Which photographers prefer to move to the square format?

[john_narsuitus]

<p>

<p>I have used 6x6cm square and 24x36mm, 6x7cm, 6x9cm, 4x5 inch, and 8x10 inch rectangular formats. I love them all.

 

<br>

　<br>

I prefer the 24x36mm and 6x9cm formats when shooting landscapes.<br>

　<br>

I prefer the 6x7cm, 4x5 inch, and 8x10 inch for general shooting.<br>

　<br>

I prefer the 6x6cm format when I am taking waist-level shots, ground-level shots, and fast action shots where I do not have time to be concerned about vertical or horizontal orientation.</p>

<br>

.</p>

 

[robert_marvin]

<p>A square format is certainly NOT limiting, because you can ALWAYS crop in the darkroom (or PhotoShop), if you're so inclined. I'd find the comment that "any self respecting photographer that feels the need to crop images is no[t] doing his or her homework right from the start" offensive, if it weren't so silly. Not that's there's anything wrong with a photographer deciding to always print full format, if that's what they like, but cropping is an equally valid approach [despite the '70s affectation of printing a black line with a filed out carrier as proof of some sort of mythic purity].</p>

<p>FWIW my favorite format is square [6 x 6] but I almost always crop. I don't especially like square prints and, while I generally know if I'm composing for a horizontal or vertical [marked by a ruled overlay on top of my Rolleiflex's focusing screen] I value the option of being able to occasionally change my mind in the darkroom. I don't mean to say that there's anything inherently RIGHT about my approach and I appreciate that others may make an aesthetic decision to print square images or to always print in whatever format their original negative [or sensor] dictates, but I can't understand having universal disdain for another photographer's choice to crop, to change the proportion of a printed photograph, which, for me, is a valuable [and even essential] tool.</p>

[ndnbrunei]

<p>In answer to your question Asim, I find the square lends itself to tighter composition and can be quite elegant. As others have said, the black and white square can be particularly pleasing to the eye. <br>

Andrew.<br>

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/15573720@N00/">http://www.flickr.com/photos/15573720@N00/</a></p>

<p> </p>

[john_stockdale2]

<p>I enjoy looking at the world through a big square piece of ground glass (SL66), but I usually crop a little even if the image is nearly right as a square.</p>

[f_ph1]

<p>Some things said must not go unchallenged...</p>

<p>1. There are many other aesthetics completely foreign to Greek culture, ancient or contemporary. I am not Greek, and do not hold the artistic sensibilities of that culture as standard. Who cares what Greeks thought?</p>

<p>2. Every time I pick up my Rolleiflex or my Hasselblad and compose on the glass, I make an artistic choice. To dismiss it as something less than that is simply ridiculous.</p>

<p>3. A single lens is not so limiting to a talented photographer as questionable ability is limiting to the lens in question. I read an interesting remark regarding this on some other forum long ago:<br /> "beware of a man with only one gun. He probably knows how to use it." The same applies to lenses. I would wager Cartier-Bresson might have agreed with me.</p>

<p>4. Who the hell decided what one must do in the field? I often make photographs using other than "correct exposure", mix unrecommended developers very imprecisely, and completely ignore temperature and recommended development times. You might be surprised by what I am able to produce using my non-standard methodology.</p>

<p>Walk the dogma. Take it for a loooooooooong walk.</p>

<p> </p>

[matt_needham]

<p>I used to shoot weddings with a Rolleiflex and a Hasselblad, and I love square photos. Unfortunately I found that clients almost always want rectangles, so they usually ended up cropped.</p>

[gianni_siragusa]

<p>To Russ Britt and to F Ph It's so funny Adrian Wilson seems very "Square" himself having failed to understand what I meant with Hasselblad being the quintessential "multiformat camera".<br>

As plenty here, it seems I have being a working photographer for quite a while now but have "failed to do my homework". Reassuring though that quite a few of us understood who I was referring to in terms of top professional photographers that used the square format. Avedon who failed clearly big time to do his homework if you have ever bothered seeing any of his work where contact sheets are displayed. 90% of his published editorial work from the 50's and 60's was shot on Rolleiflex and Hasselblad and then cropped.... there you go I think he should have gone for evening classes thought by Adrian Wilson I guess. With him the likes of Helmut Newton etc...a big class Adrian would have been very busy teaching them how it's done!!</p>

[ondebanks]

<p>I am not offended by Adrian's "homework" comment - recognising that it probably applies well enough to amateurs like me ;))</p>

<p>OTOH, I found two of his other remarks to be somewhat contradictory:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>that is why I always look for a multi format camera, i.e. Fuji GX680 III</p>

