Framing with 6X6?

[Nearsighted]

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

 

[x-ray]

I find rectangular harder to use than square but then i've been shooting square for over fourty years. It's all in what you're used to.

http://www.photo.net/photos/X-Ray

 

[bmattock]

The simple advantage of 6x6 is that you don't have to tip the camera over to take portrait versus landscape shots. In any case, you are generally going to have to crop to print, unless you're a bit of an odd duck who prints square enlargements.

Even a simple 8x10 enlargement challenges a 35mm shooter - 8x10 is actually a 4x5 frame doubled - and 35mm is 4x6. So if you compose 'tight' in 35mm, you end up chopping off heads and so forth when you print 8x10.

With 6x6, you still have to practice composition in the camera. The difference is that you can mentally compose in either portrait or landscape without tipping the camera over to accomplish this.

That's the big advantage of 6x6. It is, however, wasteful of film. The 6x4.5 guys will be quick to tell you that. Big deal, says I.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[DougK]

Well, this gentleman doesn't seem to have any problems with the square format for landscapes: http://www.fotografiewimvanvelzen.nl/home.htm. If I remember correctly there are a few shots that are cropped but he shoots almost exclusively with a 6x6 Rollei SLR.

 

[bmattock]

Well, this gentleman doesn't seem to have any problems with the square: http://www.fotografiewimvanvelzen.nl/home.htm.

If I remember correctly there are a few shots that are cropped but he shoots almost exclusively with a 6x6 Rollei SLR.

Actually, it appears that quite a few are cropped. And in any case, I don't have any problems with the 6x6 format used without cropping, please don't get me wrong.

My point was and is that most of us who print, do so in the more-or-less traditional rectangular formats - 4x6, 8x10, and 11x14 (I don't know the UK/Euro equivalents). That's not to say you can't print in a square format - clearly you can. It can be more expensive, because it is less common. Framing and matting can be more expensive, for the same reason.

So when it comes down to it, you have to consider the use to which your photos will ultimately be put when you compose in your viewfinder, yes? If you compose using the entire 6x6 frame, you're going to have a difficult time printing to 8x10 unless you crop heavily on the sides or top/bottom.

And that's the beauty of 6x6 - no need to tilt the camera all wonky angles, just compose either landscape or portrait in your mind's eye and hammer away. Crop later.

But if you like 6x6 for the sake of the square format - no trouble at all with that!

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[MikeyGaGa]

RIP,Mr.ROLLEI

RIP,Mr.ROLLEI

When I learned photography in the 1960s,the Rolleiflex and other 6X6 TLRS and SLRs were in widespread use for day to day work.

There was a column in modern photography magazine written by Fritz Henle-"Mr.Rollei",which often touched on this issue. It was a contentious argument between two opposing schools

The "Down with the Square" school held that the square frame was merely a consequence of the desire to use the full covering power of a lens and also theway F&H reconfigured their stereo camera to make the Rolleiflex;they held that the square was quite unnatural,that it violated the "Golden Mean" proportion establish by the Greeks in the Parthanon;that the square made it difficult to arrange subjects in pleasing balanced compositions. Additionally,human vision sees things in a horozontal rectangle(actually not true-it more like a butterfly shape,and besides,the brain alters visual perception constantly)

Those,like Fritz Henle who favored the square argued otherwise. Indeed,if you scan a book of masterpiece paintings,a certain number of them are square compositions. The old pedantic rules of composition-the rule of 3rds for example could be used with the square shape.

Most of us who love photography love cameras-in part because each model has its own quirks and strengths,and because each camera has an influence on what we shoot and how.

When I did professional work,I used what worked;what gave the client what he wanted.

In my spare time,when I could shoot for myself,I used a Rolleiflex(even though I had a Hasselblad). I wanted to be challanged-I wanted to be able to find a subject(for example,Belvedere Castle in Central Park)and get a definitive shot of it
with just one camera. When you look down onto the focus screen of a fixed lens TLR,it is very much different than looking through a 35mm. Instintively,you will decide with a 35mm if vertical or horozontal is called for-you frame and take the shot.
When you look onto the screen of the Rollei,nothing about the subject seems to fit-so you walk around,postion and reposition until the square is filled with a balance of subject background and foreground.

If you practice-you can learn to use and love the square;it puts the subject in promenance in a way the rectangle cannot.

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

 

[pvdhaar]

I find 6x6 easier to compose than 35mm, but that may well depend on the topic at hand. 6x6 gives a more relaxed composition very well suited to landscape, while 35mm seems more dynamic.

Also, 6x6 gives you some compositional possibilities that 35mm doesn't. Especially for subjects that can't be easily placed as per the rule of thirds. 6x6 allows centered subjects in a way that would be uncomfortable within a rectangular frame.

All three below taken with 80mm on 6x6 (middle one with close up adapter)..

