What do you think of this statement about square format?

[asimrazakhan]

<p>Many people prefer portrait (vertical) oriented photos for a variety of work they do. So could you say that the square format is well suited for portrait oriented shooters because "the square is the widest vertical".</p>

<p>Does this even make sense? And do you agree with it?</p>

<p>I guess how I see it is; if you have any vertically standing photo where the width and height are NOT 1:1 (ie. 645, 6x7 or 35mm formats), then you'd often prefer it to be wider (to get an idea of whats to the left and right of the border). But if you go wider than the height, then its no longer a vertical oriented photo. </p>

<p>So would you say that rectangular format shooters (ie. 6x7, 645, 35mm) that find themselves always shooting verticals would be better suited going with the square? or do you think this is a false statement? </p>

[joseph_wisniewski]

<p>I would say that it is, indeed, a false statement.</p>

<p>The "widest vertical" is totally irrelivant, because it's not what you're shooting. You don't buy the "widest vertical" frames, you buy 8x10, 11x17, etc. And you don't shoot the "widest vertical" images.</p>

<p>Turning a rectangular format to a vertical orientation</p>

<ul>

<li>makes the most efficient use of resources, whether film and chemicals or digital sensors.</li>

<li>gives you a viewfinder in which you are not overly distracted by things outside the rectangular image.</li>

<li>improves optical quality. For example, a 645 (56x42mm) needs a 70mm image circle, a 6x6 needs 79mm, complicating the design of normals and wides.</li>

<li>saves weight, a 645 pentaprism is literally half the weight of a 6x6 prism.</li>

<li>reduces noise and vibration, by nearly half.</li>

</ul>

<p>All this is so important to photographers that you have rotating back 6x7 and 6x8 cameras, and 35mm cameras with vertical grips.</p>

[leighb]

<p>Unless you're shooting for a client, it's nice to have "crop space" around the subject.</p>

<p>The photo you use today as a portrait may be cropped tomorrow as a landscape to fit a particular magazine layout.</p>

<p>- Leigh</p>

 

[stp]

<p>Aspect ratio is determined by the subject, what's around the subject, and how the photographer wants to frame the subject in context.</p>

[nee_sung]

<p>If you're comfortable with the square format, use it. It's your art, nobody else's. Remember this, as an artist you are unique. The world will never, ever, see your visions if you did not exist. It doesn't really matter whether it's good or bad art. It's unique. Therefore you should not really allow yourself to be influenced too much by other people, when it comes to personal feelings, because that's your art.<br>

You can learn the techniques and the engineering aspects, to improve your skill, but you should not defer your feelings to that of others, that's surrendering your art.</p>

[russ_britt3]

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=942002">Nee Sung</a> , Jan 10, 2011; 08:39 p.m.</p>

 

<p>If you're comfortable with the square format, use it. It's your art, nobody else's. Remember this, as an artist you are unique. The world will never, ever, see your visions if you did not exist. It doesn't really matter whether it's good or bad art. It's unique. Therefore you should not really allow yourself to be influenced too much by other people, when it comes to personal feelings, because that's your art.<br /> You can learn the techniques and the engineering aspects, to improve your skill, but you should not defer your feelings to that of others, that's surrendering your art.<br>

Great answer!</p>

 

 

[AlanKlein]

<p>I shoot and prefer non- square format. However, check out Mike Peters work with 6x6 medium format. He does not crop either - he leaves the negative borders. His work will inspire you. Good luck. <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/mikepeters/">http://www.flickr.com/photos/mikepeters/</a> Alan</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>Most people prefer compositions which are rectangular, rather than square, and asymmetric (but balanced). The classical Greeks codified this asymmetry in the so-called "Golden Ratio". In cameras, a square format is a convenient way to allow asymmetry in the vertical or horizontal mode without turning the camera, with minimal losses due to cropping, in cameras which do not lend themselves to turning (e.g., Hasselblad and Rolleiflex).</p>

[john_a5]

<p>Preference/ better? Honestly, I find that I use the frame of whatever camera I shoot and rarely want to crop an image. I choose a format based on the look I want or whatever characteristics the camera offers me that I feel are appropriate to what I want to shoot. There are no rules regarding best or preferred format except that most seem to think the one they have is best--or the one they are really jonesing for. The best format is the one in your hands when the shot presents itself.</p>

<p>The rub comes at times when shooting commercially, however, digital is pretty much ruling that arena these days and it might be moot to talk about shooting square as the number of square digital cameras is pretty insignificant. But with any format, if you are shooting for others, no camera makes a perfect 8x10/5x7 and 11x14 without cropping something. So, whatever format you shoot, if you shoot for others you will compromise personal choices to insure there is crop room--and bleed room if for mags or print -- and that the image works for the intended crop.</p>