</blockquote>

<p>and</p>

<blockquote>

<p>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 !</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Now the Fuji GX680 is natively a 6x8 format camera...so to get any other format or aspect ratio from its standard back, doesn't the same "all you can do is crop" argument apply? Sure, there are backs for the Fuji in other, smaller formats, but there are also 645 backs for the Hasselblad - and they both give identically dimensioned images with all of the various digital back formats out there. So for both cameras, to select either a square or rectangular film format, you either crop or you choose the appropriate film back. In that regard, is there really a fundamental difference between them?</p>

[adrian_wilson9]

<p>Hi Ray,<br>

The Fuji GX680 filmbacks take format masks and you can buy dedicated focusing screens to match, ( I have nearly sold out now ) The mask reduces the image by adjusting the actual film size, acting on the transport system, so on 6x4.5 you double up on the number of shots as opposed to shooting in 6x8. I must be honest as I regard cropping as a sign of failure a bit like Photoshop, where Photographers rely on these tools as a last resort to save the day. A WYSIWYG approach is far better, it makes the job far more pleasurable when images are downloaded and viewed for the first time. Similar comments apply to the Lumix, where the aspect ratio is altered to take maximum advantage of the 14mp sensor. The choice is yours, if you are happy with a one horse race that is your choice, if your clients are happy with the outcome, then all well and good, I happen to like maintaining a considerable degree of flexibility which I hope is reflected in the end product.</p>

[Robin Smith]

<blockquote>

<p> almost always want rectangles, so they usually ended up cropped</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I have to say, although I like the square, my experience is like Matt's. It is always much harder to display square shots as 90% of all frames and matte are rectangular. There is also the practical side that paper, whether for digital output or silver, is not square either, so it is inefficient to cut squares out of it. But all of these things can be surmounted by someone committed to the square, but it usually costs more (larger rectangular frames are required to mount equivalent area square shots to rectangular shots, larger printers to get equivalent area pics etc.).</p>

<p>I think that Ed is correct that the original square formats for TLRs and Hasselblads are square for practical reasons not because of artistic vision, although 'blad afterwards stressed the "primacy of the square" in their marketing. Interestingly this was swiftly abandoned with the transition to the H series.</p>

[doug grosjean]

<p>I figure there's so much real estate on a medium-format square negative, that it doesn't really matter if you have to crop a little.</p>

<p>But I also prefer, like several above, to shoot with whatever format will give me the shape I want in the final result. And squares are suited to some subjects, standard rectangles to other subjects, and panos to still another range of subjects.</p>

<p>In a Color Photography class I took this past summer, the final project involved multiple images on a single theme. I saw this as the perfect opportunity to shoots squares of squares, ie, square photos arranged in 3 rows x 3 columns, and printed on a nearly square paper. Result attached. Disclaimer: photos 2 & 3 are from one negative. But given that they're only being enlarged slightly, it doesn't much matter.</p><div></div>

[john_narsuitus]

<p>

<p>Doug Grosjean,<br>

I love the concept for your final project for your Color Photography class.<br>

　<br>

What grade did you get for the project?</p>

<br>

.</p>

 

[robert_marvin]

<p>RE: Adrian's statement that he " regard cropping as a sign of failure"; surely that is only the case if one's intention is to only print everything that appears on the negative. That's fine, for those who want to impose such limits on themselves, for whatever reason they might consider important, but for some others,myself included, that's not even a consideration. YRMV :-)</p>

[doug grosjean]

<p>John, thanks!</p>

<p>I don't remember exactly, it was either an A or a B on that assignment.</p>

<p>I don't remember becaues I was taking Geology and Color Photography, two subjcets I've wanted to take for at least 30 years.... Together it was 6 credits, but in half the time due to summer schedule. So I was buried, while absorbing like a sponge. In general, I did great on the shooting assignments (composing, using color, and being technically correct on focus and exposure), and slightly less well on printing (I'd gotten out of the pre-req of b/w, due to having a good b/w portfolio, so was learning enlarging in Color Photo while everybody else already had it).<br /><br /> Was a fun course. Color concepts & composition, being shown work of well known photogs, critiquing each others' photos, and color printing from negs (enlargers, color filtration, then running the prints through an RA4 process machine).<br /><br />That assignment was shot on an old Ciro-Flex TLR, after using a dSLR to get correct exposure. But I shot other assignments in there with a 35mm Widelux, and with a manual 35mm SLR. Syllabus said 35mm SLR, manual, but prof said if I could complete the assignment satisfactorily on one of my other cameras, go ahead.</p>

[robert_marvin]

<p>On reflection, I regret my last post. I think that Adrian only meant that he regarded cropping as a PERSONAL failure, for himself. If I'm correct about that I admire his self-imposeddisipline, even though I don't share it.</p>

[adrian_wilson9]

