Framing with 6X6?

[jrong]

Most people do not print in the square format, because they shoot in rectangular formats. 😉

Of those who shoot in the square format, I really don't know many who then crop their prints. Do you? I can print my 6x6 negs onto 8x10 paper and just crop off the excess. People shoot square, mostly because we want square prints. This strikes me as a "no-brainer", as the Americans might put it. 🙂

I got into the square format relatively recently, and am enjoying it, although it does give a whole new feel and look to your landscapes. I find it a whole lot easier to use than the unwieldy 6x7 format, which has befuddled me to this day. I think it's down to the individual photographer and how he/she "sees", whether the square can be used successfully or not. I personally find it very elegant... everything is encapsulated within a square, there are no loose ends, etc.

 

[GeneW]

I've always enjoyed 'composing in the square' with my 120 cams: http://www.pbase.com/gwilburn/in_the_square

If you do your own matting and mounting, exhibiting square prints is not difficult.

Gene

 

[BrianShaw]

Some images are square and can't be rectangles no matter how much they are cropped. Seeing square seems to take some people time. Some have said that they cannot do it no matter how hard they try. I shoot all shapes but often feel confined with rectangular viewfinders 😎

 

[RayPA]

Most people do not print in the square format, because they shoot in rectangular formats. 😉

I think it is as simple as that. When I shot exclusively 6x6, I printed square, and as close to full frame as I could get. It was rare that I cropped or "reformatted" a 6x6 square to a rectangle. I don't wet print anymore, and I shoot way more 35mm now. However, as much as possible, I still respect the aspect ratio when cropping and scanning.


🙂

 

[MikeyGaGa]

Gone But Not Forgetten

Gone But Not Forgetten

Mattock:

Yes,the Henle column and the others you mentioned age gone,but please remember that in the arts and sciences we build upon what was worthwhile in the past and discard the rest. we dont make Daguerreotypes any more,but we still marvel at them.

When I brought up how the square vs rectangle controversy was a heated one years ago,It was not my intention to condone it-Its all pretty ridiculous-then as now.

There is a history as to why photo paper comes in certain rectangular sizes,which begin with the whole development of movable type printing,book designing and binder in England centuries age-an English designed I once worked with explained it to me (Quarto size,etc.) Perhaps one of our British friends can explain.

Selection of format is a PERSONAL matter,and is one of the perogatives we exercise as photgrapher-artists.

I used to enjoy printing 8x8 or 11X11 BWs from my Rollei negs-I cut the paper in the dark first,then used the 2 and 3 inch strips for tests!

Mikey GaGa

 

[Pherdinand]

I cut the paper in the dark first,then used the 2 and 3 inch strips for tests!

Mikey GaGa

How many fingers do you still have?

 

[edodo]

I am here to tell that in france, its hard to buy a 120 slide or film bw or color anywhere even in popular specialized photo shops. Trying to get a 120 velvia done is impossible anywhere but sending to a factory to get it back 1 week later. Buying 120 slide film for anyone not living or already knowing a old photogs shop is simply impossible but buying online. So yes, square format is really rare, and the digital photo industry can only make it worse.

But I I love my rolleicord 3. I still shoot slides and love the square format that just changes from my vintage leica and my pentax Me. I shoot slides cause I mostly don't print so the cropping for me is ineffective.

Keep on square-framing guys!

 

[titrisol]

Not really, shooting on one or the other cropping is a wonderful tool

Anyone had any problems getting used to framing with a 6X6 (square) verses a rectangular frame like 35mm. I'm curious if a square format isn't better suited for one type of photography, like portraits compaired to a 6X9 which maintains the 2X3 ratio of 35mm. I'm more into landscape and general photography than portraits. Is the square format hard to get used to for general use? Please post examples. Thank you, Jim

 

[MikeyGaGa]

Digit-alas

Digit-alas

How many fingers do you still have?

Just a left thumb and a right index finger;but its OK-I shoot with Exaktas and Rollei 35s.

Mikey GaGa

 

[Fedzilla_Bob]

There is no square, there is only the image

 

[Nearsighted]

El Guapo, Are you still taking your blood pressure meds? I know you have a problem controlling that plethora of yours. 😱 It looks like square is alive and well. I'm really suprised at how many people replyed. I was wondering if anyone would. Thanks to you all for the input and examples.

 

[Todd.Hanz]

it's hip to be square, it just takes practice. I carry a TLR or Hassy around with me everywhere and am always looking through the WLF. I love the square and hardly ever crop from it, if I shoot it square I print it square.



