Which photographers prefer to move to the square format?

<p>Lately I've been attracted to the square image. It's geometry reflects simplicity and minimalism to me. A square is just a circle with four corners. :) But beyond that, I recently realized that with my 35mm film gear, I usually take 50% or more vertical shots per roll. And I shoot mainly travel photography... scenes, outdoor portraits, street shots, etc.</p>

<p>The way I've been seeing my 35mm vertical shots is that I wish they were a bit wider. The vertical 35mm photo seems too tall and narrow. I think even the 6x7 vertical shot would be very nice. I wonder if 6x6 would be the winner for me or would I find it too limiting at times.</p>

<p>What makes you PREFER the square format? </p>

 

<p>Asim, I've used the square format for years for colour slides, and much prefer it to 35mm (and 645) for the same reasons as you - I find it much too elongated, especially for vertical compositions. Square images also project much better than their 35mm counterparts, but you do have the option to crop if necessary - something I rarely do in practice.<br />If you use an SLR, the other adavantage is of course, you don't need a prism finder. </p>

 

<p>Hi Asim,<br>

Whatever you are doing now you will find the future different, that is why I always look for a multi format camera, i.e. Fuji GX680 III even the Bronica can sing some sweet tunes with a 35mm back and for Digital the very best of all the Panasonic TZ10 cannot be beaten, if you want to laugh at that then all I can do is respectfully suggest you find out just what the TZ10 is capable of, 16:9 - superb for both Portrait and Landscape plus 3:4 and 3:2 gives you a lot of serious flexibility. It never pays to be dogmatic when it comes to Aspect Ratio.<br>

Cheers,<br>

Adrian.</p>

<p>Mainly, portability.<br>

<br /> Just an anecdote: I`d say for some the square format is maybe subconciously related to high quality images, something I have used several times in photo contests, sending square-cropped photos from any (135, 6x7, 4x5" formats). There was always someone telling me about Hasselblad.</p>

<p>My first images were all square format. I was 7 years old, shooting with a Kodak Instamatic in 127 format. I think it always looked good to my eye, and I still love shooting square with my Hasselblad. There is a neatness about square format that enhances strong subjects. But I also like 4x5, 6x7, and 6x9 formats. I find 35mm, and DSLR formats, very odd looking to my sensibilities.</p>

<p>I suggest that quite simply square format yes it has become associated to high quality images as it has been said, but this was not due to mere chance, but quite simply because over the years, professional photographers found the best medium format quality was given overall by the likes of 1)Rolleiflex; 2) Hasselblad. I quote in this order since this was the way chronologically it happened 50's Rolleiflex then 60's and 70's Hasselblad...just see Antonioni's "Blow up" cult moivie as a testament of that.<br>

Hasselblad then if you like is the ultimate multiformat film camera! Just crop it if you need either way you like, the lenses are so excellent that the argument you are missing out in format is totally outweighed ! Demonstration of its versatility is that it's the camera you can more easily use upgraded to digital with either Phase One or even with the Hasselblad own digital backs and also the very reason why this is proving so successful that Hasselblad released the CFV50 Digital back. Just try for yourself how amazing the lenses (CFE CF and CT* and even C when used in the right conditions) are when used with digital backs, even 50 yrs old lenses (not many "old" lenses can stand this test) and that will show the level of excellency Hasselblad always sought and provided over the years and you will have your answer to why and who made Square format synonymous of professional top quality!!</p>

<p>There are even square format cameras in 35mm available -- for example, the Tenax I and II cameras. Then again, my favorite format is 67, which is only provided by rather bulky cameras...</p>

<p>Looks like we are brainwashed into 6x6 sorry but the Hassleblad is <strong>not</strong> a Multiformat camera it has one format only and that is 6x6 you cannot stretch it to 8x6 or any other format, all you can do is CROP ! Any self respecting photographer that feels the need to crop images is no doing his or her homework right from the start.</p>

<p>Adrian:<br>

Didn't Avedon crop images on occasion? One would be hard pressed to put him in the category of a photographer who did not do his homework when composing.<br>

