a set style of shooting?

back alley

IMAGES
Local time
2:13 AM
Joined
Jul 30, 2003
Messages
41,289
yesterday, by accident, i took a square shot on my xe3...i've always liked square images, used to shoot exclusively with a pair of mamiya 6 bodies...i like how they look hanging, framed on the wall.
i started thinking that i might shoot square again, keep on using the acros film simulation and adopt this 'style' of camera use.

others might have already adopted their own style of camera use and so now i am curious if you guys have done just that?
 
I like square too, and as you said, square photos seem to look better framed and hanging. My problem, other than not wanting to tote medium format cameras anymore, is that when I go to thrift stores to look for gallery frames that I can repurpose, square is very hard to find. I should probably just make a jig and cut the frames down to square because I have a lot of 2 1/4 X 2 1/4 negs. I always found the square to be easier to compose a shot with than the other ratios too.
 
Yes, square is a format I find less frequently.

6 by 6 square format I like and I don’t crop it when making prints in my darkroom as they are square. 8 by 10 becomes 8 by 8 and so on.

For my enlarger, an Omega B-22, 6x6 is the biggest negative it will entirely show.

Kinda like the photographer, square! Ha!
 
Although I like viewing square photos, I have less success framing and composing within a square. My mind is wired for 3:2 aspect ratio and I can't--or don't want to--break out of the mindset.
 
I'm dedicated to 35mm, so I'm trying to compose my shots so I won't be cropping anything. But then I crop all the time.
Thanks for reminding me how bad I am at photography.
 
I go through phases. I'll spend a while being glued to 35mm and then I'll remember how much fun it is to shoot square and stick with TLRs for a while. Then maybe to folders or back to 35.... I'm pretty schizophrenic when it comes to gear and I have a lot of old cameras but rather than my style dictating the type of camera I use I find it's the other way around for me; the gear I'm using dictates how I compose and how I shoot.

It keeps it interesting and fun for me, although I bet I'd be a much better photographer if I stuck to one thing and spent more time trying to master it.
 
I shoot the format. Not for any lofty reason, I just struggle to visualise something different when I'm shooting.

But like David, I end up cropping in post, but it's never my intention when shooting.
 
I use many formats, but for some reason I like my 6x6 format the best. I like it best because of the quality of the images. I feel like I can walk the 1/2 mile to the freeway and take a picture of the overpass and the freeway, and it will be a winner. They probably are not winners but at least I feel like they will be.
 
I don't shoot a lot of square format, but do find plenty of frames when shooting other formats that look better with a square crop. Sometimes this is a personal decision at the time of exposure, making sure there is plenty of image to work with, then other times I just happen to notice it in post. Like with my RFF avatar. Taken with a 35mm SLR, it just looked so much better as a square image.

PF
 
My favorite is 6x7, fell for it when i got an RZ67. I seem to crop to 11x14 on nearly all my shots so it fit nicely.
 
I enjoy shooting 1:1, and go through periods where that's all I shoot.
I have noted over the years that when I shoot 3:2 (2:3) I end up cropping to 8:10 (10:8) or close to that. Leads me to think that I inherently see compositions in 8:10 even within a 3:2 viewfinder.
I have often lamented that Fuji does not provide 8:10 frame lines in their viewfinders.
 
I shoot both 1:1, mostly 6 x 6 cm, and rectangular, 35mm and occasionally 6 x 4.5 cm.

When I am using Lenka, a B&W phone camera application, I generally set it to the square format as I like the look.

Steve W.
 
I find 2x3 (35mm) too wide but 6x7 or 4x5 too square.

645 works best for me ... unfortunately, since, though fine when I shoot film, no digital camera I know of has a setting that allows that crop.
 
I typically use 24x36mm. In fact all the time.;)
I try to fill the frame at time of exposure and not to crop after the fact if it ain't necessary. Cropping by using camera settings, i.e. not using the entire sensor when exposing the image ... doesn't really make a lot of sense to me. But hey, if it inspires you to get out there and shoot more images that you like, go for it.
 
Square and BW? It was "the style" for decades. Diane Arbus and Vivian Maier.
Shouldn't be a problem now. Square and BW.
 
Printing is the problem if you don't buy paper by the roll you waste a lot. So you either crop or waste paper on a grand scale from A4.

EDIT; After a couple of hours the brain started working and you can get a couple of squares out of an "A" size printing paper. One large and one tiny plus a bit left over that's 1:√2 aspect ratio. Here's a rough photo of a rough sketch on a rough piece of scrap paper.

Square-XL.jpg


Look at it full screen and the photo doesn't look square, does it?

Regards, David
 
I find 2x3 (35mm) too wide but 6x7 or 4x5 too square.

645 works best for me ... unfortunately, since, though fine when I shoot film, no digital camera I know of has a setting that allows that crop.


Hi,

645 is 3:4 (or perhaps 4:3) and a lot of them do that, don't they? My little toy does and 16:9 and 3:2 and square...

Regards, David


PS Yet another decision forced on you by digital to confuse you and slow you down...
 
In my opinion, more essential than the crop is the focal length (which is a kind of "crop" of one's vision).

Sticking with one focal length (for me it is 50mm) and learning how to see the 50mm "crop" in my mind before I even frame the shot helps me to see and find photographs in a more efficient manner.

We must always try to remember that as photographers we don't take pictures of things. We make pictures out of things. Beautiful things do not always make for beautiful photographs, and beautiful photographs are not always of beautiful things.
 
Back
Top Bottom