Not an image but an idea - advice wanted.

[antonroland]

OK, so the old square vs rectangular image idea…

I feel that a square format capture needs more deliberate composition and IF a portrait or landscape crop can be made out of it that is a total and rare happy coincidence…

Your thoughts?

Thanks!

[derrick_sorensen]

On 1/10/2023 at 2:20 AM, antonroland said:

OK, so the old square vs rectangular image idea…

I feel that a square format capture needs more deliberate composition and IF a portrait or landscape crop can be made out of it that is a total and rare happy coincidence…

Your thoughts?

Thanks!

Think it depends on composition and subject matter. One isn’t better than the other in general but one could be better than the other depending on what you’re trying to convey and shoot. To me a crop is a just a crop. I make the picture and then crop it in a way that does the most to make it better. I do think more often you can go from rectangle to square easier. 

[JDMvW]

Almost any image can be cropped however you want.

I do a lot of this and people seem to agree that my images are pretty croppy.

[samstevens]

2 minutes ago, JDMvW said:

people seem to agree that my images are pretty croppy

In this day and age where people have to take sides on everything from the efficacy of science to the truth of facts right in front of our faces ... and soon whether it's socialistic to believe that the earth revolves around the sun ... I'd take it as a win that people agree on your photos. You've bridged the great divide, all by chopping off an irrelevant tree or half a person's head. Congrats!

[je ne regrette rien]

On 1/10/2023 at 11:20 AM, antonroland said:

Your thoughts?

Do whatever supports your visual message. If you need to crop, crop. If you start from a rectangular format and you need a square, do it.

Your image is important, not the mainstream idea of how an image should be made.

[von_mcknelly]

On 1/10/2023 at 2:20 AM, antonroland said:

OK, so the old square vs rectangular image idea…

I feel that a square format capture needs more deliberate composition and IF a portrait or landscape crop can be made out of it that is a total and rare happy coincidence…

Your thoughts?

Thanks!

I started shooting 6x7 roll film back in the day. A good size negative to crop without loss of detail. I still shoot 6x7 but I do love the 6x6 square format. At the end of the day it makes no matter to me what size I shoot with as long as the content is there.

[Wayne Melia]

On 1/10/2023 at 2:20 AM, antonroland said:

OK, so the old square vs rectangular image idea…

I feel that a square format capture needs more deliberate composition and IF a portrait or landscape crop can be made out of it that is a total and rare happy coincidence…

Your thoughts?

Thanks!

Cart before the horse.

The format is not a primary, but a tool.

Choose (by body, cropping, or whatever...) format as a tool in forming the gesture. The gesture is the image looking back thru the lens, and thru the eye, to  whatever resonated with the photographer to trigger the making the photo.

[mikemorrellNL]

If I google 'square format cameras' the results are generally MF cameras. Most of which are way out my budget, have less flexibility and a much higher resolution than I need. So I still use an old 2nd hand 3:2 DSLR. I occasionally need to produce square format photos, for example for articles and websites. There are also cases when I need to produce photos in 'non-standard' formats. So in general, my 2 cts is that whatever format camera you use, it's often important - when framing & composing photos - to keep the format in mind that you intend to crop from it. 

[fototom]

I believe the key is to shoot with a particular aspect ratio in mind.  The negative (or digital file) may be 3:2, but I know in advance that the final print will be square, or 16:9, or whatever. (Of course, I may change my mind.)  

[Ricochetrider]

On 1/10/2023 at 5:20 AM, antonroland said:

OK, so the old square vs rectangular image idea…

I feel that a square format capture needs more deliberate composition and IF a portrait or landscape crop can be made out of it that is a total and rare happy coincidence…

Your thoughts?

Thanks!

Hmmm... I think the idea that many of us shoot with is filling the frame adequately, whatever we are shooting? That said, if I'm cropping it's always in afterthought or post process. I shoot either 35mm (3:2) or MF, either 6x6 or 6x9. I often struggle with both rectangles and squares but so far, have never made a shot with a nod to cropping later.  My 6x9 camera is a 1930s Bessa and it's difficult for me to frame shots with- so I do sometimes end up cropping stuf out of the frame of whatever shot I got- but try to make some effort to honor the original format in doing so.   

[dave_thomas8]

Thinking about it, I generally try to form a nice composition and maximize the content I think might be useful in whatever frame I'm shooting but there's no 11th commandment that forces me to use it all. The bulk of my film shooting in this millennium has been 6x6 square -- with an SLR, TLR, and a folder. I do shoot a 6x9 folder (Ercona II) and very seldom, but it still works, my ancient Brownie Target Six-20 box camera. (My parents gave that to me circa 1949 and it still works!)

I shoot 3:2 in 35mm SLRs, DSLRs, and an EOS M5 mirrorless, but 4:3 in point&shoots, and iPhone 13 Pro, plus 4:5 in 4x5 and 8x10 (mostly pinhole work). Often 3:2 seems too expansive in vertical shots and I suspect 6:7 or 6:8 might be the golden ratio for me. But truth be told I don't give the whole thing much thought.

For an actually planned project, a specific format might be called upon -- steam locomotives the length of a Union Pacific Challenger or Big Boy have me reach for a 6x9 for example. 🙂