Most of my images are square. at one point, I sold my Blads in favor of 645 cameras because I got tired of the square. Less than a month passed before I was missing<br>

the square format... because it is what I prefer. Was is Paul Strand who had his 5x7 camera modified to a achieve a slightly less elongated aspect ratio... because it is what he preferred?<br>

To answer the original question... I simply do not know. I prefer the square, even though I find 35mm and 645 far easier in terms of composition. When you get it right in a square, it just seems.... right. When I crop, I generally do so in such a way to produce a smaller square.</p>

 

<p>I don't always prefer square, but I found it useful, and sometimes crop to square anyway.</p>

<p>When I first tried a Rolleiflex TLR, it was very frustrating, nothing worked for me.</p>

<p>I realised I was so used to picking scenes which worked with a rectangle, I had to think about different locations that would provide a frame filling square composition, it was very instructive, helping to break the mind out of a format defined by the standard SLR.</p>

<p>Of course the other reason for using square is that you can indeed crop, you can take a picture without rotating the camera, but with the eventual rectangular crop in mind.<br>

I don't like doing that, I feel I'm wasting film. It works though, and you've still got more picture than on 35mm.</p>

<p>Well I have been shooting with Hasselblads for over 30 years, I love square. Well at least I thought I did until I discovered I had not done my homework (Adrian Wilson).....I love people that have all the right answers.<br>

Every one loves something different, thats why so many different cameras and formats exist.<br>

I am always drawn to square composition first, even have square rugs in my rooms....go figure. I also love not having to rotate the camera while shooting, it is a real time saver while shooting on a tripod, or candids with a flash. I also wear glasses, and its easier to have a corrective lens ground for the viewfinder if you don't have to rotated the camera (astigmatism).<br>

Yes some people hate hasselblads, maybe because they don't have one? Its sure no one fault but their own. But some people love them too, I always heard it takes all kinds of people in this world. But I sometimes wounder why?<br>

Some post on this forum are positive and helpful, some are just selfish opinions.<br>

But don't listen to me as I have not done my homework.....apparently?</p>

<p>I prefer square images, but that's just me. I sell a lot of square portraits and candids.<br>

I am always drawn to square, even have some square rugs in my home.<br>

I have been shooting with Hasselblads for over 30 years. I really love not having to rotate the camera while on a tripod, or shooting candids with a flash.<br>

I have found that customers are excited to have a wedding album that is different from others, 10X10s etc. but you can also commit the crime of cropping if you like.<br>

I also can get corrective lens made for the viewfinder (astigmatism) which I could not do if I rotated the camera.<br>

But alias I have not done my homework according to the expert above, so please disregard this post. Some people know everything I guess.<br>

You know they make a lot of different cameras in a lot of different formats, everyone likes something different, you decide.</p>

 

<p>Sorry for the double post....guys!</p>

<p>Hi,<br>

Homework or not when you have a job to do you need to maximise on your potential, I spend a lot of time photographing trees, and a format like 16:9 is superb for some subjects, but hopeless for others, it is important to realise that you not only need to maintain flexebility but also be able to demonstrate this in the field, if all my images were based on 6x6 it would be a sad job, and considering the number rattled off on one day alone it can be difficult to remember exactly what sort of aspect you were looking at for any particular image. Sorry if I sound boorish or whatever but one single format as one single fixed focal length would be a serious handicap.</p>

<p>After completing a huge project of digitizing my late father's square photos taken between 1955 and 1964 I have gained a huge appreciation for the square format and didn't think twice when I saw a nice Bronica SQ-A on the shelf.<br>

But as far as aesthetics are concerned I think my favorite is the 6x7 dimension. I like square better than 645 or 35mm but like the look of 6x7 best. But that's just me... </p>

<p>I shot rectangles for decades, and I had come to see the world in terms of rectangles. I purposefully acquired a square format (Hasselblad) simply to shake up my vision a bit (and to experience the mystique of a Hasselblad). It has been an absolutely wonderful experience. Some compositions are simply made for squares. I've been looking as posted photos with an eye toward format, and I've seen many rectangular photos that I thing would do as well or better as squares, some squares that I thing would to better as rectangles, and still others that are rectangles or squares that are wonderful for that particular composition. I simply enjoy going out with a square format camera to look for square format composition. It's a welcomed challenge and renews my view of the landscape.</p>

