they do!</p>

<p>I also center my subject quite a bit, I know the theories of composition, the elements of design and the principles of art and all that stuff, but you use these to make images that work for your purposes and not to fit some rule. Knowing all of what goes into a great composition allows you to use those things to emphasize what you feel is important in an image. Square formats can create a "solid" feel and using it playfully can cause a dissonance that can work for an image or you can create incredible powerful images. When we limit ourselves to following rules or conventional wisdom, we can end up with boring work or work that only serves those conventions and not our purpose.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=1706103"><em>Felix Grant</em></a><em> </em><a href="../member-status-icons"><em><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub5.gif" alt="" /></em></a><em>, Jan 24, 2010; 05:47 p.m.</em><br>

<em>Square is balancce − and balance is not the same thing as boring.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Felix, actually a rectangle of let's say 1.3 to 1 in landscape mode imparts far more balance and stability than a square.<br>

These axioms have been proven to be the case over the course of centuries of art, design and perception. <br />If you find a perfect square to be not boring, then you are one of the few.</p>

<p>Bill P.</p>

<p>Bill: they haven't been "proven" at all; they have accreted a consensus.<br>

The idea of a proof of anything in this context is, I think, hard to imagine.</p>

<p>William, <em>boring</em> photographs are boring.</p>

<p>Square formats are neither boring nor interesting. They are tools . . . possibilities.</p>

<p>_____________________________________</p>

<p>The square being perfect and symmetrical, there may be a temptation to use it to express more static feelings. Static and passive can be incredibly powerful and also exceptionally energized. What's <em>inside</em> the square will dictate whether that's the case. As has been said, the square can give power to a composition that knows what it's doing.</p>

<p>I often default to centering things. It's something I've become more and more conscious of as I work, but not something I will necessarily work against or seek to override because of what some lemmings may be learning in art school. Rather, I will personalize it, explore it, and respect it, while also challenging myself with it.</p>

<p>We may tend more to work with rectangular formats because so many of our cameras shoot that way. More technically-educated minds than mine can explain why the technology is that way. (I wouldn't say we reject the square. Instead we seem to work with what's given.)</p>

<p>Symmetry has a certain character and asymmetry has a certain character. But sometimes symmetry can put me off balance or challenge me and asymmetry can ease me. Depends on the context, the content, and how it's handled.</p>

<p>I use symmetry and asymmetry expressively, not because I think one is overused or underused or because Photo.netters in the critique forum are fond of telling people they shouldn't center subjects or they shouldn't have subjects facing toward the outside of the frame.</p>

<p>It's knowing and being in touch with what a centered subject feels like <em>to me</em> (not to my teacher) and what someone facing the edge of the frame feels like in a photo. That will influence where I position my subjects and in what direction they may face.</p>

<p>Arthur, I applaud you for bringing some of the science into account here. There certainly are scientific explanations to explain some responses to visual stimuli, symmetry and asymmetry included. There are also cultural reasons. Part of expressing ourselves with composition comes from understanding the science of and experiencing how various things -- straight lines, curves, tangents, parallels, convergences, etc. -- affect us and affect others.</p>

<p>As I think you recognize, Arthur, something static is not inherently uninteresting. We would probably agree that attaching aesthetic judgments (like "boring") to compositional qualities or elements (like "squares") would be counterproductive to our respective creativity.</p>

<p>The world is a cacophony and a harmony of static and energized, passive and active. Whatever frameworks I work within and whatever predictive results there may be from compositional elements and qualities are there to serve my expression and not to be the foundation of restrictive aesthetic judgments.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Most images we look at, whether photographic or painted, are presented in anything but a square frame.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br /> Well when you start with that, it's hard to follow the rest. For well over half a century, people have looked at covers of records and CDs. Photographers have shot to the square for this and viewers have been looking at them. And many of them are far from boring, good photographers having the skills to make the square work in their favor. Tom Waits' <em>Mule Variations </em> cover is some freakin' great photography.</p>

<p>I don't see much philosophy in this, it's just about learning how to make composition work in your favor, regardless of the target size and shape.</p>

