Artistical shots in 1:1 format/crop?

[jake_tauber]

Ahhh, ahhhh, ahhhh-troll!

 

This is as ridiculous a query as ever posted here and a hidebound point of view as well.

 

A better question is why do many people who engage in a creative art want to impose so many restrictions: aspect ratio, manipulation, etc?

 

Mr. Simian (??) open your mind to other possibilities.

[pico_digoliardi]

Jimmy Smith:

"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?"

 

First of all, there were no "fibs". H.P. cast lies. Stick you your chest and tell it like it is.

 

So, one more person calling me a liar. Now just what is going on here? I make honest posts, and you call me a liar. HOW CAN I EVEN BEGIN TO RESPECT THIS FORUM? Are you H.P. in another guise or are you just another challenged individual? You don't like my pictures? Cool.

 

OKAY, I AM OUT OF HERE PERMANANTLY. What a waste of time this place is if you (H.P.) are the shining exemplar.

 

You are what you wish to be. Pitty your judgement.

[pico_digoliardi]

THIS IS THE END.

 

H. P.:

"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."

 

Just how did my posts just above this one offend anyone? What did I do wrong (except, perhaps to make them loop three times?)

 

Something else is going on here, and I suspect it's something about posters' deficient personalities.

 

So, THIS is the end.

 

I'm off the 'net right now. I gave it a shot. You make it just miserable. What are you REALLY protesting?

 

Pico

 

Fed up. This is just one sad place.

[ellis_vener_photography]

to respond to the original question:

 

Asa n old proverb says "it is better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt."

[mike butler]

I think what we have here, to go back to the American movie classic, Cool Hand Luke, is a

failure to communicate.

 

As an outsider, I see Minhea posting an obvious troll statement, Robert X. taking it to a

humorous extreme, and a lot of a personality clashes and coarsening of conversation in-

between.

 

There have been much better disucssions recently on the "general" forum than here.

Maybe folks don't take themselves so seriously over there.

 

I've always been fascinated by the square. I've cropped 4x5s to a square, 2x3s to a square,

but I only have a few pictures that I've taken with a square camera full frame. It's a

challenge. And who gives a shit anyway? Your kids or your friends or your clients won't be

impressed with your flash/web skills 20 years from now.<div></div>

[William Kahn]

I'm still against trolls......

[GerrySiegel]

I like that shot,Mike. Simple, nice study,subtle color. And the aspect ratio is irrelevant to the value. Squares work for me and I think in square terms so who cares. It must be hard wired in us I guess. I am now looking at ways to frame stuff afterwards via postprocessing with ovals and circles,really..even an arguable troll post or a lame post can be transmogrified into something of value I believe.

[andrew_lorand]

I think that the original question is a good one, whether posted in jest or not.

 

There's been a lot of discussion over the years about the appropriate shape for pictures. For quite some time, amateur photographers, and some professionals, allowed their photography to be constrained by the format of the paper on which they printed and/or the format of the negative produced by their camera.

 

While I do not agree that any particular format is good or bad in itself, I think that we gain a lot from considering what shape we should use to frame a particular image.

[mihnea_simian]

Thanks Andrew, .. i've got realy concerned about some of you that called me 'narrow, stupid, lame'. I just wanted to say i'm realy serious.. like it or not.. that was my question and take it as it is.. i do not force no one to answer.

 

Interesting points of view though..

[h._p.]

Here's an idea, Mihnea. Take a negative you haven't looked at for a while, preferably years, and print the full frame as big as you reasonably can. Then take a pair of L-shaped pieces of paper or card and see how many pleasing crops you can make out of it. If you can't make any crops that work other than the full frame, then it suggests that you 'see' in that shape. Otherwise, you may get some pleasant surprises, even to the extent of discovering a 1:1 crop that you like.

 

:-)))<div></div>

[robert x]

Okay Minhea, I will post a little more seriously for you. The "anti-troll" type responses you

got were, as far as I can see, because it just seems faintly ridiculous to come out and say

you are against square photos and to say that a certain ratio exists for the perfect artwork.

