The perfect square format

Many photographers like to use square format because they can crop horizontal

or vertical later. I love the square format for its own visual appearance in

the way Fritz Henle demonstrated so well back in 1965. It is a very special

frame of view that makes the use of Rolleiflexes and Hasselblad so special.

Like Henle asked so long ago: "What's wrong with a square?"<div></div>

Nothing I love square....you don`t have to rotate the camera or back.It looks great....and different.

Hi Jorge, nice photo of mountains.

 

I enjoyed using the old Rolleicord 5, very light, quiet, and fantastic value for money build and optics. Only problem for me is that I see rectangles everywhere I go. The human way of seeing is rectangular, not square. T.V.'s are rectangular, not squre.

I understand that the square is 'different', but then so is a circle!

Personally I reckon my favourite format is 6x9, but each to their own.

 

Cheers.

Hello Jorge,

Could not agree more with you. Unfortunately, there seems to be a vast majority of people

who don't fully appreciate the advantages of square composition . I have shot my best work

with squares. But we are going to have to hold onto our Rolleiflexes or hassies since nobody

seems to want to produce squares negs anymore. Even Rollei is said to introduce a new

digital medium format camera which will be the digital equivalent of 4.5X 6cm. I think it is

stupid. they are giving up on their customerbase

I find that I tend to compose shots to fit the viewfinder when I can. But when I do crop images on the computer, the crop very seldom fits any standard format.

 

To me, the advantage to the rectangle is not the shape itself, but the fact that you can switch it from horizontal to vertical. If the shot doesn't easily fit your picture shape, you have another choice.

 

Of course, with the square, you can rotate it 45 degrees and make the Diamond Format, but that seems to be a neglected format.

I love the square for composing NOT cropping. . .<div></div>

Have you noticed all of the greatest cameras are square format....

I love the square too. And the circle. And the rectangle. They all fit in a square.

If I want to choose horizontal or vertical later, I�ll just shoot both and then I can have either at 6x7 instead of cropping to 645. I agree, square should be kept square and there is some great work using the square well. I just cannot compose well in square format though. 6x8 is probably the closest to the aspect ratio I like, but 6x7 is close enough. The rotating back on my RB means no issues gong to portrait and my mamiya 7 is easy too.

 

�Even Rollei is said to introduce a new digital medium format camera which will be the digital equivalent of 4.5X 6cm. I think it is stupid.�

 

Medium format digital cameras are currently 11k at the really cheap end of the scale; a Rollei is going to be *much* pricier than that too. The only people buying these cameras will be pro�s due to the cost and magazines/billboards are never square. A 645 sensor is also a lot cheaper to make than a 6x6 sensor. Rollei�s decision makes perfect business sense.

Excellent picture Jorge:

 

I also liked the square format. The ideal format (6x6) concept is much older than Wildi's books.

 

The Rolleiflex Book by Dr. Walther Heering of 1936 has examples of the square versus the 6x9, 6x4.5, and 35mm. He shows clearly the advantage of the square format.

 

BTW was that picture taken in Europe?

 

Cheers, Tito.

Thanks for your comments. I believe that composition is the most important element of photography. Exposure, focus, depth are technical details, but the subject and the composition are not technical. They can be inspirational. This is not a nice picture of mountains. It is a reflection of Nature and the world we live in. Pay attention to the lines of sight. Crop it and it becomes nothing but a nice picture of mountains (Italian Dolemites, Rolleiflex 3.5F Planar)

>ben conover , sep 02, 2006; 01:04 p.m.

 

>The human way of seeing is rectangular, not square.

 

Actually, it would be more oblong. A single eye sees about 140 degrees horizontal and 90

degrees vertical. It isn't sharp like a rectangle. The area of fovea is more round--more like

a square than a rectangle.

 

>T.V.'s are rectangular, not squre.

 

He wasn't asking about projection systems--a discussion of prints would be more

relevant. But it you recall, many early televisions had a round screen. Geometrically closer

to a square than a rectangle.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with the square format... or a rectangular format of any

ratio (6x4.5, 6x6, 6x7, 6x8, 6x9, 6x12, 6x17, 6x24).

 

The only thing that matters is how you fill them.

I don't know about the "perfect format" but it is a format that I wish I could easily do with my DSLR. I've run into many shots where the best crop is a square. But the labs available to most consumers can't do a square. In fact they will crop INTO a square image to make a rectangular print. :-(

 

I was not a happy camper when I found that out. I had spend a lot of time making a good square crops of my friends daughter. I had to go back to the original rectangle and told my friend to make an 8x10, and cut the long side down to make it an 8x8.

