Square Large Format Images ? [Archive] - Large Format Photography Forum

Matt Magruder

10-Nov-2008, 13:53

I shoot 8x8 wet plate images... does that count?

http://www.matthewmagruder.com/files/gimgs/28_8x8bgow4.jpg

http://www.matthewmagruder.com/files/gimgs/28_8x8bgow5.jpg

http://www.matthewmagruder.com/files/gimgs/28_8x8bgow3.jpg

GSX4

10-Nov-2008, 13:54

Ken, I do... The main reason for cropping and composing square is this 5" modified petzval lens does not have complete coverage for all of a 4x5 image area. Here are some examples. I actually like composing LF images in the square format as it's a natural progression for me after working with my Hasselblad and Mamiya 6 systems.

Ken Lee

10-Nov-2008, 13:57

Dy no mite !

Now we're talkin '

Struan Gray

10-Nov-2008, 14:03

I crop my LF square, and compose with that in mind when out shooting. All the colour work on my website is 4x5 cropped to 4x4. I would like to work in 5x5 or 7x7 and really use the full back area of my cameras, but film supply is too much hassle to be worth the effort.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions, and my 12x15 ULF project has supplied many a flagstone. The ultimate intention is to make/order a new back and film holders and do 15x15/40x40 cm.

jb7

10-Nov-2008, 14:08

lovely square pictures-

Ken Lee

10-Nov-2008, 14:19

There are many ratios out there, but there is only one 1:1

butterflydream

10-Nov-2008, 15:30

I always wish there would be 10x10 format camera and film system for the maximal use of lens coverage and enlarger.

D. Bryant

10-Nov-2008, 15:58

Does anyone have some Large Format images composed in a square format ?

I'd love to see them, and get any insights about that ratio.
Butch Welch, a palladium photographer:

http://www.photographywest.com/pages/welch_bio.html

built his own 7x7 and 11x11 LF cameras ( I hope I'm recalling those sizes correctly ) though I've never seen any of his prints in that format. Also I beleive he may have abandoned photography in recent years and sold the beautiful hand crafted cameras he spent a year or so putting together.

Don Bryant

wclavey

10-Nov-2008, 17:01

Ken, I'm not sure if you mean actually composing on a square format medium (like Matt's wet plates) or no-matter-how-hard-you-try-to-make-it-rectangular-it-comes-out-square. I fall into the latter category and probably well over half my 4x5s actually turn out better cropped square.

Merg Ross

10-Nov-2008, 17:38

8x8 shot with 8x10 and 19" Artar. Printed as envisioned.

mergross.com

Andrew Tymon

10-Nov-2008, 17:45

David Fokos shoots 8x10(if I remember correctly) then scans the negs and prints digitally- i think all of his images are cropped square.

Ken Lee

10-Nov-2008, 17:55

"8x8 shot with 8x10 and 19" Artar. Printed as envisioned."

Sublime !

Ken Lee

10-Nov-2008, 17:58

Mike Castles

10-Nov-2008, 18:23

Beautiful, Merg....just beautiful

wclavey

10-Nov-2008, 21:25

I'm not sure if you mean actually composing on a square format ...

Yes - I mean intentionally seeing and composing within the square format.

I have a 6x6 Agfa folding camera, and have fiddled with the format now and then, but have never done "serious" work in the format, as we might with a view camera, a choice of lenses, etc.

Lately it strikes me as special, since it's the only ratio which is neither horizontal nor vertical.

Well, I think that you have struck upon the reason why my 4x5 images come out with a better square image in them... after shooting 6x6 for close to 40 years, I think I see better, or at least more readily, in the square format and the square picture in each 4x5 actually is better than the rectangular one. I don't think I started out seeing square - - I always cropped to rectangular in the beginning, but I feel as if I have learned to be able to take advanage of the format... and now it is hard to shake.

vinny

10-Nov-2008, 22:43

David Fokos shoots 8x10(if I remember correctly) then scans the negs and prints digitally- i think all of his images are cropped square.

