Artistical shots in 1:1 format/crop?

[pico_digoliardi]

Another small point: while there are cultural biases and habits with regard to image viewing, there are certain built-in physiological characteristics that dominate how one 'scans' a scene; recent studies show that the field is rather like fat-waisted infinity sign (figure eight on its side), or a donut sqeezed in the center. Certainly this might be interesting only to the esoteric scholarly discussions of Space-in-Art.

 

To date we have oval images oriented vertically (quite common in early work) and more recently the prints of Henry P. Bosse.

 

http://www.mvr.usace.army.mil/PublicAffairsOffice/HistoricArchives/Bosse/bosse.htm

[robert x]

HP - god does that mean i now have to pack a branch along with me......?!<div></div>

[robert x]

apologies for massive size of that - still not used to PS - it was supposed to be pretty small.

(Moderator please delete large image if you can be bothered)<div></div>

[jimmy_smith2]

-- So, THIS is the end.

 

I'm off the 'net right now.--

 

still here still talking rubbish. old hp said sorry nothing like that from pico. dont have it in him i guess. a picture is a picture just like the rear end of a cow is the rear end of a cow. all that matters is it looks right to you.

[pico_digoliardi]

"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."

 

It is called Natural Framing, and an interesting point on the shape of the photograph - it turns the interior 'frame' into an irregular shape. Funny it took this long to come up. :)

 

Speaking of funny... There was old vet photog hired as an occasional weekend stringer. He was asked to cover a funeral on a Saturday, but he got there early and fell asleep in his car. Not to be outdone by reality, he went into his big box of photos and grabbed an old one taken at the same location. A newspaper ran it. Imagine the surprise (and letters) when subjects of the photographs were discovered to have been deceased for ten years.

[robert x]

Jimmy Smith: I suggest politely that you shut up and keep well out of this or I will report you

to the moderators myself for being needlessly inflammatory. Get back to the subject and stay

in your box.

[mark_l3]

worse than hating one or the other is to ONLY crop with one or the other. I think the image dictates what the crop will be shaped like. I have images cropped as squares and all kinds of variations of rectangles---sorry, no triangles....

[h._p.]

Yes, limiting yourself to one shape or banning a single shape from your 'armoury' is a little like being a carpenter who only uses an axe or refuses to use a screwdriver. Flexibility seems to be the key to success for most photographers. A few years ago I did a panorama made up of several prints. When I put them together they naturally formed a shape like a very low pitched roof. I thought of trimming the whole to a conventional 'letterbox' shape but in the end decided to leave it as it was. It seems to work very well and a number of people who don't usually notice photographs have commented favourably on it.

[derin]

1:1 is hard but album covers are 1:1 and if cropped well 1:1 makes wonderful identity portraits. I don't agree with you. Although I am not very friendly with the format, nor in photography neither in design I still think its a good one. The reason for your suspicion is because the asymmetric is more natural to the eye.