 

Gary

Surely, the 'perfect' format for a photo is that which suits the subject & composition in that photo best; hence, IMO, the 'perfect' format changes from photo to photo...

 

Having said that, I do admit to liking the square as well.

Enjoy it while it persists. I just bowed out of another contest that insisted on landscapes (of a subject that I have dozens of squares), already printed.

 

The odd thing is that I don't know where proportions are going: Digital cameras are nearer to square, yet display panels and TVs are reaching wider.

 

Methinks square is bound for history. I might have to break that 645 rotating back out of its unopened box yet.

 

Ray Hull

 

<img src=http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/1562602-md.jpg>

Mark,

I don't agree with your comment. We are not talking analog film here but digital . that means

that the so call 4.5X6 format will be in fact a 36x48 mm, which seems to be a new standard

for medium format. So why not propose in that size of sensor a 36X36 mm option. it is still

way bigger than full frame 35mm and with the new trend towards 16 or 18 MP relatively

better priced than before medium formats , there is still quality for large prints.

It offers some choice and I am sure this would be an advantage for Rollei compared to the

competition

Ray: Don't do it. You have the eye for square format. I am in Augusta Georgia and I have no problem getting my prints in any size I want! Digital or otherwise. I prefer shooting square and having the negs scanned at either high or ultra hi resolution. A roll of 12 scanned at ultrahigh costs $12, high costs $8. From that I can get a 40"x40" print that will knock your socks off. Any competition that requires or restricts entries to a particular format is doing a disservice to the art of photography.

I guess I'm just a weirdo, but I LOVE 645. I shoot 645, 6x6, and occasionally 35mm. (Since my infatuation with MF began it's been tough to pick up my 35mm stuff anymore.) Honestly, when I look at a 4x6 print now it looks nearly panaramic and a little strange. Just what do you do with all that frame? I don't photograph school buses as a general rule. Before I shot 645 I wouldn't have thought that way, but now I take the shot knowing that anything other than 4x6 means I'm going to lose a piece of my frame...but which piece?

 

Maybe I'm less creative than others, or lazy, but the joy of 645 is that if I frame it correctly when I shoot it then the image will be basically untouched from my original when I frame the print and hang it on my wall. I like 8x10 prints. I compose in the viewfinder / groundglass for the best composition in-camera....and oila- when I have it printed it's the same. I know what the print will look like before I press the shutter.

 

6x6 is growing on me, but after looking at rectangles for so long it bends my brain somewhat to look at a square picture. If I want to print it and frame it the shot basically ends up as a 645 with some wasted real estate I paid for that never gets printed. Yeah, I kind of like not having to tilt the camera for verticals, but that joy only lasts until I get my prints made, which are now proofs, because I have to crop them and print them all over. Yes, I can scan the negs and then print, but then again I like shooting pics, not spending more time processing a pic I could have made in-camera by tilting the darn thing.

 

Prisms are good. Love the prism. The prism is your friend.

 

I apologize for rambling. It's late. I need sleep. See reference above where I admitted to laziness.

Squares are great! Squares can be very calm and relaxing to the eye and also very dynamic.

I tend to like 6x6, 6x7 because it has a nice ratio and the extreme formats (6x12/6x17). My eye really hates the 35mm aspect ratio, as it can't adjust to the new 'WideScreen' monitors (yes I can not work with them, they distress my brain :)<div></div>

and another one :)<div></div>

For better use of the perfect square format 6x6, I have a nice 5,6/1000mm CARL ZEISS Jena, in very good condition available, if someone is interested! It can be adapted with a special adaptor to CONTAX 645, Mamiya 645, Pentax 645, and to all MF-cameras with the famous K-6 mount (Pentacon), and also to most of the analogue or digital 35mm D-SLR's!

 

Regards

Rainer

Markus:

That picture of the lake is just what I've been trying to say. It would be just another picture if it wasn't for the square and the composition extracted by the square format. It is just Fantastic!

My five minutes of <i>delirium</i>...<br>

The most natural and perfect geometrical figure is the circle. Keep in mind that any photographic lens "sight" is circular : a lens is characterized by its <i>image circle.</i><br>

Compared with a square, a rectangle has a loss, either in height or in width .<br>

If you need to draw a geometrical figure, a square, rectangular, triangular, polygonal... the very beginning is to draw a circle.<br>

And the most natural figure inscribed in a circle is a square.<br>

As our binocular sight is more rectangular, it is easier to compose an image in a rectangular frame.<br>

A good square picture seems always more perfect and accomplished. That's why it is much more difficult to compose a square frame.<br>

I like the square <i>because</i> of its unnaturalness, for the formalizing, distancing effect it can impart to an image.