<p>I think in general it doesn't matter and you compose for the format you're using. For a particular shot one format may work better than another. What I do like about square though is I don't have to think about whether I want vertical or horizontal. I just have to compose, and I find that simplifying the process of taking the picture leads to stronger images.</p>

<p>This is an interesting topic and I too am drawn to the square image - particularly in black & white. However, I shoot digital and so, when I am composing an image in the viewfinder, I am mentally cropping out parts of the scene I will later crop out in PS. I know this is unusual but I don't have any other camera and so I am working with what I have. Does anyone do this? If my 5D mkII had an option for square images, I would use it 90% of the time. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Lately I've been attracted to the square image. It's geometry reflects simplicity and minimalism to me. A square is just a circle with four corners</p>

</blockquote>

<p>My first camera was a TLR so I am very comfortable with square format. However I have always wondered (since the first time I took a picture) why they don't use the circle or round format which is the real nature format. I guess the reason (from the beginning) is to avoid wasting film. But now film is much cheaper than prints and the round format can fully use the image formed by the lens. There will be no need of taking vertical shot (like the square format) and there is no worries about not holding the camera straight because it's always straight. If you see "A square is just a circle with four corners" then a circle is just a circle without corners, how simple it is!</p>

<p>I wish dSLRs were all square format, and we'd crop after taking the shot, and never have to rotate the camera unless we wanted flash on the side.</p>

<p>However.... Aspect ratio (height vs. width) depends entirely on the subject, and the desired outcome.</p>

<p>I'll shoot panoramic verticals, various rectangles and squares, and panoramic horizontals; depending on subject / outcome. For me, the pre-visualized outcome is entirely what drives the aspect ratio, the camera used, the way I crop.</p>

<p>Will post 3 images here, to illustrate. First image is panoramic vertical, next image is square, and last is panoramic horizontal. Each image is "right" in the format I shot it in, and doesn't fit other formats.</p>

<p>The panos were shot with a Widelux swing-lens camera, while the square image was shot with a Rolleicord V.</p>

<p>Oops, glitch on uploading.... here's the vertical pano. Dead Horse Mill, Crystal CO</p>

<p>The square format is a practical choice, not an artistic one. It was designed for cameras which cannot be easily turned for a vertical exposure (e.g., Rolleiflex TLR and Hasselblad SLR). Whether you "prefer" the aesthetics of a square image is purely personal. Suffice to say that artists from the classical Greek period to present prefer a rectangular format, often in an highly formalized fashion (q.v., golden ratio).</p>

<p>Asim, Since all lenses that I'm aware of form a circular image at the film plane I'm surprised that there aren't more square format cameras. I mean, it seems to me that a square crop would make most efficient use of the circular image formed. Just thinking! The attraction of the square for me is the fact I don't have to turn the camera on it's side to frame an image, choosing a post exposure crop instead if the subject demands it. And, if using flash, one never has to worry about an unexpected change in the lighting pattern from the flash which is now on the side instead of on top where it usually should be. Best, LM.</p>

<p>Having a glitch with uploading to the thread. But Asim, here's the examples I intended to share. Two squares from a Rolleicord V TLR, and 2 panoramics (a vertical and a horizontal) from a swing-lens Widelux FV.</p>

<p>Vertical pano, Widelux FV, Mill at Crystal CO:<br /><a href="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/12052351-lg.jpg">http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/12052351-lg.jpg</a></p>

<p>Square, black & white, NW Ohio Oilman:<br /><a href="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/12052350-lg.jpg">http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/12052350-lg.jpg</a></p>

<p>Square, color; Sharon looking at map, Colorado:<br /><a href="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/9025097-lg.jpg">http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/9025097-lg.jpg</a></p>

<p>Horizontal pano, Widelux FV; Ray & Jet's, Genoa OH:<br /><a href="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/12052352-lg.jpg">http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/12052352-lg.jpg</a></p>

<p>I don't always shoot square, but when I do, I prefer Dos...wait, I mean Rolleiflex.</p>