6x7 or Square... which is better?

[Carterofmars]

6x7 or Square... which is better?

Simple question seeking simple answer. 😉

 

[Roger Hicks]

56x72mm Linhof enlarged 3x = whole-plate (6.5 x 8.5 inches, 168 x 216 mm), indistinguishable from a contact print.

No contest as far as I am concerned.

Cheers,

R.

 

[aizan]

that one.

yeah, definitely that one.

 

[ruby.monkey]

6x7 or Square... which is better?

Mu.

 

[Krzys]

6x7 is already a rectangle if you need it and crop to 6x6 if you need a square. 6x6 means you need to crop even smaller to get a rectangle.

I don't see the world in squares so this is a big point for me. Some people get square vision and only show their photos as the native 6x6 which kind of gets on my nerve sometimes as I can see a lot of valid and nice looking crops within their oddly proportioned square.

 

[Santtu Määttänen]

Square is always square, the best image format there is 🙂 After I got my first TLR I fell in love with square. I don't do too much pictures in that format since I rarely use TLR anymore, but when I do I always fell in love again and start seeing the world in squares. Besides it's a easy format to crop from 🙂

Besides there ain't much extra on 6x7, so if going towards rectangle I would go straight to 6x9 or some panoramic (6x12 or so).

But in the end it's personal preference, many pro photographers love 6x7 and there must be a reason for that 🙂

 

[Roger Hicks]

This one is a bit like religion.

If you have to ask the question, you probably won't understand the answer. Especially someone else's answer.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Jamie123]

I don't see the world in squares so this is a big point for me. Some people get square vision and only show their photos as the native 6x6 which kind of gets on my nerve sometimes as I can see a lot of valid and nice looking crops within their oddly proportioned square.

But you see the world in rectangles? That's odd.

 

[Krzys]

But you see the world in rectangles? That's odd.

Yes since my two eyes are besides each other so I generally scan the scene from side to side.

i leave my 6x6 as square often but I do know when to crop them unlike some.

Sergej Lopatyuk, a Ukranian photographer, said that we crop too much of our lives to crop our photographs...but that is as logical as publishing unedited writings. I still really enjoy his work though. Just making a point for this thread.

 

[oftheherd]

This one is a bit like religion.

If you have to ask the question, you probably won't understand the answer. Especially someone else's answer.

Cheers,

R.

Pretty much so.

 

[andredossantos]

I can see a lot of valid and nice looking crops within their oddly proportioned square.

You see "oddly proportioned", I see the perfect format. I've always felt that peoples stretched out rectangles had a lot of valid square crops inside 🙂

 

[Krzys]

You see "oddly proportioned", I see the perfect format. I've always felt that peoples stretched out rectangles had a lot of valid square crops inside 🙂

Equally I see crops inside your squares. I have nothing against a square photo...it is just that a lot of the ones I see from amateurs could work better with a rectangular crop. When a square works it really works well - the perfect format, as you say.

 

[andredossantos]

I agree. However, what looks better or works better is subjective to the viewer. Someone saying they see a better crop in this format or someone else saying they see a better one in that format goes nowhere since we can both be right. Right?!? 🙂

 

[Krzys]

Nah you just shoot half frame and nobody will tell you to crop any further.

 

[Jamie123]

Yes since my two eyes are besides each other so I generally scan the scene from side to side.

I think that's a vast misconception about how we see things. The eyes are not a camera. Firstly, we usually don't ''scan'' a scene from side to side. When you look at something your eyes usually move all over the place in no orderly fashion. Secondly, just because your eyes are besides each other doesn't mean that you ''see in rectangles''. At most one could say that our field of view is a very round oval.

On the other hand, one could argue that since an object we look at is in the center of our field of view (the Fovea, the point of absolute sharpness in the eye, is in the center of the Retina) the ''natural'' way of composing a picture would be a central composition, as it is often done in square pictures.

Anyways, there are all sorts of legitimate reasons why some people prefer specific aspect ratios but I don't think there's any ''naturalistic'' argument to be made.

 

[Carterofmars]

I'm interested in this communities opinions.

This one is a bit like religion.

If you have to ask the question, you probably won't understand the answer. Especially someone else's answer.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Spyro]

Square is better when it works but 6X7 is easier to make work. 3:2 is easier even.
With square I find I am often forced to include things up and down I'd normally leave out of the photo because they dont add anything meaningful, things like more sky, the 2nd floor of a building, more asphalt, someones crotch 😛
But if you find the right subject for square, it just...works.

IMHO of course 🙂

 

[Leigh Youdale]

One thing I've noticed with my Rolleiflex since I fitted a Maxwell grid screen in it - I can shoot square, or I can shoot landscape or portrait by using the outermost gridlines to frame a vertical rectangle or a horizontal one, knowing that I'll crop the image accordingly once the film is processed. And I don't have to twist the camera around!
Wouldn't work for a lot of 6x6 cameras though.

 

[Krzys]

At most one could say that our field of view is a very round oval.

Look straight ahead and pay attention to what you see directly and in your peripherals. Your will see more to your sides than above and below....if you don't agree tilt your head fully sideways and do it again.

 

[jsrockit]

I like square and I hate cropping.