That's true. If you ever get the chance to see them in person, do so.
It looks like (davidfokos.com) he's ventured outside the square lately as well.

C. D. Keth

10-Nov-2008, 23:10

I always wish there would be 10x10 format camera and film system for the maximal use of lens coverage and enlarger.

No reason one couldn't make a 10x10 back for an 8x10. I think I remember someone linking to a place that makes custom size film holders. Maybe someone will chime in with the company.

Ken Lee

11-Nov-2008, 04:14

Thanks for the info about David Fokos.

His site is http://www.davidfokos.net/

Renato Tonelli

11-Nov-2008, 07:42

Thanks for the info about David Fokos.

His site is http://www.davidfokos.net/

Beautiful. It also reminds me of Michael Kenna's work.

Steve Gledhill

11-Nov-2008, 10:14

Does anyone have some Large Format images composed in a square format ?

I'd love to see them, and get any insights about that ratio.

Good question Ken. I'm happy to compose and/or crop to any aspect ratio - as the fancy takes me. Occasionally I find that what I saw on the GG as a rectangular composition is hugely strengthened by a square crop. It somehow concentrates the image. Your question specifically asks about composing rather than cropping so I may not have quite answered your question. But I could lie and say I composed them as square! Here are 4 which fall into the category of having been composed as a rectangle then cropped to a square. And I'll add 4 more on a second post. They're of a range of subjects.

Steve Gledhill

11-Nov-2008, 10:19

Does anyone have some Large Format images composed in a square format ?

I'd love to see them, and get any insights about that ratio.

And the next 4 ...

Merg Ross

11-Nov-2008, 12:02

"8x8 shot with 8x10 and 19" Artar. Printed as envisioned."

Sublime !

Beautiful, Merg....just beautiful

Thanks, Ken and Mike. This is from 1962 and one of my favorites. It was chosen for the Photography in the Fine Arts exhibition at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, NY in 1963.

mergross.com

Jim Galli

11-Nov-2008, 12:50

Aerial Recon cameras were square when square wasn't cool. 9.5 X 9.5 is most common.

Allen in Montreal

11-Nov-2008, 12:54

Thanks for the info about David Fokos.

His site is http://www.davidfokos.net/

Very nice stuff!
Thank you for the link Ken,

Ken Lee

11-Nov-2008, 13:38

...when square wasn't cool

Sounds like those little green men have been explaining all that Time and Space stuff to you again. ;)

Tony Karnezis

11-Nov-2008, 19:13

I was washing the dishes when I saw this in the sink. I took the pan out of the sink, laid it on my dark cloth and took this photo. This is my first photo post on this forum.

Chamonix 4x5, 210/5.6 Caltar, Efke PL100, Pyrocat HD, Epson 4990, non-existent Photoshop skills.

Ken Lee

11-Nov-2008, 20:00

Tony, your wonderful photo brings to mind this quotation from William Blake:

"To see the world in a grain of sand, and to see heaven in a wild flower,
Hold infinity in the palm of your hands, and eternity in an hour."

Ken Lee

11-Nov-2008, 20:10

Thanks Steve - I really like this one (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=19309&d=1226423852).

It has the magic.

Tony Karnezis

11-Nov-2008, 23:39

Allen in Montreal

12-Nov-2008, 04:54

8x8 shot with 8x10 and 19" Artar. Printed as envisioned.

mergross.com

I a slow on viewing the forum these days,

very nice Merg.

Allen in Montreal

12-Nov-2008, 04:57

Thanks Steve - I really like this one (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=19309&d=1226423852).

It has the magic.

:) very nice indeed.

eddie

12-Nov-2008, 05:43

i have never realy shot square cameras. i think i need to practice a bit for sure. i use 6x7 cm and 4x5 inches quite a bit....close but no cigar.

i am building a wet plat back fro my studio camera. i decided to use all the area available so it is going to be square.....i hope i learn to use square fast!

great discussion.

eddie

Ken Lee

12-Nov-2008, 08:19

Wow I'm humbled, Ken. Thank you.

Like Steve's image of the folded palms, and Merg's image of the factory buildings, this one is right at that special middle-ground between "literal" and "abstract".