[mukul_dube]

<p>A square is no longer a "vertical". For years I used a Rolleicord (6 x 6), and all but a few of the prints I made were either vertical or horizontal rectangles, not squares. I'd say it is no accident that paper comes in sizes like 10" x 8" and 16" x 12". I seem to recall that Margaret Mitchell was another photographer who made square compositions -- but she was one of the exceptions.</p>

[robert_marvin]

<p>A square is [obviously] neither a vertical nor a horizontal. I think people shoot square either because they like that format or because [like me] they prefer to print vertically or horizontally, but don't want to turn their camera AND appreciate the possibility of changing their minds in the darkroom. Neither approach is better than the other or, in old-time New York vernacular, "y' pays yr money and y' takes yr cherce".</p>

[loren_sattler]

<p>I am the opposite of Mukul. My favorite camera (of many) is a 2-1/4 Rolleicord. I find myself printing the negatives square most of the time (as taken), although I will willingly print rectangular when the subject calls for it.</p>

[raczoliver]

<p>If someone always shoots vertical, they should get a camera that has a vertical frame by default (like the Kiev 6) or a rotatable back (Mamiya RB or RZ) and park it in the vertical position. In my opinion, square is for people who shoot square. Of course, it gives you a lot of flexibility in cropping, but if you do crop, you would be better off with a 6x45 camera to not waste film, or a 6x7 camera to get a larger negative. That being said, I do crop quite a lot, but I still prefer to keep it square if it started as square.</p>

<p>One of the biggest advantages of the square format is that it makes maximum use of the lens coverage. Any other rectangular shape that fits into the same image circle will have a smaller area. However, once you crop it, this advantage is gone, meaning you would have been able to get a larger film area at the same aspect ratio if you had used a rectangular format to begin with.</p>

[MathewDH]

<p>I have not shot medium format yet but want to. So I am still in the Digital aps-c area. Since the camera is 2x3 period, I prefer to study the image and will go for cropping to improve the image balance. I like the balance that a square image has, so I use it a lot. Cheap frames are available too. The end result in the print is what I care about. I just had one lab do a great job on an IR shot I converted to B&W and then cropped to square.</p>

<p>One format I have tried to work on but with little success is the porthole. Though it seems a natural form to match a circular lens shape, I have found it to constraining.</p>

<p>CHEERS...Mathew</p>

[doug grosjean]

<p>I wish digital cameras were square sensors, and that any cropping was done later in a computer. </p>

<p>Why?</p>

<p>Because then the only reason to turn a camera vertical would be to position the flash where you want it.</p>

[AlanKlein]

<p>There is a problem if you plan on always shooting in one format figuring you'll change it afterwards by cropping. It means you're not thinking about composition enough. And you should be. You're hoping that you'll catch enough of the scene so you can somehow compose the picture afterwards. </p>

<p>There's a couple of problems with that. First and probably more importantly, you're not seeing what's making the picture work. You're not looking to get the best in a photo. You're not paying attention at the shooting stage. You'll wind up leaving things in the picture that don't go. You're probably composing too quickly and shooting too often. That's a sloppy technique. Secondly, when you get home, you find that many pictures won't crop because you didn't leave enough head room or space on the sides. Or the perspective is wrong. Or because you weren't paying attention, you left that twig going into someone's head when a slight camera move to the left or right when shooting would have eliminated that problem. A problem that you cannot get rid of with cropping.</p>

<p>Composing format in the camera will save you a lot of lost pictures if you at least try to get close to the final format you want to use. It will also improve the aesthetic quality of your photos because you'll be paying attention to what you're shooting.</p>

[ondebanks]

<blockquote>

 

<p>I wish digital cameras were square sensors, and that any cropping was done later in a computer.<br>

Why?<br>

Because then the only reason to turn a camera vertical would be to position the flash where you want it.</p>

 

</blockquote>

 

<p>True, Doug. But square digital sensors do exist, and even better, they are/were widely available in MF camera digital backs - Kodak, Sinar, PhaseOne, Imacon, Hasselblad, Megavision. I normally leave my Kodak Proback 645M shots in their original square format, as I usually like to compose for the square, but not having to turn the camera for shots that I "see" in portrait is definitely a boon.</p>

 

[desmond_kidman]

<p>You really have to live with both. You could mask your focusing screen to simulate living with one and then the other.<br>

Generalized statements are very hard to make. It's personal as a previous poster said.<br>

However, for me, a standing subject with a full length portrait is the worst fit for a square format. Note I said "for me". <br>

I personally love the square when the subject fits it well. That includes many more subjects than just a head and shoulders portrait. Fine art, landscape, architectural. When shooting square format cameras only 40% or so of my images get printed square, but those that remain square because they fit it well are magic to me.<br>

</p>