<p>Rectangle = body of quadraped. Portrait = body of biped. Dogs have more peaceful relationships with humans (blood pressure going down) than they do with other dogs (blood pressure goes up). Same in reverse for people.</p>

<p>I'm not sure square is the default seeing mode for humans. My impression is that up to down is less great than side to side in terms of perception.</p>

<p>My favorite film camera shoots square but I've been thinking about getting a landscape back for it, for the extra exposures on 120 roll film and to have the framing fit as I look (one camera has gridlines for 645 in the finder).</p>

<p>I'd be curious about the more detailed explanation of why square isn't a natural format for humans. Dogmatic and unexamined or unexplained statements make me feel the person making the statement was more indoctrinated than educated.</p>

<p>I agree that what we have been told (education, composition paradigms, indoctrination,....) in regard to the centering of subjects and the square format should be taken with a grain of salt and often rejected, for our own good and for our freedom as photographers. Making composition work is a personal thing, as I think some have mentoned (Fred, very informatively, I think). Applying philosophy to personal photography is not always a direct action, and consequent upon our thoughts and state of being that may also not be directly related to photography, but I think the more freedom one has to work within the severe constraints of a two dimensional image, the more opportunity that one has to express oneself in unique ways. The square surround and the centered subject are but two (for me) interesting possibilities in that regard, and particularly the latter.</p>

<p>I have tried to locate one of my references on photography and art, written by Rudolph Arnheim (a West Coast prof. of art and visual perception) and entitled "The Power of the Centre." Apparently I lent it to a friend, and that was a while ago so I do not remember some of the author's most interesting examples of art over the centuries, and why its practitioners used this subject centering element to communicate, when more conventional compositions might have been otherwise selected.</p>

<p>It is funny, but it wasn't until I discovered the photo sites on the internet that I actually started hearing about all these rules--or Bokeh! I had been shooting for almost 30 years and fortunately, these things were never part of what I learned or taught. Instead, it was about the fundamentals of visual communication. The idea of line, texture, tone, balance, movement, emphasis, color, chroma etc. Of course, you studied about the Golden Mean, not as a rule but as a principle of design in nature and how/why it formed such pleasing visuals. I never heard that a square was to be avoided, but what it meant or could mean visually.</p>

<p>Over the years, I certainly would hear people (not teachers tho) say not to put your horizon in the middle or don't center your subject, but when you understand what is behind the "rules" these people promoted, you knew how to use them, breaking their rules, to create an image that served your vision.</p>

<p>The thing that has concerned me the most over the last 4 years that I have hung around these sites has been what appears to be a reticence to actually study these things, mostly taught in "irrelevant" art classes not photography classes, but to cling to the "rules" read in a basic book on photography.</p>

<p>I am not nearly as eloquent (I think) in writing as I am visually. So. I think it best that I respond with my most recent body of work, in which I have largely concerned myself with a centralized, precisely dichotomous depiction of architecture:</p>

<p>http://www.robertshultsphoto.com/robertshultsphoto/Portfolio.html</p>

<p>Arthur,</p>

<p>Arnheim was never interested in the frame, square or otherwise, per se. He was <em>only</em> interested in how the various frame formats affected the dynamics of the <em>center; </em>the centric or eccentric tensions of the image content. His book is titled <em>The Power of the Center</em>, not <em>The Power of the Edge</em>. He also would not have claimed that any one feature (center, edge, frame or whatever) necessarily defined the picture of which it was a part.</p>

<p>The square format affects the dynamics of the center in ways different from other formats, but that does not lead to any <em>necessary</em> result in the image within that format. (I can give you quotes from the book to support my claim if you like.)</p>

<p>To those, particularly John A, who resent this kind of rule-suggestive discussion, or who question the value of dragging compositional bones to the surface, Arnheim says this (at the end of this same book):</p>

<blockquote>

<p>In actual practice, some artists rely on structural principles intuitively, others do so more intellectually; and it is not uncommon for one and the same person to shift his guidance back and forth from one to the other.</p>

<p>... Order ... is only a means to an end. By making the arrangement of shapes, colors, and movements clear-cut, unambiguous, complete, and concentrated on the essentials, it organizes the form to fit the content. It is, first of all, the content to which composition refers.</p>