 

[pvdhaar]

Hmm, with 3 uploads max per post, I didn't really get to show the smack in the middle composition..

 

[Dougg]

I have not gotten along well with square-format cameras in general. I think it's that common waist-level reflex viewing that gets me all confused about left and that other left. But I have used a square-format RF, and Instamatics too, with which I have tended to compose to the proportions of the viewfinder. Some subjects are better rectangular, but just as MikeyGaGa said there's a propensity for finding a pleasing way to fill the frame.

 

[smiling gecko]

...quack, quack, quack!! 😛 i'm one of those odd ducks that print square - since i am already taking more time with my framing i usually print square - and i still use the common rectangular frames that are so abundant.

i use my four-bladed easel to set-up my square and then position it where there is more white at the bottom of the rectangle. the resulting print looks like the no-longer produced polaroid time zero prints...i was a huge fan of the sx-70 and made alots and lots and lots of instant images...some keepers and some, umm, well......in part, i suppose i was drawn to make my enlargements as i do as a result of all those sx-70 images.

on the occasions i want to emphasize the square i will seek a square frame...happy hunting there. somewhere on rff i discovered ikea - the home furnishing folks - stock a variety of styles & sizes of square frames. sometimes i will opt for the make-your-frame route at craft type shops for really good size enlargements.

my first awareness and appreciation of things square had to be the work of harry callahan.

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.

...of course i was hooked by all those hasselblad promo shots using the square...however, almost all the portraits and headshots and so on i did for clients were cropped to fit rectangular frames.

i wonder what ansel adams prints would have looked like had he not cropped the square images he made with his hasselblad kit. i believe his early education in music may have set him on the path to see/use/embrace the classic 'golden mean' in rectangular composition. maybe the correlation of music and mathematics also were factors. i don't know, i'm about to get in over my head here...regardless of format the master used (and there are other masters i am keen on - such as master jimi - but i digress, again) i never tire of seeing his work. i use his three book series as a reference to find answers for things i knew, but forgot.

...and just to keep it interesting i still shoot and print rectangular formats like 35mm, 4x5, and 6x7. it's like i love seafood, but i don't want to eat it more than three or four times a week.

jim, as others have mentioned, jump in and experiment - find your place with it...

...that's it folks, i'm starting to make myself sleepy. thanks once again for wading through my stream of consciousness.

take care and enjoy!! 😛

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 see the enemy and they is us !" walt kelly (pogo)
“a man’s cartilage is his fate” phillip roth

 

[MikeyGaGa]

A Nighting Gale Sang In Pvdhaar Square

A Nighting Gale Sang In Pvdhaar Square

PVDHAAR-that s great stuff you posted! I illustrates exactly what I meant.

For me,one of the joys of photography is talking with others who have similar experiences and approaches.

I shot commecial work all week,but in my spare time it was Rollei and Ektachrome

Projecting them on the wall (10x10 feet)gives the illusion of being able to step into the scene like Alice in Wonderland.

I should be posting,but Im lame with computers and dont have a scanner yet-some one please TELL me what I should go out and buy to scan my 6X6 and 6X7 ektachromes!

Mikey

 

[bmattock]

Hmmm. I didn't mean to ruffle any feathers (quack).

Please understand that I am not anti-6x6. Far from it, I also shoot and enjoy my Yashica 635 TLR, and I just purchased a basket-case Mamiya C33 which I look forward to restoring and using. I like the square format just fine.

I think it is fair and reasonable to inform a person who is asking about 6x6 that one of the advantages (or disadvantages) to the format is that one can crop in the camera for either landscape or portrait without having to tilt the camera over, as one must do with a camera that has a rectangular format.

And the reason I say this is because MOST people print in rectangular formats. Sorry, but it is true. I understand if you love printing square. Hooray for you. It's not that common. If it was, there would be square formats available at Walmart, Walgreens, and all the common high street or one-hour shops that do enlargements. It is not that you cannot get square printing done - it is that most people don't do it. Simple as that.

I'm not playing this religious war nonsense about rectangles being superior to squares or vice-versa. I don't care one way or another, and I like 'em both the same. I'm pointing out a truism - people print more often in the rectangular format.

And if people who use a square format TLR or SLR print in the rectangular format, then they need to crop in the camera to avoid problems when they go to enlarge their prints and have them printed.

That's pretty straightforward, and it is not a challenge to the creamy goodness of 6x6, it is a simple observation based on reality.

The exact same precaution has to be taken by people shooting 35mm who want to enlarge to the standard format of 8x10, because it also requires cropping. That does not make me anti-35mm does it?

You guys need to get over yourselves.

And yes, I read the TLR columns when they were new, as well as the Super 8 columns and the audio columns and the glamour column with Gowland.

You might notice they aren't there anymore.

