The Square Format [Archive] - Large Format Photography Forum

Richard A Johnson

24-Feb-2011, 18:57

Lately I have been very impress with images composed using the square format.I have always favored the rectangle 4x5,5x7,6x7cm, and 6x9cm. But I came across some black & white portfolios on you-tube presented with this format.I am intrigued as to how powerful the images are. I have started to play around with 21/4x21/4 medium format. But I am a large format user for the most part and was wondering if anyone is using there large format cropped to a square format and what your thoughts are on this subject. There is something about the beauty of looking at square images that I just can't seem shake.

I'm interested in your thoughts.

Richard

Sanjay Sen

24-Feb-2011, 19:26

I am a big fan of the square format, but I usually shoot 6x6 when I want that format, though I can think of one occasion when I cropped a 4x5 neg to print a square image. I agree with you, there is a certain beauty / charm with the format, and I find it hard to describe what it is.

There are some beautiful images in this format in the APUG (http://www.apug.org) galleries, but you have to be a member to view the galleries on that site.

24-Feb-2011, 20:17

I use a 120 TLR for square photos and I like the format. It's big enough for good image quality (with good film), and the shape is right.

Non-square rectangles are boring. We look at TVs and computers and cell phone screens all day, and it's rectangle display overkill. A square photo stands out on the wall too. A TLR helps you see photos that work well with a square composition, and someone that can pick out square-friendly compositions has an uncommon skill. Most people don't even try vertical...

I like the shape for paintings too. Check out Fairfield Porter's "Island Farmhouse".

I sometimes crop 4x5 and DSLR stuff to square when it benefits the composition. It's not as easy as using a square camera though. The saying when you're a hammer, everything's a nail sorta applies in a good way, when you've got a square camera, everything's a square composition.

As mentioned APUG has lots of 6x6 pics, flickr actually does too. I think you have to be a PAID member of apug; worthwhile for all that it offers, but probably not just to browse pics.

From my yashica-C:

http://www.f64.nu/photo/tmp/lff/img193-8.jpg

Randy

24-Feb-2011, 20:20

I have had numerous medium format TLR's over the years and have two now. I actually prefer the square format. Kind of makes me wish my 8X10 camera was 10X10.
I think part of why I like square format is you never have to rotate for horizontal / vertical :)

Randy

24-Feb-2011, 20:27

My #3 son and his dog Otis - Yashica D

http://rsphoto.fileave.com/mnoat.jpg

Sanjay Sen

24-Feb-2011, 23:36

<snip> I think you have to be a PAID member of apug; worthwhile for all that it offers, but probably not just to browse pics.

'PAID member' is correct, sorry for my omission. I meant to say "subscriber".

<snip> I think part of why I like square format is you never have to rotate for horizontal / vertical :)

That would be a good reason to like the square format! :)

Struan Gray

25-Feb-2011, 01:09

I crop my 4x5 square. I don't have a mask on the ground glass, so occasionally I find I have composed for the whole 4x5 rectangle and I can't make a good square image from the negative. More usually though I am aiming for photographs which suggest their own extension beyond the frame (a pattern which could repeat to infinity, for example) and then it's quite easy to crop to different aspect ratios.

I like the square for it's lack of movement (gesture). Rectangles force a directed reading on the viewer, which over-specifies the message. Contrarily, the reading can be different for viewers from different cultures, which confuses the message. The symmetry and balance of the square have a quiet authority, and encourage me at least to see the photograph as an object of contemplation, not just something to be read, understood, and passed on.

The lack of direction or flow in the frame can be a guide, or something to create tension against. How much you choose to follow the centered, static aspect of the square, and how much you use it to suggest movement in the thing depicted is up to you. The same can be said of rectangles, but with a square there is no privileged direction: you can as easily set up a vertical tension as a horizontal one.

http://struangray.com/miscpics/wrack.jpg

Low springs, Achnahaird beach.

All the colour work on my website is cropped 4x5, as are the more recent colour shots I've scattered through various threads here. My B+W tends to be 6x6 MF. Inspiration has mostly come from paintings, particularly paintings of the arts-and-crafts, gesamtkunstverk era, when squares and a light abstraction were briefly common. Landscapes by Gustav Klimt and Charles Rennie Mackintosh's late watercolours have been a particular source of joy.

The same combination of subtle colourism and a square frame is rare among photographers, so most of my photographic square inspiration comes from B+W, and usually smaller formats than LF: Friedlander, Meatyard, Metzker, Gowin. There is a current wave of contemporary, square colour photography in Europe, which takes a wry look at the tawdryness and contradictions of man-made geography, and which specialises in muted colour schemes and a lack of shadows. It's tempting to join them, but the element of teenage wingeing is a little too strong for my taste.