<p>... [for example in] Michelangelo's <em>Creation of Man</em> ... the immediacy of the work's power depends on its being reducible to two clearly defined centers, one carrying the Creator and the other carrying the creature, and being connected by the equally well-defined vectorial axis, the channel of interaction. This simple schema is what hits the viewer's eye first, even before the subject matter of the painting is deciphered. The initial simplicity remains the guide to the complexity of the detail. At the same time, however, the basic theme, to which I have referred as the structural skeleton of the work, is also the concise visual statement of the work's essence. It is what it comes down to when all is said and done. <em>The relation between the complexity of the fully realized work and the most abstract visual formula of its essence reveals the full range of its meaning</em>. To this revelation the study of composition is dedicated.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>[Emphasis added by me in that next to last sentence. -- <em>Julie</em>]</p>

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=1706103"><em>Felix Grant</em></a><em> </em><a href="../member-status-icons"><em><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub5.gif" alt="" /></em></a><em>, Jan 24, 2010; 06:37 p.m.</em><br>

<em>Bill: they haven't been "proven" at all; they have accreted a consensus.<br />The idea of a proof of anything in this context is, I think, hard to imagine.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>The art of human perception has been studued quite extensively by psychologists.</p>

<p>Bill P.<em></em></p>

<blockquote>

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=2011348"><em>Joel Jermakian</em></a><em> </em><a href="../member-status-icons"><em><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub5.gif" alt="" /></em></a><em>, Jan 24, 2010; 05:18 p.m.</em><br /><em>I can tell you that I know of one extremely gifted photographer who agrees that square is the canvas shape of choice.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>One photographer. Now there's a data base.</p>

<p>Bill P.</p>

<p>Julie,</p>

<p>Thank you for a quote from Arnheim's text, which I mistitled in my Anglo-Saxon way as "The Power of the Centre" ("Center"), but not "The Power of the Edge".</p>

<p>I must admit to introducing a bit of confusion in my choice of title, which should be read as:</p>

<p><strong>Square framing;<br /> Centered Subjects;<br /> Symmetry;<br /> - Three poor relatives of photography?</strong></p>

<p>Each of these little used approaches to the making of or content of an image should be considered independently, not together, except possibly as an extreme example. Your points are appreciated and my apology if my question was not stated clearly enough in the title, although I did try to differentiate two independent cases, the square, and the centered subject, in my opening text.</p>

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=5245443"><em>John A</em></a><em> </em><a href="../member-status-icons"><em><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/2rolls.gif" alt="" /></em></a><em>, Jan 24, 2010; 10:27 p.m.</em><br>

<em>The thing that has concerned me the most over the last 4 years that I have hung around these sites has been what appears to be a reticence to actually study these things, mostly taught in "irrelevant" art classes not photography classes, but to cling to the "rules" read in a basic book on photography.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>I know, right?<br>

Kinda makes me wish I had never wasted all that time in art and design schools. My degree means nothing, I should havs just come to these sites and learned "art".</p>

<p>Bill P.<em></em></p>

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=5245443"><em>John A</em></a><em> </em><a href="/member-status-icons"><em><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/2rolls.gif" alt="" /></em></a><em>, Jan 24, 2010; 05:50 p.m.</em></p>

<p><em>I actually really like the square format in many cases and when I use it, I create images that I feel work within it--never crop them except when for commercial use--I don't, they do!</em></p>

<p><em>I also center my subject quite a bit, I know the theories of composition, the elements of design and the principles of art and all that stuff, but you use these to make images that work for your purposes and not to fit some rule. Knowing all of what goes into a great composition allows you to use those things to emphasize what you feel is important in an image. Square formats can create a "solid" feel and using it playfully can cause a dissonance that can work for an image or you can create incredible powerful images. When we limit ourselves to following rules or conventional wisdom, we can end up with boring work or work that only serves those conventions and not our purpose.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>John, yes, a square format can be made to work, but typically it creates more problems than it solves.<br>

Your use of the square format presupposes a thorough knowledge of design principles.<br>

And therein lies the rub.....</p>

<p>Bill P. </p>

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=2779832"><em>Robert Shults</em></a><em> </em><a href="/member-status-icons"><em><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub3.gif" alt="" /></em></a><em>, Jan 25, 2010; 02:13 a.m.</em></p>