 

Most of us are most used to and most comfortable taking rectangles, and if we crop,

cropping to a rectangle. This is, I would guess, is because we are used to the 35mm

format, and also because 95% (+) of photos/paintings etc that exist are like this.

 

You said that you think an "artistic composition" is more balanced in rectangular format -

but the balance of a composition does not, I believe, have any real relation to the shape of

the "canvas" (for want of a better word) but only to the elements within that canvas. So a

circular, triangular, oblong or indeed rhomboid composition can be perfectly balanced. I

do, however, believe that it is easier to produce a balanced composition - or maybe a

more attractive composition - with the formats you mention though I am not sure why, if

it is indeed anything more than simply that we are more familiar with the rectangle.

Perhaps if I were an art theory major I could explain this - certainly I would be able to

quote hundreds (well...) of examples of artists who have used the square, and perhaps talk

about somethig like dynamic tension or whatever inherent in the shape. But I am not.

 

What I could do is point you to photographers who use the square format to great effect -

the first that springs to mind is Michael Kenna [link] :

 

http://www.hackelbury.co.uk/artists/kenna/kenna_pic10.html

 

Another I discovered recently is Derry Brown [link - his portraits are particulary good I

think] :

 

http://www.derrymoore.com/

 

Cecil Beaton also used it a lot - if you type his name into Google Images, you get a load of

them - from Monroe to Twiggy.

 

The list could potentially be very long indeed.

 

Why they used it, I imagine, would be that they had cameras that were 6x6 format, so they

composed to that format. However, the fact that many people find the square difficult and

so crop their 6x6 down to a rectangle is illustrated by the sales pitch for the Koni Omega

6x7 camera way back when [late '70s/early '80s?]- they said that the 6x7 format was

closer to the norm of 8x10 paper than 6x6, so that you could use more paper and crop

less of your picture......

 

But many people still enjoy struggling with the square.

 

I used a Canon A1 for many many years and was beginning to think myself a good

photographer. Then a couple of years ago I treated myself to a Hasselblad. I always prided

myself on rarely cropping my pictures, and so I have been attempting to compose into a

square somce then. It is doubtless very difficult after near 20 years of familiarity with

35mm, BUT I believe I have succeeded with several photos and now perhaps have even

developed a slight preference for good square photos. Perhaps this is because it is a shape

I am trying to learn, perhaps it is just becase they are rarer ? [i only have one on my Pnet

page, and its a dark scan but I can post one here if you like....]

 

I had a quick look at your webpage, and there was one image that you seem to not be

entirely happy with, because you present it as two different crops - both rectangular, one

portrait one landscape. I have taken the liberty of imposing a square on it - more for

playfulness than to suggest any improvement, and also to suggest perhaps that a square

can work.

 

As a brief aside, I think that the way Pico's innoccuos, friendly and indeed quite amusing

post was recieved earlier was really bad. I don't care what has happened in other threads -

his posts here were absolutely fine and I to harrass someone like that is playground

behaviour.

 

 

(respectfully)

 

Robert

[andrew_lorand]

I find it interesting that painters, who often had to compose their work to suit the needs of their customers, had and have an armoury of different compositional tools available to fit any shape.

 

I wonder, if we were painters, would we be having this conversation? I believe that the answer must be yes, because any visual representation, it seems to me, must have a certain quality of 'pattern' to be pleasing to the viewer and the choice of the appropriate pattern seems to me to be of prime importance in the composition.

 

That's why I think Mihnea's question a particularly stimulating one.

 

Robert: a very interesting and informative reply but may I ask, without in any way wishing to appear judgemental, do you not believe that actions have consequences?

 

I cannot condone what Jimmy wrote but, it seems to me, that if a certain amount of heat was generated elsewhere, it is only to be expected that it might be carried over. It would be nice to think that the ripples would now die away and, as a newcomer, I hope this will be the case.

[robert x]

andrew - the pathetic spat has been going on for so long now I no longer know who started

it, or fanned the flames. But why bring it up again from a 3rd party ? If someone is not being

offensive, what's the point ? This forum isn't for one or two people to decide they want to

hound someone out of it because of a disagreement elsewhere, surely ? robert

[h._p.]