I don't like to talk much about photographs, but it seems to me that when successful, this kind of image has a greater potential to delight the eye - greater than either abstract or literal images have on their own. We see them as two photos at the same time, superimposed somehow. If the image gets too abstract - or too literal - the magic is lost. But when the balance is right, the effect is one of multiplication, rather than addition, you might say.

Perhaps Minor White was referring to this effect, when he coined the term "Things for what else they are".

http://www.kenleegallery.com/images/forum/MinorWhite.jpg

Ole Tjugen

12-Nov-2008, 09:44

... A 10 x 12 format would come close, I think Ole sometimes shoots in that format. ...

I haven't seen this thread before now, and the answer is - no.

I don't shoot square, and I don't shoot 10x12" - I shoot 24x30cm which is close to 10x12" but far from square.

But I see the question has been answered by a lot of wonderful pictures already! :)

Steve Gledhill

12-Nov-2008, 12:38

...
I don't like to talk much about photographs, but it seems to me that when successful, this kind of image has a greater potential to delight the eye - greater than either abstract or literal images have on their own. We see them as two photos at the same time, superimposed somehow. If the image gets too abstract - or too literal - the magic is lost. But when the balance is right, the effect is one of multiplication, rather than addition, you might say.

Perhaps Minor White was referring to this effect, when he coined the term "Things for what else they are".
...

Perhaps Ken you should talk a little more. What you've just said is so right and matches closely my own ideas about what makes a delightful image. The cohering of the literal and the abstract enables an image to be explored rather than just looked at. It's not easy to achieve though, but when it comes together I find the print demands attention - well my attention at least. This is nothing to do with square pictures though ... or is it?

Ken Lee

12-Nov-2008, 14:47

I agree with you, that this effect is basically unrelated to aspect ratio, or format, of the image.

I strayed from the thread a bit, but have been wanting to share that idea for a long time. Out it came, when regarding your photos.

Like all rules of thumb, this idea should be held loosely at best. When it comes to things like this, the eye knows better than the intellect, and rules are made to be broken, and opposites, at their extremes, transform into one another. Sometimes, pure literal images can look so literal, they take on a kind of abstract quality. I prefer the middle way in this regard: it's more... cozy.

luis a de santos

14-Nov-2008, 06:09

DAVID FOKOS comes to mind.
He shoots with an 8x10 but always prints square very large images.
His work is good , a bit like Michael Kenna but on large scale.

Luis

aduncanson

14-Nov-2008, 09:54

I always wish there would be 10x10 format camera and film system for the maximal use of lens coverage and enlarger.

For some time I have envisioned that the sensor in a digital camera should be circular so that you can pick any aspect ratio and still use the full diagonal. It had not occurred to me, but circular film would have the same advantage. ;)

mrladewig

14-Nov-2008, 10:52

I have only one square LF shot. I knew when I shot it that I would crop it, but it turned out that a square crop was just right.

SA 75/8, Astia
http://www.ladewigs.com/Gallery/main.php?g2_view=core.DownloadItem&g2_itemId=1456&g2_serialNumber=1

aduncanson

14-Nov-2008, 11:59

For some time I have envisioned that the sensor in a digital camera should be circular so that you can pick any aspect ratio and still use the full diagonal. It had not occurred to me, but circular film would have the same advantage. ;)

And now I see that there is a new Panasonic compact digital camera (the Lumix DMC LX3 I think) that uses a 2:3 sensor and offers 4:5, 2:3 & 9:16 aspect ratios each with the same diagonal. Meaning that even the 2:3 output is a crop of the whole sensor. Everything but square.

Cool but I won't be rushing out to buy one soon.

butterflydream

15-Nov-2008, 12:44

I read somewhere why Hasselblad made 6x6 format was not for aesthetic reason but for technical reason to use full image circle of the lens.

Here's my square photo:
5x7 Canham / Fujinon 90mm
The lens coverage was just right for 5x5" :)

http://img201.imageshack.us/img201/3562/080604003ta0.jpg