The Square!

[john clark]

Hi everyone.

 

Though I sold my Mamiya 7mkII a couple of years back, I'm still a big fan of MF

photography - there is something which marks it out from the high-res dSLR

output, and I hope soon to return to the MF fold.

 

What I really like, though, is the Square format - 6x6.

 

Without getting too tied up in equipment details, I'd love any 'Square Shooters'

to speak up and point me in the direction of their work. Just for fun!

Portfolios, or links to sites with square compositions (even if they're 'faked'

by being cropped) - especially portraits and street scenes!

 

I'm thinking Bronica SQB as a cheap re-entry into the MF world, but at the

moment even a decent TLR would be fine...

 

ta,

 

John

[martin_howard1]

<a href=http://www.flickr.com/groups/squareformat/>This group</a> on flickr is good for all things square

[stoatsngroats]

Hi John,

 

I like square format, 'tho i'm only a pictorial 'dabbler'....I've a few crops, and I'd be mighty interested in you comments, even if they're less favourable..!<div></div>

[joshroot]

The square format is one of the things I really missed after my switch to digital (panoramic being the other). I just have a hard time looking at a rectangle and thinking that I will make it a square later. I guess my brain doesn't work that way.

[rodeo_joe1]

I've always been of the opinion that the subject ought to dictate the format, not the other way round. As a former user of the 6x6cm format, its attraction for me was always that it could be cropped in any number of ways, and that the camera could be used with a waist level finder all the time (even if you held it upside down over your head!).

 

I hardly ever printed square.

 

I'm also dead set against those panorama fascists who'd like to see us all using a frame with the proportions of the golden-mean. Their logic for choosing the 16:9 format is totally flawed, since dividing a golden-mean proportioned frame by the golden section itself simply gives us a square inside the frame. And as any student of classical composition knows, the square is one of the least aesthetically appealing shapes.

[steve_parrott]

Hi John,

 

Well for CHEAP, there is always the Holga. At least it is 6x6.

 

Here are some of my Holga shots:

 

http://www.pbase.com/s_parrott/holga&page=all

 

Steve

[dougmiles]

The proportions of pictures are suggested by the subject and composition, so I ususally crop a bit to suit. Sometimes toward the pano and sometimes toward more square. Here's one (from 6x7) that just had to be more nearly square...<div></div>

[tony_estcourt]

Most of my lanscapes are square from hasselblad. It took a couple of years to compose pictures that way, at first I cropped to 645.

 

www.tonyestcourt.co.uk

 

Now I run a few different projects and techniques at any one time and I have a favourite "panoramic B&W" look as well.

 

Also check out David Henderson who posts here quite a bit (an SQA user I think). This will give you some inspiration to get the Bronica!

[dave_thomas8]

I make no great claims, as I'm just slowly working my way into it, but at http://www.pbase.com/dw_thomas/sqa you will find my SQ-A and some of the stuff I've pointed it at. There are links at the top of that to some pages with additional squares scattered through, plus I've scanned a few ancient (ca. 1976) shots from an ancient TLR at http://www.pbase.com/dw_thomas/oldies6x6

 

DaveT

[jeff.grant]

Having switched to 4:3 in the hunt for big megapixels, I still find myself with lots of squares.

I understand all the arguments about subject and format but for most things squares are

what I see.

[john_tran8]

some ropey scanning, but lots of squares...

 

www.jltran.net

 

I've now started using a Rollei 6001 with PQ lens which is the probably the nicest 6x6 I've used, after having gone through Mamiya 6's and a Hasselblad Arcbody

[alecu]

www.photo.net/photos/radugrindei

 

www.photo.net/photos/Alecu

[rjjackson]

hi john

 

nice thread. the problem of achieving classical proportions in squares is interesting because the conventional way to develop ratios is through the relationships between edges, and 1:1 doesn't "move". i found hambidge's books particularly relevant on this topic. i like squares exactly because, classically speaking, they are so appalling. but the intensity of a dymnamic symmetry accomplished within a square can be stunning.

[dweezil]

not a bronica but my Kiev 6C with a flektogon 50/f4 on velvia 100

One fine cold morning just before the sun removed the icing from the trees<div></div>

[dweezil]

later that day just across the street from the office in Brussels.<br>

While fetching a sandwich for noon.<p>

 

(Who said you can't make pictures while you work in an office.) <br>

same camera, lens and film (125/F8 or there about) sligtly rectified in Photoshop.<p><div></div>

[wim_van_velzen]

hi John,

<p>

Lots of square photos on <a href=http://www.fotografiewimvanvelzen.nl>my site</a>, and even an article on composing square landscapes.

<p>

Wim

[jim_rais]

John, you can't miss the 6x6 fun factor, indeed. So, have fun with <a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=766699" target="_blank">my own 6x6 portfolio</a>, shot with TLRs.<p>

[gary_benson1]

I've been shooting Mamiya TLR for about 25 years and more recently a Hasselblad....square is good, although I don't mind shooting or cropping to a rectangular format when appropriate (either with my Pentax 67 or Ebony 45SU). I let the image be the guide for my final print format, as others have indicated also. Here's a sample of my square work.

 

Have fun with it John.

 

Gary Benson

Eagle River, Alaska

[ebokeh]

I've got a bunch of work that's all uncropped/full-frame 6x6 black and white (mostly outdoors/nature/northern-california) at:

<br><br>

<a href="http://www.ebokeh.com">eBokeh.com</a>

 

<br><br>

 

my gallery here at photo.net has a few as well - feel free to check them both all out!

<br>

[gary_irving1]

I have shot extensively in almost all the aspect ratio's available...and though I have spent time totally away from film...I think I will probably return to the square format for special projects.While I can crop my digital images to square..my attraction is more to the mystique of the entire process...looking at the ground glass...the feel of the "blad"..and the look of the film.

 

And square feels right to the eye for a number of subjects.<div></div>

[markusglueck]

a recent one<div></div>

[loren_sattler]

Interesting thread. See my b&w portfolio here, with most images taken with a Mamiya C330 and Rolliecord IV: http://www.photo.net/photodb/member-photos?user_id=827968

 

I find that when printing black and white from square negatives, I most often end up making a square or near square format print. Rarely, however, do I print 35mm negatives in a square format. I am not sure why I see things this way, but I rarely use the whole 8x10 print size when printing with square negatives.