Roger Cole

25-Feb-2011, 01:15

Neither square nor rectangle is sacred in and of itself. Some photos look best square and some rectangular. I'll happily crop in either direction. I do think the usual 4x5 and 8x10 aspect ratios are kind of dull - not square, but not rectangular enough to be really rectangular. I prefer the ratio of 35mm or 5x7 for rectangles, really, and often enough crop my 4x5 that way.

Vaughn

25-Feb-2011, 01:36

I love the square -- learned photography with a Rolleiflex. I am thinking of cutting down an 8x10 darkslide to make 8x8 images (I print alt processes, so it would be a little easier than cropping after the fact.)

I like the circular movement one can get within the square -- or the stable still image that is also possible with the square.

vaughn

DanK

25-Feb-2011, 01:50

I've never really enjoyed the square format, and only rarely while shooting 6x6cm did I actually print the image square...

I also had a heck of a time, going from 35mm to 6x6cm (as far as composition)....especially since I preferred full frame prints from 35mm...

(Which is probably why I like 5x7 now...)

Thanks,
Dan

eddie

25-Feb-2011, 03:50

I think part of why I like square format is you never have to rotate for horizontal / vertical :)

i have never really shot square formats. but a few years back i was playing with a 6x6 folder and shooting pinhole images.....i often found myself turning the camera on on end. i would get the negs back and half would be rotated.....DOH!

johnmsanderson

25-Feb-2011, 08:35

I love square. It got me back into photography big time after an on and off hiatus. I don't crop 4x5, however... I use a Mamiya C330. Mostly Provia 400X film, I'm really happy with the combination. Sometimes I stitch two 6x6 frames together.

csalem

25-Feb-2011, 09:22

The square format lends itself to one type of composition: center-the-subject. Nothing wrong with that strategy, but it does make static pictures. While I've seen plenty of 6x6 shooters push and stretch that frame, it always wants to come back to the center.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d4/Square_diagonals.svg
Maybe that's the allure of the square: battle between the gremlins of centering and the fight to make dynamic pictures.

johnmsanderson

25-Feb-2011, 09:57

Hmm... that's a bit harsh, I think. Other aspect ratios can be just as bland.

Here's some very random images I was happy with in 6x6... I actually find it quite challenging to find compositions that work in that format. For me, it works better with still life and portraiture. I see landscapes wider.

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4119/4787728749_d2bc009e50_m.jpg

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1372/4551423647_6b122954d7_m.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3502/3884494817_55d01da2f3_m.jpg

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5245/5238529819_09e2457cd9_m.jpg

Sascha Welter

25-Feb-2011, 10:10

One of my 6x9 cassettes for my Arca has an insert to crop to 6x6. I've only ever used it for one catalog production, when we were shooting lots and lots of small objects (what they use digital for these days). Somehow the incentive to use the insert and 6x6 is not big enough, especially since taking 12 pictures in large format might take a long time for me now.

I do like 6x6 with a TLR a lot though.

Ari

25-Feb-2011, 10:22

Square is fantastic; until I got back into LF three years ago, I only shot squares.
You can see them if you visit my website.
I shot people, people and more people, and it's a lovely format for portraiture, whether or not you want to compose formally.

Kirk Gittings

25-Feb-2011, 10:30

Ulrich Drolshagen

25-Feb-2011, 10:33

For me, it works better with still life and portraiture. I see landscapes wider.
I do landscape in square mostly though not large format. They are not necessarily centered. Here some examples from my website

http://www.ulrich-drolshagen.de/gallery/cache/photographic-minimalism/innvikfjord_regen4_w573_h580.jpg

http://www.ulrich-drolshagen.de/gallery/cache/photographic-minimalism/landschaft_mit_baum_diesdorf_w577_h580.jpg

http://www.ulrich-drolshagen.de/gallery/cache/photographic-minimalism/2ndlock_w576_h580.jpg
Ulrich

William McEwen

25-Feb-2011, 10:35

The square can be lovely, and using a terrific camera like a Rolleiflex can be much of the reason the experience is a good one. Some stuff fits nicely into that frame.

I have a couple of books that are collections of square photographs, and for some reason, viewing the pictures can get monotonous, at least to me.

Helmut Newton used to talk about using medium format in his fashion and portrait work. He usually planned to crop off the sides to give him a vertical rectangle.

Years later, reviewing his old work, he found he was fascinated by some of the stuff going on at those edges. He liked it and started to include it.

At the risk of letting this thread veer farther out of bounds into medium format, I can't resist posting a link to the work of Victor Ben Zvi. He uses a Rolleiflex and employs the square for his portraits and landscapes:

http://web.mac.com/victorbt/iWeb/Site/VICTOR%20BEN%20TZVI.html

engl

25-Feb-2011, 10:39

A TLR is a great way to shoot people. I love the square format for this purpose. I also like how subject interaction works with a TLR, the way the camera is operated and held low, and the sheer beauty of the things (which of course means nothing for the photo).