Try to give some practical advice around here, and it's like I set fire to holy writ or something. Geez.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[pvdhaar]

..

And the reason I say this is because MOST people print in rectangular formats. Sorry, but it is true. I understand if you love printing square. Hooray for you. It's not that common. If it was, there would be square formats available at Walmart, Walgreens, and all the common high street or one-hour shops that do enlargements. It is not that you cannot get square printing done - it is that most people don't do it. Simple as that...

??

120 development and square printing is a standard option where I live. That's the great thing about the introduction of APS. The printing machines can do any aspect ratio whether square, 4:3, classic, panoramic..

The big trouble is that when the film is handed in, many store workers initially don't know what box to tick. Basically the shortest dimension tick box on the envelope decides the printing line..

So, indicate 10x15cm to get 10x10cm proofs, and 13x18 to get 13x13cm proofs.

 

[bmattock]

??

120 development and square printing is a standard option where I live. That's the great thing about the introduction of APS. The printing machines can do any aspect ratio whether square, 4:3, classic, panoramic..

I repeat - MOST people do not print in the square format.

Most high street and one-hour places no longer do 120 rollfilm.

I am very glad to hear that yours still does. This may still be the case in major cities. But not in the typical Walgreens, Walmarts and so on of the world, where the majority of film users have their film developed and printed.

I think we tend to think of ourselves as the mainstream. We are not. The mainstream uses single-use film cameras or digital, and they print in 4x6. When they get an enlargement done, the most standard size is 5x7, followed by 8x10.

The big trouble is that when the film is handed in, many store workers initially don't know what box to tick. Basically the shortest dimension tick box on the envelope decides the printing line..

So, indicate 10x15cm to get 10x10cm proofs, and 13x18 to get 13x13cm proofs.

Not in most places, not anymore. If I give a roll of 120 film to anyone in any one-hour photo place where I live they're going to ask me what the heck it is and then tell me they have to send it out. 10 to 1 odds that when it comes back in five weeks, it will be mangled.

This is why I do my own 120 and only B&W now. No more MF color or slide film for me - I cannot get it done without mailing it off to a pro shop, and I have no real reason to do that anymore.

That's all beside the point...

Again...

It is reasonable to give the pros and cons of the 6x6 format to a person who asks.

One of those pros (or cons, depending on your point of view) is that you can crop in the camera to either landscape or portrait mode IF IF IF IF IF IF IF you want to enlarge and print in a rectangular format WHICH MOST OF THE WORLD DOES.

I never said you could not print square.

I never said rectangular was superior to square.

I don't have a rectangular versus square religious war going on inside me.

I merely note REALITY, which is that MOST MOST MOST people print rectangular, as evidenced by the fact that MOST MOST MOST one-hour photo places don't even offer the option.

I did not say that you can't get square prints made.

If a person wants to use 6x6 and print square, I think that's just freaking lovely. I have no problem with it, nor did I deny that a person can do that.

It is just not the normal choice these days.

And I'm done with this.

 

[Resoman]

PT article...

PT article...

For me, the square format has always been a very comfortable working space.

When Mike Johnston was the editor of Photo Techniques magazine, I wrote an article expressing my thoughts on the square format which is still, amazingly, available at the PT website:

http://www.phototechmag.com/previous-articles/sept99-mort.htm


Regards,

Gary

 

[pvdhaar]

I merely note REALITY, which is that MOST MOST MOST people print rectangular, as evidenced by the fact that MOST MOST MOST one-hour photo places don't even offer the option.

Bill,

you're extrapolating the situation around your locale to the rest of the world..

I can get 120 developed and printed any aspect ratio within 2-3 working days at every photo store in Holland. And as about 1/3 of the processing/printing gets done in Germany, I'll hazard a guess that it's the same there. Not only in major cities, but in every dinky little town..

And moreover, I can buy square frames no problem (even at cheap chains like HEMA, IKEA, wherever), they're actually quite popular..

 

[bmattock]

Most people do not print in the square format. Period.

It is reasonable to mention that to someone enquiring about 6x6 framing. Period.

End of discussion. Full Stop.

 

[pvdhaar]

Most people do not print in the square format. Period.

It is reasonable to mention that to someone enquiring about 6x6 framing. Period.

End of discussion. Full Stop.

You're being really constructive..


Know what? I'll post a couple more.. All printed within 3 days without cropping..

 

[BrianShaw]

The simple advantage of 6x6 is that you don't have to tip the camera over to take portrait versus landscape shots. In any case, you are generally going to have to crop to print, unless you're a bit of an odd duck who prints square enlargements.

QUACK, Quack, quack.

 

[BrianShaw]

Most people do not print in the square format. Period.

It is reasonable to mention that to someone enquiring about 6x6 framing. Period.

End of discussion. Full Stop.

Maybe true, but HERESY... burn the heretic! 😀