Robert, just to set the record straight. I've already apologised for my behaviour on that other thread and I'm not proud of it, either. I didn't set out to hound Pico off the forum but I think it only fair to add, in my own defence, that it was him that started the whole thing and him that wouldn't let it go. That doesn't excuse me in any way but I think it goes some way to explaining what happened.

[robert x]

HP - I might send you an email off forum about this, because this thread, which I thought

was beginning to get interesting, now seems in danger of turning into a dissection of an

argument. I believe it started from a stupid misunderstanding and that neither of you would

let it go. Maybe we should set up a forum to discuss it ?

 

So, anyway - square pictures anyone ?

[root]

Why aren't these OT personal posts deleted by the moderator?

[h._p.]

Quite right, Carl, I'm all for a little more moderator input but they seem to be on holiday at the moment. To get back on topic, Mihnea would appear to be in good company with his dislike of the square. I had the opportunity of wandering around the National Portrait Gallery a few months ago and the thing that struck me was how the few square compositions stood out from the majority of oblong ones. Mind you, I didn't have time to look at everything and there could have been a room full of square paintings that I missed but I did come away with the impression that the (roughly) 4:3 ratio was the favourite with portrait painters for a very long time. Perhaps it just seems more natural for most compositions in some vague, indefinable manner or perhaps there's a more fundamental reason for the bias.

[robert x]

hp - but did you like the square ones, or did they stand out because they were different ?

[GerrySiegel]

National Portrait Gallery? Why yes, I seem to recall a room with the sign "Square Paintings." Hey, if canvas came in rolls,then the seller always cut it on the bias with a little extra,nue? "So,for you,Vincent,take a little longer piece, its the end of the roll,go ahead,you can pay me later." Vince would always fill the available canvas,being a frugal Dutchman. Just joshing away, in the spirit of amity...be well, meine kinder,and- while the moderators are away,-the kids will meditate on formats and be nice.

[mihnea_simian]

I think we all agree that the shape of the canvas has a critical importance for the final result.

At any square picture I look, I imagine in my head how would it look in wide-view. Probably you're right.. i may have a subjective opinion, that's why I asked this question in the first place, to confrunt with your opinions.

[pico_digoliardi]

"Purists" beware - Any imposition of a print shape other than round is artificial to photography. Round, or near-round is the photographic image shape. It has been convenient for centuries to make rectangular/square frames. So what?

 

If you want to argue about the Golden Mean, then do that. But the photographic image has no right angles. It's all made-up.

[GerrySiegel]

"I think we all agree that the shape of the canvas has a critical importance for the final result." I don't agree. But we agree that it is not critical to agree. Fin.

[pico_digoliardi]

Furthermore, the shape of an image is culturally bound. Consider a culture in which the veritical part of the frame is presumed to be part of an undenined longer scroll.

 

Is it becoming clear yet that if you wish to make the shape of your image important, that you do it in the picture, and reinforce that statement with a series to evince the same?

[robert x]

About the photo being round - I believe this is one of the reasons Hasselblad give for

square format - they use up more of the "actual" image. I think many people perhaps look

at the square as a rectangle that has been cropped at either end. I look at it as being a

rectangle that has had a bit added at the top and the bottom.....

 

This is certainly quite noticeable if you use a wide angle for landscape work in square

format. In 35mm the format natrurally crops out a lot of "unwanted" foreground for you.

With the square you have to think very carefully about that foreground, and reassess

exactly why it is often described as "unwanted". I kind of like it.

 

I also find (have I said this already ?) that the square is far far less tolerant of non-aligned

verticals, which I think often look very good in 35mm.

[h._p.]

Well, it used to be the case that landscape photographers went to a lot of trouble to 'frame' their pictures with branches, hedges or whatever. I once heard a story about a press photographer who, whenever he was sent to photograph a building or otherwise uninteresting scene, took along a branch which he would hold in front of the lens to provide such a frame. The story goes that, when he retired, his colleagues had the branch gold laminated. It seems to me that, whenever I've seen square format landscapes, this framing policy seems to have been very much in evidence.