chippy
foo was here
just following on from a converstion to do with format size in the 6x4.5 thread on cameras, and thought it may be better to start a seperate thread. perhaps people can discuss what works for them in composing a square format and perhaps why, or what difficulties people have in using the square format. considering there are ample 6x6 folders out there it may be interesting and helpful to share. posting pictures as examples would be good too
Hey oftheheard,
yeah6x6 definately takes some getting used to ,particularly when most people have trained their eye to composing with retangular formats, it requires i think a different way of looking at things and composing. some shots just dont suit it at all while others are best seen in the square format i think. just something very pleasant about them. they can also suit being framed and hanging on their own in the right place or in group very nicely which just cant be appreciated over the net.
one of my kids scanned this one (low quality from the print) at school (some people know i havnt got a scanner yet) its by no means a perfect example and a number of other shots from the same roll were much better but they chose to scan this because of the white golliwog --funny how kids minds work! go figure. others pictures had a big pumkin from the kitchen with vine leaves from out side and others had flowers from the garden which seemed to look better but ah well.....also they stuffed up the scan as they seemed to have cropped/shifted a little off one side. it wasnt done in a studio or the lighting would have been better with more highlight in the eyes ect. just that someone wanted a few quick pics done in the lounge room so i put a sheet up and a couple of ordinary cheap camera flashes sitting on a shelf or whatever and bounced them around a bit--think i got paid with a few glasses of red wine lol.
never the less what works for me (i am sure some others know all the technical terms, but i like to keep it simple) is i often like to form triangles or 'L' shapes ect and this pic more or less demonstrates that. even tho the child is in the middle i think it still works where it probably wouldnt look as balanced (kinda arkward) in a rectangle format if she was in the middle
6x7 would be fine (i quite like it, enlarges not bad to standard frame sizes) but i just never got around to using that gear, maybe i would have if i shot more just in the studio as most of the 6x7 stuff i was likely/or like to get is pretty huge/weighty. 6x9 is one of my favourite (especialy for a carry around camera) same aspect ratio as 35mm (but on steriods) of course and simular to 6x4.5 if you imagine a litle bit cropped of the end of it..just so much bigger neg to work with and IMO i notice the differance even in the smallest prints. but the 6x6 when you get it to work is very appealing i think
Hey oftheheard,
yeah6x6 definately takes some getting used to ,particularly when most people have trained their eye to composing with retangular formats, it requires i think a different way of looking at things and composing. some shots just dont suit it at all while others are best seen in the square format i think. just something very pleasant about them. they can also suit being framed and hanging on their own in the right place or in group very nicely which just cant be appreciated over the net.
one of my kids scanned this one (low quality from the print) at school (some people know i havnt got a scanner yet) its by no means a perfect example and a number of other shots from the same roll were much better but they chose to scan this because of the white golliwog --funny how kids minds work! go figure. others pictures had a big pumkin from the kitchen with vine leaves from out side and others had flowers from the garden which seemed to look better but ah well.....also they stuffed up the scan as they seemed to have cropped/shifted a little off one side. it wasnt done in a studio or the lighting would have been better with more highlight in the eyes ect. just that someone wanted a few quick pics done in the lounge room so i put a sheet up and a couple of ordinary cheap camera flashes sitting on a shelf or whatever and bounced them around a bit--think i got paid with a few glasses of red wine lol.
never the less what works for me (i am sure some others know all the technical terms, but i like to keep it simple) is i often like to form triangles or 'L' shapes ect and this pic more or less demonstrates that. even tho the child is in the middle i think it still works where it probably wouldnt look as balanced (kinda arkward) in a rectangle format if she was in the middle
6x7 would be fine (i quite like it, enlarges not bad to standard frame sizes) but i just never got around to using that gear, maybe i would have if i shot more just in the studio as most of the 6x7 stuff i was likely/or like to get is pretty huge/weighty. 6x9 is one of my favourite (especialy for a carry around camera) same aspect ratio as 35mm (but on steriods) of course and simular to 6x4.5 if you imagine a litle bit cropped of the end of it..just so much bigger neg to work with and IMO i notice the differance even in the smallest prints. but the 6x6 when you get it to work is very appealing i think
Windscale
Well-known
I have many 120 cameras. All 6x6 except one 6x45. I shoot 120 mainly. I like the square format for easy composing in the sense that I won't have to worry about horizontals or verticals which I can crop later if I want to. A square picture also leaves the right space below it for adding captions or decriptions. My favourite camera is my Super Isolette which I just had the bellows replaced.
dazedgonebye
Veteran
I like 6x6 for what it is. I don't shoot square figuring to crop to rectangular later. The shape of the viewfinder drives the composition for me.
Basically, sometimes like square pictures, so sometimes that's what I shoot.
I'm the same way with 3:2. I seldom crop to the more conventional 4:5, even for printing. I pay more for custom mats and frames as necessary.