Todd

 

[bmattock]

El Guapo, Are you still taking your blood pressure meds? I know you have a problem controlling that plethora of yours. 😱 It looks like square is alive and well. I'm really suprised at how many people replyed. I was wondering if anyone would. Thanks to you all for the input and examples.

Ah, so it was a setup. Nice. You ask a question, everybody spouts bs, and the jokes on me. Fine. Shove it. See ya.

 

[Nearsighted]

No offence intended Bill. I appoligize. I am as interested in your opinion as anyone elses. You are a little sensitive though. Jim

 

[ghost]

after looking at lee friedlander's newer photos taken with the hassy swc, i'd say that 6x6 is the best platform for superwide lenses.

 

[DougK]

This discussion got interesting really quickly, but I think Bill's right about the cropping part. I always have to specify to the lab to print the proofs square. Not sure why, maybe it's just because my favorite lab techs left and I'm having to break in new ones. Damn kids these days... ahem. Moving on, then.

Why do I like the square format better? Well, it isn't because the square is intrinsically better than the rectangle. Maybe it's because I have to work harder to get the shot and thus am more satisfied with and connected to the resulting photo. Maybe it's because I have a harder time holding the camera steady when I switch orientations. Maybe it's because I'm sick of seeing the same old rectangular shape in everyone's photos and squares seem fresher (as do panoramas, but that would be a different topic). Heck, it could just be that I like cameras with a waist-level finder better and the cameras I have with a WLF all happen to shoot 6x6.

The square is a fun format to work with. Try it, you might like it. If you don't, you don't.

I think I'll go drink beer now.

 

[SalmanA]

I've only shot one roll of 6x6 frames with my new (old really) Yashica Mat 124 TLR, and I didn't have any particular problems with it compared to rectangular 35mm framing. I had more of an issue with the left-to-right flipped image but not with the square framing. But it was only my first roll, so time will tell.

Anyone had any problems getting used to framing with a 6X6 (square) verses a rectangular frame like 35mm. I'm curious if a square format isn't better suited for one type of photography, like portraits compaired to a 6X9 which maintains the 2X3 ratio of 35mm. I'm more into landscape and general photography than portraits. Is the square format hard to get used to for general use? Please post examples. Thank you, Jim

 

[SalmanA]

check out the work of keith carter. his work within the square is incredible and at times almost magical. simplicity. focus & out of focus. light & dark. soul & heart.

Is this the Keith Carter you were referring to:

http://www.keithcarterphotographs.com/

His work looks amazing.

 

[smiling gecko]

...quack, quack, quack!! 😛 so much flap!! 😛

...and no, bill, my feathers are not ruffled. bill, i must have missed something because i don't see who or what sparked the volume or tenor of your responses.

...and i thank the stars above i am not "most people". period. 😛

...and it is most reasonable and most constructive and most informative to share knowledge about different approachs to the square with someone inquiring about 6x6 framing. period.

...as far as "normal" goes...wow...there's a can 'o worms.

...and as far as "reality" goes...i avoid it like the purple plague whenever i can as long as i "do no harm" to others... authors like tom robbins and the late-great-but-not-forgotten-scotch drinking & sharing hunter s thompson had as good grip on reality as i need...i had the incredible opportunity to meet, hang out & photograph him after an appearance in austin in the '80's - but that's another story for another time....

...and no one can be right about everything for everyone. period. quaaaaaaccccckkkk!!! 😛

...enough attempts to wax eloquent, gonna go wax my car, or maybe my wife's bikini line...

...vive le difference!! ne vous inquitez pas !! ummm, live & let live ?? that's an idea....

thanks again for wading through the stream of consciusness surrounding my isle in the stream and for not splashing water...apologies, a nod & wink to papa & his many, many cats. quaacckk! 😛

(and yes, salmanA, that is the keith carter i was referring to. thanks for posting the link to his site here. met him at one of his shows & he is a genuine down-to-earth guy & a living treasure, teaching at lamar univ in beaumont, texas)

hasta la vista, adieu, dazvidanya, fino al prossimo tempo, auf wiedersehen, and later y’all
kenneth
_______________________________________
"...patience and shuffle the cards" miguel cervantes
"nothing can be learned" herman hesse
"everybody knows everything" jack kerouac
"some memories are realities and better than anything" willa cather
" doo-wacka doo, wacka doo" roger miller
"we have met the enemy and they is us !" walt kelly (pogo)
“a mans cartilage is his fate” phillip roth

 

[Bertram2]

Please google Fritz Henle for his writings on Square composition-he was the master and his explanation is far better that my attempt here.

Your attempt was brilliant, a knowledgeable contribution, leaves nothing to add for me , except probably the word of the "static " format , a widespread objection. I don't find it static per se tho.

Regards,
bertram