<p><em>I am not nearly as eloquent (I think) in writing as I am visually. So. I think it best that I respond with my most recent body of work, in which I have largely concerned myself with a centralized, precisely dichotomous depiction of architecture:</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p><a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.robertshultsphoto.com/robertshultsphoto/Portfolio.html" target="_blank"><em>http://www.robertshultsphoto.com/robertshultsphoto/Portfolio.html</em></a></p>

<p>Robert, nice work. Architectural photography is a discipline unto itself, where staid, formal looks present a wonderful sense of secutity. That's where the on-center ideas come into play.</p>

<p>Bill P.<br>

<em></em></p>

<blockquote>

<p><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=3885114"><em>Julie Heyward</em></a><em> </em><a href="/member-status-icons"><em><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub3.gif" alt="" /></em></a><em>, Jan 25, 2010; 06:59 a.m.</em><br>

<em>The relation between the complexity of the fully realized work and the most abstract visual formula of its essence reveals the full range of its meaning.</em> To this revelation the study of composition is dedicated.<br>

<em>[Emphasis added by me in that next to last sentence. -- Julie]</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Right? Well stated.</p>

<p>Bill P.</p>

<p>Julie, I was somewhat confused by your prelude, with reference to me, and then the quote. I actually don't think I "resent" anything. My concern is when someone promulgates rules, criticizes or praises someone based on them and yet has no knowledge of the underlying principles of the rule or that it is but one factor in many of good composition. Except in a few cases do I ever hear a critique given that actually could be useful to the person receiving it. Instead there is opinion, whether a rule was followed or not and too much talk about what should have been done. There seems little effort, or knowledge on how to do so, to actually meet an image where it is, to analyze what was done within it and to explain the effects of the person's decisions on us as a viewer or even how/why a suggested change might improve the image. If a site like this is supposed to be grounds for learning and improving, what are people learning and how are they going to improve? Blindly following "rules" is not going to do it. Like anything worth doing, a great amount of work must be done to do it well and much of that is making the effort to learn the basics, which includes but does not stop with how to use the camera and expose an image. If one doesn't learn the visual principles of art and design there is a huge piece missing from their arsenal. This applies to either one who is making images or one who is offering critique.</p>

<p>I think the goal should be, as with the use of the camera, you don't need to think about it, you just do it. If one clings to rules, then one is mechanically going through the process rather than flowing creatively. Never realizing that a square can be used as an effective tool or that centering can create emphasis and so on, but the subject WILL be where it is SUPPOSED to be.</p>

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=5245443"><em>John A</em></a><em> </em><a href="../member-status-icons"><em><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/2rolls.gif" alt="" /></em></a><em>, Jan 25, 2010; 10:11 a.m.</em><br>

<em>I think the goal should be, as with the use of the camera, you don't need to think about it, you just do it. If one clings to rules, then one is mechanically going through the process rather than flowing creatively.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>John, that's the goal, the end game.<br>

Like I said in my post "Interesting approach", . <em>When you can just look at a "correct" scene and shoot it, that's when you've arrived as an artist or designer.</em><br>

<em></em><br>

Bill P.</p>

<p>Gentlemen and ladies,</p>

<p>I must re-read more carefully your comments, but I am more than a bit surprised that few are interested in pursuing the philosophical aspects of the square, or the centered subject, or symmetry, in photography.</p>

<p>I am less interested in knowing what I should have retained in art classes (and being a "son of Mary", as Rudyard Kipling once described Canadian engineers, perhaps the retention was not enough?) about conventional use of compositional elements and the "holy" twosome of portrait and landscape framing, and more interested in how you and I might want to use these approaches in expressing your or my own work, or its possibilities.</p>

<p>As we look at everything through a very small angle of vision (human construction is not perfect), how might that relate to our use of these elements, particularly the desire to center subjects to give them or the image ore meaning, or how we might wish to benefit from the natural equilibrium of the square, perhaps even as a counterpoint to the dynamics within.</p>

<p>That, of course is but one small aspect of the issue. There are surely others, some of which have been described already by others.</p>