I'm on my second 6x7 camera and I still haven't fallen in love with that ratio.
Basically, sometimes like square pictures, so sometimes that's what I shoot.
I'm the same way with 3:2. I seldom crop to the more conventional 4:5, even for printing. I pay more for custom mats and frames as necessary.
I'm on my second 6x7 camera and I still haven't fallen in love with that ratio.
chippy
foo was here
Steve i tend to agree, i just hate wasting any negative and try to compose each shot as i go. with shooting wedding though i would often crop some to a retangular format (wedding party pictures ect often suit a retangular format)
Sam N
Well-known
Aesthetically, I love square-format. I also like TLRs. It's certainly not the most practical for printing or professional use.
luketrash
Trying to find my range
It's challenging for me. When I have a rectangle viewfinder, I can always tell you what orientation looks better for my composition. I almost shoot more vertical than horizontal.
Meanwhile with my 6x6 stuff, it almost always feels wrong to me. I'm not opposed to cropping, but I have trouble visualizing a rectangle composition with my square viewfinder. I should practice. I always feel I have to fill the full frame with a composition of some sort.
What ends up happening is that the rule of 3rds gets thrown out the window and I directly center the subject too often.
I shot this last night and am happy with it, but I must say that it's tricky to find compositions that are balanced like this. At least for me it is. I see the world in a different way (rectangle.)
Meanwhile with my 6x6 stuff, it almost always feels wrong to me. I'm not opposed to cropping, but I have trouble visualizing a rectangle composition with my square viewfinder. I should practice. I always feel I have to fill the full frame with a composition of some sort.
What ends up happening is that the rule of 3rds gets thrown out the window and I directly center the subject too often.
I shot this last night and am happy with it, but I must say that it's tricky to find compositions that are balanced like this. At least for me it is. I see the world in a different way (rectangle.)
Wayno
Well-known
I love the square, it feels natural to me.
Fantastic shot Luke - what a great catch! Interestingly I also tend to shoot a high proportion of vertical shots when I'm using a rectangular format.
Fantastic shot Luke - what a great catch! Interestingly I also tend to shoot a high proportion of vertical shots when I'm using a rectangular format.
W
wlewisiii
Guest
I enjoy shooting to the square. When I use a 6x6 camera, I try to avoid needing to crop anything - which is ironic as I always shoot retangular formats loose and expect to crop them.
I find the classic rules of composition are easier to apply to the square than to the more typical rectangle formats.
I have a 6x6 back coming for my 2x3 Speed Graphic and I hope to do some serious work this fall and winter in that format.
William
I find the classic rules of composition are easier to apply to the square than to the more typical rectangle formats.
I have a 6x6 back coming for my 2x3 Speed Graphic and I hope to do some serious work this fall and winter in that format.
William
charjohncarter
Veteran
All formats are great, you just have to think about composing for each format. Sorry, I couldn't think of another word for format (so I used it twice) in the previous sentence, email me one if you have one. I have been 'thinking' 35mm so long that even 6x7 or APS digital (which I don't do but once a month, {APS}) are hard. Photography is a creative art, you just have to create in other formats.
Last edited:
chippy
foo was here
interesting picture Luke. compostion wise i'm not sure what opinions are but perhaps the staircase throws it out somewhat (where it ends), although i am not sure that you could of gotten around that and the more i look at it it seems better, it kinda leads your eye to the lightening. the oval shape opening to the sky looks good and obviously to capture the lightning is special..very nice picture, wish i could just walk outside and capture lightning on a casual night lol
i wonder is the rule of thirds really not useful in square format or just the understanding and use of the intersection of the points different. trying to say that if you slice up the square like the face of a rubix cube and place key objects or parts of an overall object at those intersecting points in whatever shape you can manage it seems to work e.g. two points of interest at intersecting points while a third object can inhabit a space or intersecting point, thus making a triangle. no doubt there must be some literature around on this but i have just used the square without too much problem.
so like this picture the boy is near the bottom left intersecting point and on the left third of frame. in Steves avatar the childs eye (which leads you into the other) and his face are at one point and the top third line and the mother occupies another intersection and a square section
i wonder is the rule of thirds really not useful in square format or just the understanding and use of the intersection of the points different. trying to say that if you slice up the square like the face of a rubix cube and place key objects or parts of an overall object at those intersecting points in whatever shape you can manage it seems to work e.g. two points of interest at intersecting points while a third object can inhabit a space or intersecting point, thus making a triangle. no doubt there must be some literature around on this but i have just used the square without too much problem.
so like this picture the boy is near the bottom left intersecting point and on the left third of frame. in Steves avatar the childs eye (which leads you into the other) and his face are at one point and the top third line and the mother occupies another intersection and a square section
Last edited:
dazedgonebye
Veteran
Here's a square I like.
