Applying the Rule of Thirds to 6x6

[justinblake]

Just wanted to get an idea of how people are applying the rule of thirds to 6x6

format (if at all).

 

Do you simply split the entire frame into thirds or do you take a rectangular

portrait or landscape section from the center of the frame and split that into

thirds? Is it foolish to even attempt to use this technique on a square format

shot?

 

I myself don't usually place too much importance on the rule of 3rds but it has

helped me take a couple of nice shots in 35mm and even a discussion of why it

wouldn't work in 6x6 could be educational.

[vincent_frazzetta]

I'd call "suggestion of thirds", and I use thirds or close to it every time I compose 6X6--sometimes vertical, sometimes horizontal depending on the elements of the scene. Composing this way with a waist finder can be a joy.

[ken_schuster]

The "Rule of Thirds" is no different for square than for any other shape. You just divide the frame with two straight horizontal and two straight vertical lines, forming nine equal quadrants, as in "tic-tac-doe." Place your subject on or near one of the intersections if you want to create movement in your composition. Placing your subject dead-center creates a static composition, and there's nothing wrong with that, nor any other composition that works for you... or your client... or both, if you're lucky.

[eduardo_cervantes]

Rule of thirds is not less important in square. If you are after "tension" and not simmetry, you

better find your golden point right in camera. If you think that after cropping you'll get it, you

are for a bitter surprise. You won't find it. Try it, I learned the hard way.

[michael_dimarzio]

I was going to get a 6x6 camera but I couldn't find one with a vertical shutter release. :)

 

Eduardo, if I understand the concept of tension as you use the term, I think the square format would be a better format then 6x4.5. It would seemingly provide creative ways to have the subject interact with the frame.

[eduardo_cervantes]

Tension is what you get when you de-center the main subject in the frame. Simmetry is what

you get when you center the subject. In my experience composing in squares is more

difficult than with rectangulars. But when succesfully done, it is arresting. I would say it

works in some way as round logos. You can't get out of them. Check a little bit of Michael

Kenna for composition. In my opinion the best landscapist alive. http://www.michaelkenna.net/

[eduardo_cervantes]

About vertical shutter release, if I understand what you mean, your camera is in the SWC

series from Hasselblad

[michael_dimarzio]

Thank you Eduardo for the link and thoughtful response. The tension that I have tried to accomplish was with the border, or edge of the frame. Your link give great examples.

 

The vertical shutter release was just a silly joke, as a square has both horizontal and vertical components, a 6x6 camera with a vertical release, ok, sorry, it wasn't funny.

[fwstutterheim]

Justin, <p>

As you wrote. Apply the "rule of thirds" to the entire frame or to a cropped frame that you

visualise. <p>Then there is the method suggested by the original builders of the Rolleiflex

that can be described as "Shoot now, frame later". Leave ample space around your main

object and use the large negative to decide on a crop later. I am not saying this is the best

general approach to photography but sometimes it works. <p>Ferdi.

[stwrtertbsratbs5]

I tried 6x6 for a while, but I changed back to rectangular formats because I was almost always cropping to 645. And I never have found it all that difficult to rotate a camera or the back.

[User_502260]

The mindset for composing square images is different. When I was in high school and college I had a Yashica Mat 124G. I made many interesting square images as well as cropped rectangular images. The Yachica Mat is long gone. Now I have Bronica SLR cameras in 6X45, 6X6 and 6X7 formats. These cameras are more flexible than the Yashica Mat was but I donlt seem to have the same eye for square images that I once did. If I am using medium speed or slow speed film with the 50mm f/3.5 PS lens on an SQ-A I get a nice wide view and I can do plenty of cropping later and still get good quality enlargements.

 

With a rectangular format I look for which end of the frame to place an important part of the image. With a square format I look for which corner to put the important part near. In either case a grid type screen can help in composition. If you don't mind the extra weight and cost a 6X7 camera can give you nice 6X6 square sections to enlarge from and a very large 6X7 area for rectangular prints. For days when you are only looking to make square images you can save some film by getting a dedicated 6X6 back. If you do this you will need the right focusing screen or you can make an overlay yourself so you know what the central 6X6 area is covering.

[waltflanagan]

I usually have difficulty composing for 6x6 when it usually just comes naturally in 35mm. Disregarding the rule of thirds for a moment, the 35mm frame (3:2) is much closer to the Golden Rectangle ratio of 1.618:1 than other formats. Besides familiarity I think that's one reason it feels better to me.

[john_wilson10]

I don't quite like the rule of thirds for square compositions -- it still feels too static. I like moving in towards the center of the frame just a bit, so, maybe rule of 3/8ths: draw a line 3/8ths of the way in from each edge and put the subject at the intersections of those lines.

[godfrey]

<center><br>

<b>The Rule of Thirds ....<br></b>

<br>

<img src="http://homepage.mac.com/ramarren/photo/PAW7/large/36d.jpg"><br>

Ascending - Sunnyvale 2007<br>

<i>©2007 by Godfrey DiGiorgi</i><br>

<br>

<b>... is a good starting point ... <br></b>

<br>

<img src="http://homepage.mac.com/ramarren/photo/PAW7/large/39f.jpg"><br>

Overhead - Guadalupe River Park 2007<br>

<i>©2007 by Godfrey DiGiorgi</i><br>

<br>

<img src="http://homepage.mac.com/ramarren/photo/PAW7/large/09.jpg"><br>

Clover - Sunnyvale 2007<br>

<i>© 2007 by Godfrey DiGiorgi</i><br>

<br>

<b>... but it isn't necessarily ... <br></b>

<br>

<img src="http://homepage.mac.com/ramarren/photo/PAW7/large/48a.jpg"><br>

Wheels - This Cafe Life 2007<br>

<i>©2007 by Godfrey DiGiorgi</i><br>

<br>

<b>... the only way to see. </b><br>

<br>

<img src="http://homepage.mac.com/ramarren/photo/PAW7/large/28a.jpg"><br>

Valves - Mountain View 2005<br>

<i>©2007 by Godfrey DiGiorgi<br></i>

</center><br>

enjoy,<br>

Godfrey<br>

<br>

[mediumformat]

Many people miss the fact that most Rolleiflexes made in the 1950s and beyond came standard with a grid viewing screen which has two vertical and two horizontal lines intersecting perfectly to apply the "rule" of thirds. It's no coincidence.

 

I love 6x6 framing -- it can bold and strong or softer and more oblique as needed.

 

R.J.

[desmond_kidman]

I have a suggestion to you: forget rules. Do you want to be bound by some arbitrary rule when creating? You have a big view screen. Try clearing your head, and moving the camera around to see how YOU like the image, to see what YOU want to state in the image.

 

Try the main focal point centered. Try it off center left, right, up, down, in the corner.

 

An even more effective thing is to edit your own work with crop cards. Look at the work that you don't like. Then try cropping it in all different ways to find a way that you do like it. This will teach you where you most often make your mistakes. Spend lots of time editing your own images. Hours and hours and hours. Learning from your mistakes will make you a much better photographer than asking about rules on a forum. Too many rules, or paying too much attention to rules, can be a trap if creativity is your goal.

 

Get books on your favorite photographers. Look at what they have done....pick the images apart. That will also teach you what you like and what you don't.

[wim_van_velzen]

You might find this article useful: <a href=http://www.fotografiewimvanvelzen.nl/publication02.htm>square composition</a>.

<p>

Wim