For the things I shoot with large format, I don't think I'd like the square format. It should be easy to mask the ground glass though, and if you are a purist (or have other reasons) you could make a square dark slide to get squares on the negatives/slides.

Kerik Kouklis

25-Feb-2011, 10:57

I've come to love the square in the last couple years now that Hasselblads are affordable. Check out David Fokos' work for someone who shoots 8x10 and crops to square (although I see he's doing some panos now, too).

http://www.davidfokos.net/latest.htm

johnmsanderson

25-Feb-2011, 11:50

I wonder if he likes Michael Kenna?

Vaughn

25-Feb-2011, 12:19

A couple of MF images, but one has to be careful of generalizations about format proportions!

Scanned prints (platinum print and a RA4 print)

paulr

25-Feb-2011, 12:30

I'd recommend spending time with the square format for anyone who hasn't. At the very least it's educational. The dynamics of the frame are completely different. Specifically, there are none; you're dealing with a completely neutral, tension-free aspect, so the interplay between the edges and what you put between them is radically different. Any formal tension needs to come from you.

I had a great time changing it up and shooting my last project with a borrowed hasselblad. The unfamiliarity of it made me think and see in new ways, and forced me out of some old habits. Conversely I'd urge anyone who shoots only with a square to try a rectangle sometime.

Jim Burk

25-Feb-2011, 12:53

Right now I find myself shooting more with my Hasselblad and a borrowed Fuji 6X9 than I am with my LFs. The square shots do require a different way of thinking. I use the 6x9 when a rectangle is dictated by the subject. Square shots outnumber rectangular about 3 to 1 for most of my photo trips.

Ken Lee

25-Feb-2011, 12:58

What are you using to scan your MF film - or are you making darkroom prints ?

Brian C. Miller

25-Feb-2011, 13:16

(Pssst ... small roll film formats go in the lounge, right?)
(Or does this let the 6x17 cat out of the bag?)

William Whitaker

25-Feb-2011, 13:17

The square format lends itself to one type of composition: center-the-subject. Nothing wrong with that strategy, but it does make static pictures. While I've seen plenty of 6x6 shooters push and stretch that frame, it always wants to come back to the center.

I don't think that's necessarily true.

http://wfwhitaker.com/gallery/misttrail.htm

Vaughn

25-Feb-2011, 13:25

(Pssst ... small roll film formats go in the lounge, right?)
(Or does this let the 6x17 cat out of the bag?)

The images are being used to demo the compositional quality of the square format, but yes we are skirting the line. Not many people compose LF for the square format and the MF images hopefully will open up peoples' eyes to the possibility.

wclavey

25-Feb-2011, 14:56

I shot square images almost exclusively (Mamiya TLRs) for almost 40 years and when I first started shooting 4x5, had very little success with the non-square frame... I agree with paulr and others - - it is different. A friend of mine, who also shoots multiple formats, but not as much square, was examining a stack of 4x5 prints I had and showed me how there was almost always a better square composition contained in each of my 4x5 images. It seems to me that 4x5 is not rectangular enough... I have recently started shooting the 4x5 with a 6x9 roll film back and I feel like I am having much better compositional success - - it is sufficiently different from square to give me something to work with.

Brian C. Miller

25-Feb-2011, 15:13

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

25-Feb-2011, 18:03

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

Like me, for instance.

Steve

Richard A Johnson

25-Feb-2011, 18:36

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

25-Feb-2011, 19:13

...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

25-Feb-2011, 20:17

...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

26-Feb-2011, 06:55

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

26-Feb-2011, 09:03

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

26-Feb-2011, 12:36

http://silverpiscis.com/Photography/SandDunes/SD1.jpg

http://silverpiscis.com/Photography/SandDunes/SD2.jpg

http://silverpiscis.com/Photography/SandDunes/SD3.jpg

http://silverpiscis.com/Photography/SandDunes/SD6.jpg

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

26-Feb-2011, 18:48

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

26-Feb-2011, 19:46

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! :D

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!

Brian C. Miller

27-Feb-2011, 00:52

OK, here we go, Peter Hujar using 8x10 for a square format:

Peter Hujar's love for the lonely (http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/visual_arts/article2999845.ece)

His idiom was always plain: black and white square-format photographs made on an old-fashioned 8x10 camera, which produced cool, classical composition and tonality.

Steve Gledhill

27-Feb-2011, 02:18

... Not many people compose LF for the square format ...
I'm sure you're right. For interest I looked over my portfolio and found 8% are square, 42% are portrait orientation and 50% are landscape with the square percentage rising over time at the expense of the landscape.