<p>The subject of cropping and my own self imposed discipline, as a professional Photographer I expect to be able to produce images that are above and beyond the norm of the average individual, not only using my equipment to its maximum potential but at times stepping over the boundary of accepted parameters and refusing to be brainwashed into thinking " You cannot do that because it's impossible " Anything is possible if you apply yourself and maintain a Professional attitude, sooner or later you will find the answer you are looking for, but if you are not prepared to work in a highly disciplined manner that road gets really hard and can often lead to failure. Cropping is like walking out in an untidy manner, it suggests an untidy mind, more akin to well I can fudge it when I get back because I can't be bothered now. As stated previously it is important to be Professional in your approach towards your work and your clients, but it's your practice as a Photographer, the ball lies in your court !</p>

[doug grosjean]

<p>Something that nobody has mentioned in the crop - no crop debate is that if you don't have to crop, if you can shoot the finished product exactly as you want it, it saves time back at the lab / shop.</p>

<p>So I'm not ready to side with either camp. If I can shoot w/o cropping, I'm glad. But if I have to crop, I crop.</p>

[doug grosjean]

<p>Just re-ordering the photos on my profile page, and came across this one. It was shot with modern gear (Nikon D90 dSLR), but the composition seemed to cry out for a square crop. So I did, the subject (Diane) loved it, as does everybody that sees it. It's Diane, involved in a gleaning project for a food bank, at an orchard outside Toledo in October 2009.</p>

<p>The photo was used by a local newspaper, in a story about the job support club that Diane is involved in, because the gleaning was a project that the job club took on. The paper cropped it to rectangular - go figure. Shrug.</p><div></div>

[robert_marvin]

<p>"Cropping is like walking out in an untidy manner, it suggests an untidy mind"</p>

<p>There may be some truth to that, in which case I'm proud of my own, untidy, right-brain dominated mind. I might well feel different if I had to consistently produce for clients, instead of the few individuals who happen to buy my prints.</p>

[lubos_soltes]

<p>Adrian, there are 2 ways to look at this issue:</p>

<p>1. Finding a composition within a composition. I guess this is what you are trying to avoid. The final image should be considered from the start and not like: "Hey this part looks better than the whole image I originaly took." I do agree here. This does to some degree indicate a lack of concentration and preparation before release is pressed.</p>

<p>2. Shooting WITH the intention to crop because the current gear does not produce the format most suitable for the final image. I think you will agree, that this does actualy comply with your standards since the final image is considered from the start and the cut area was never part of the final product.</p>

<p>Anyway, from my point of view, square format is just another format. Each subject or composition calls for it's own aspect ratio.</p>

[loren_sattler]

<p>I shoot and develop traditional B&W with three formats: 6 x 6, 6 x 9 and 35mm. My favorite camera is a Rolleicord. I will crop or frame prints in the darkroom according to what feels best for the particular photo. I notice that the vast majority of my 6 x 6 negatives get printed square, and usually full frame. These include a wide range of subject matter. My conclusion is that I prefer the square format, but don't know why. </p>

[cameranda]

<p>Louis, re your statement - "Anyway, from my point of view, square format is just another format. Each subject or composition calls for it's own aspect ratio" - my opinion is the same. Over the many years I have been an art lover, I have from the beginning noticed the unique aspect ratio a master of painting will choose for each work. With photography it is different; we have a limited number of aspect ratios to choose from, and have to frame each photograph within one of them. The skill lies in framing a picture so that if it is necessary to crop the photograph, it will be to the advantage of the subject and composition. At times the masters <em>would</em> select a standard aspect ratio, such as a tondo, and used their skills to make the composition fit the canvas. Louis, thanks for your concise expression of what had been a vaguely understood conclusion of my own.<br>

http://www.michelangelopaintings.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/michelangelo-doni-tondo-or-doni-madonna.jpg</p>

[cameranda]

<p>Lubos, sorry for calling you "Louis" by mistake, in my entry.</p>

[don_douglas]

<p>When it comes to the practical business of marketing images to publications, it was long a preference of art directors to have square format and somewhat looser composition because they and not the photographer decided whether an image was best used as a horizontal or vertical. Photographers with 35mm and/or DSLR cameras, especially with zoom lenses, tend to crop too tightly, leaving the AD no room for trap or alternate cropping options.<br>

Regarding the statement that "Hasselblad is not a multiformat camera" above, as I recall they came out with the 16 Back well before Mamiya "invented" the 645 format.</p>

[uk]

<p>Jon, "a master of painting will choose for each work". <br>

My understanding is that the square format hardly existed in art history until the 20th Century and the arrival of the Rolleiflex. Can you shed any light on that ?<br>

I thoroughly enjoy square images and square format cameras, possibly through years of conditioning from Hasselblad an Rolleiflex users. I currently have 3 6x6 camera, but my captures with a past Mamiya 7 definitely enabled me to have more flexibility whilst providing 6x6 whilst maintaining a higher quality with non-square frames.</p>