The Square Format

[Brian C. Miller]

I really don't see 4x5 as being a restriction for "format." All that is needed is a bit of cropping.

6x6 = 1.0
4x5 = .8
645, 6x8, half frame = .75
8x11 = .72
5x7 = .71
24x35 = .69
6x9 = .66
Golden Ratio = .62

Spend some time with some tape on your ground glass, and then see how your compositions look.

[Sirius Glass]

Anyone who uses a Rollei or Hasselblad will tell you that square is better.

Like me, for instance.

Steve

[Richard A Johnson]

Hello everyone, thanks so much for all of your interesting comments. I have bookmarked all the sites that everyone has posted so that I can spend some quite time looking at all of your images.

Yes I am a fan of Michael Kenna, I have also looked at work by Mark Voce, and work done by Cole Thompson. I am getting the feeling that some of you are finding it easier to work in medium format when shooting square rather than large. The question is why?

I would think with all the controls we have with the view camera, and its bigger ground glass that it would be a natural. When the weather breaks here in the northeast I am going to try to work in the landscape using a cropped 4x5 to 4x4. I admit that I have found it challenging to switch over from working with a rectangle to a square, but I think I'm hooked on this way of seeing for now. The images seem so powerful in a different way. I will see however what challenges lay before me.

This discussion is great, Please keep the comments coming. I am learning a lot about this way of seeing the world.

Richard

[William Whitaker]

...I am getting the feeling that some of you are finding it easier to work in medium format when shooting square rather than large. The question is why?

I think that's simply because medium format offers 6x6cm as a standard format. There's not a square format available as a standard in LF. Cropping is the only way to do it. Not that there's anything wrong with cropping, but I think people have an innate concept that they should utilize a given format to its fullest. I know I do, at least subconsciously.

When the weather breaks here in the northeast...

Yeah, good luck with that...

[Mike Anderson]

...There's not a square format available as a standard in LF...

I have a theory about this: it's harder to handle square sheets of film in the dark. Not much harder, but more error prone.

...Mike

[Rick A]

How would it be more error prone? Wouldn't the notch code placement still be the same. I have no problem inserting film correctly the way it is. BTW, I've been shooting square since the 60's, Yashica's and Mamiyas.

[rguinter]

I only dabbled in square format once many years ago.

And it was only an inexpensive Ciroflex.

But I've been thinking of looking for a better camera in this format for use with a specific infrared film that I have in the freezer.

These are some of my only square format images but I did notice at the time that they do have a certain appeal.

Bob G.

[GabrielSeri]

I love the 6x6 format, unfortunately I can't afford Hassy. My medium format cameras are Holga (square) and the Pentax 67. I took these images after I rented a Hasselblad and went to Death Valley a few years ago.

[Ari]

Just bought a Mamiya c330 today, after two years away from 6x6.
I went through two rolls already, and it's great to be shooting squares again.

[Alan Gales]

Anyone who uses a Rollei or Hasselblad will tell you that square is better.

Like me, for instance.

Steve

Hey Steve, Please don't leave out us early Bronica owners!

Actually, I love both the square and 4x5 format. I just always hated the too long 35mm format. But then again my friend takes beautiful landscapes with his Hasselblad X-Pan. I guess to each his or her own!