I'm an image cropper (and proud of it!) so I'm totally uninhibited or constrained by the 5x4 format.

Vaughn

27-Feb-2011, 10:18

Steve, I am basically a non-image cropper, but I am not proud nor ashamed of it...contact printing in alt processes just lends itself to the full frame.

I used a Gowland PocketView 4x5 for years. The version I have does not have a easily reversable back -- it is easier to just turn the camera 90 degrees. But I usually have it set up in portrait mode (one can remove 4 screws and shift it over to landscape). But what ever mode I have it set up in, is the mode it gets used in the most.

There are an infinite number of possible good images to take. This means that the format one uses is not the limiting factor in finding good images. That limitation lies solely with the photographer.

Steve Gledhill

28-Feb-2011, 03:50

...
There are an infinite number of possible good images to take. This means that the format one uses is not the limiting factor in finding good images. That limitation lies solely with the photographer.

Agreed, 100%.

jmooney

28-Feb-2011, 06:33

What are you using to scan your MF film - or are you making darkroom prints ?

I'm popping this question back up because I'm curious about the scanning as well.

Ken Lee

28-Feb-2011, 08:04

In a different thread, he mentioned that he scanned the 6x6 with an Epson 700.

Marko

28-Feb-2011, 08:08

http://48pixels.com/images/cc_005a.jpg
4x5 crop

http://48pixels.com/images/ym_cp_005.jpg
Yashica Mat 124G

Both scanned using Epson V700

paulr

28-Feb-2011, 08:35

...the format one uses is not the limiting factor in finding good images. That limitation lies solely with the photographer.

Looking at it another way, every format, every form, offers a unique set of capabilities and limitations. Creative people use even the limitations as strengths.

I'm fascinated by artists who choose especially confining limitations: Weston making nothing but 8x10 contact prints for many years; Cartier-Bresson using nothing but a 50mm lens; Shakespeare writing nothing but sonnets.

If you are constrained by a particular box, you learn your way around that box really well. Through familiarity, the walls can become collaborators and muses, not just barriers.

Steve Gledhill

28-Feb-2011, 08:35

The square format has the added attraction of being relatively rare. I'd guess only a few percent of all final images, mine included, are square. It almost commands an additional look at the image because its format is slightly unfamiliar.

http://www.virtuallygrey.co.uk/files/9311/1872fontelmleycastle.jpg

The Font - Elmley Castle Church
The base of this font is four thirteenth century carved dragons. The bowl is two or three hundred years newer.

Ken Lee

28-Feb-2011, 08:52

Both scanned using Epson V700

May I ask, how large do you print these images (6x6 scanned on v700) ?

Marko

28-Feb-2011, 20:45

May I ask, how large do you print these images (6x6 scanned on v700) ?

Not large at all, I usually make them fit to an 8x10 piece of paper.

John Voss

1-Mar-2011, 16:45

I love square format and often crop to it regardless of the origin of the negative. This one is from a 4x5 negative made with a 250mm Fujinon lens.

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-ZuuXKzK5PcY/TW2ExyxewgI/AAAAAAAAAqY/vaMglZvygQg/s1600/willowwood3.jpg

Dennis

1-Mar-2011, 17:27

Roger Cole

1-Mar-2011, 19:33

I work in square a lot because I love my Rolleiflex. But truthfully I wish my Rollei shot 6x7 because I get really tired of square.
Regarding the centering of composition, I also feel the pull of the center due to the strength of the corners converging right in the center and it is hard to pull away from that.
Regarding Michael Kenna, if you look closely at his work you will see that he very often, maybe usually, crops out of square. He does it only slightly but enough to subtly make the image feel more vertical or more horizontal. I think his use of the near square juxtaposed with the square is very powerful.
Dennis

So how about putting some fine removable (dry erase maybe?) crop marks on the ground glass indicating both vertical and horizontal 6x4.5 (or 6x4 or whatever ratio you prefer, but to keep with the "wish it shot 6x7" theme) and compose using those, with the added bonus of not needing to turn the camera?

6x4.5 isn't 6x7 in terms of negative area of course, but at most normal sizes of enlargement it isn't going to make much difference with modern film.

Dennis

1-Mar-2011, 22:33

So how about putting some fine removable (dry erase maybe?) crop marks on the ground glass indicating both vertical and horizontal 6x4.5 (or 6x4 or whatever ratio you prefer, but to keep with the "wish it shot 6x7" theme) and compose using those, with the added bonus of not needing to turn the camera?

6x4.5 isn't 6x7 in terms of negative area of course, but at most normal sizes of enlargement it isn't going to make much difference with modern film.

My brain doesn't work that way. I compose with the most image area the camera will give me.
Dennis