square format masters, please...

Also look at <http://www.johndavies.uk.com/>
Click on the right side menu "the bigger picture 1976-1996" and scroll down to the lower half of the images on display there. Some great examples of industrial photography.
 
I am surprised that no one has mentioned Robert Doisneau. A lot of my favorite images of his, some of which are among my favorite images bar none, were squares.

Diane Arbus, again, is fantastic to consider, not just for the content, but the composition.

ChrisCrawford- I was under the impression that Diane Arbus shot with a Rolleiflex. Wasn't the C330 introduced after or around the time of her death?

As to composing when using a square, if you intend to keep your prints square, you have loads of flexibility. With a square, it is more acceptable to center your subject. The 'rule of thirds' is definitely more flexible. I do think it is more important to not chop your corners at a 45 degree angle than it is with rectangles though. Vignetting, in my opinion, works much better with squares. Basically, it is more important for the image to look right than look correct, if you follow my meaning. Also, keep in mind that if you get an image that would work better as a rectangle, don't feel any shame in cropping it. This is thoroughly unscientific, but I would certainly bet 20 bucks that the majority of 6x6 images get cropped to an effective 6x4.5 on the paper.
 
Helmut Newton. His photos were pretty much unlike anyone else.

Also, Philippe Halsman.

I also agree that ou should develop your own style. There are enough copy-cats in the world and on most photography forums.
 
Merkin said:
Diane Arbus, again, is fantastic to consider, not just for the content, but the composition.

ChrisCrawford- I was under the impression that Diane Arbus shot with a Rolleiflex. Wasn't the C330 introduced after or around the time of her death?
Click to expand...

I dug out the book that said that she used the Mamiya. It said she began with Rolleiflex then switched later to Mamiya TLRs for the interchangeable lenses. It didn't say which model. I used to have a C330f so i was probably just inserting that model in my memory.
 
sanmich said:
Just had a look at Michael Kenna's work.
It took me a few minutes to reconnect my lower jaw to the rest of my body.
That's what I am talking about "playing by the rules of the square" ...
Click to expand...

I see what you mean...
Some great stuff on his website.

I can agree with others saying that the square format just feels right to me. I find myself happier with nearly every composition I make in 6x6. It almost feels hard to screw up (which of course, leaves a lot more up to the photographer to make up for in subtlety).
 
Ernst Wildi was a spokesmen for Hasselblad and wrote a few books on his techniques for getting the most from 6x6. Look for "Composition Techniques From a Master Photographer" and "Creating World Class Photography" printed by Amherst Media.

Best regards,

Bob
 
Callahan, Metzker, Friedlander have all done great work with 6x6.

Arbus used a Rolleiflex- I think a few kinds- earlier in her career and then switched to a Mamiyaflex, if I remember correctly.
 
showfull.php
I personally love the square format and think it to be the ideal format overall. Once you learn to compose to the square (very much like composing to a circular format) all other rectangular formats seem restrained and limited. The square has no preferred direction of up/down or left/right, thus you can also get more freedom from absolutely parallel horizons or verticals. It's a much more liberating format than rectangular.

Aside from the great examples of high-quality square format images already posted to this thread, I'd like to also mention that I believe one of the main attractions to the "toy" camera genre, such as the Holga and Diana, is the square format and the freedom it lends in composition. It's much more abstract of a format, lacking the formalist conventions we've come to expect from the usual rectangle.

I suppose saying that the square format is liberating seems odd to many people who find it difficult to compose for, but it does impart a different mindset once you begin working with it.

~Joe

showfull.php
 
Last edited:
JoeV said:
The square has no preferred direction of up/down or left/right, thus you can also get more freedom from absolutely parallel horizons or verticals. It's a much more liberating format than rectangular.
Click to expand...

what about to the center? i don't think "freedom" from parallel horizons or verticals has much to do with aspect ratio, either.
 
Another vote for Todd Hanz. I like his work with the Rolleiflex, especially the Tri X souped mixed with Xtol stuff!
 
If you like Michael Kenna then you should have a look at Josef Hoflehner - a similar style but a little less zen (IMHO). He also shoots more urban subjects than Kenna.

Simon
 
Last edited:
Definitely Howard French (see his post above).

Todd Hanz's work is always good.

Or you can use flickr (or equivalent). Punch in your favorite 6x6 camera name in the search function, hit the slideshow and just watch 🙂
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

J
Looking for a square-frame brightline viewfinder. Any 126 cameras out there have a decent finder I can adapt/cannibalize?
2
Replies
20
Views
514
justins7
J
J
  • Article Article
The Rise & Fall of the Kodak Empire:Part 1: How Kodak came to dominate the photographic industry
Replies
10
Views
3K
rick oleson
rick oleson
J
Did Nikon really blow Leitz and Zeiss out of the water in 1950? Not quite, but....
Replies
9
Views
1K
aoresteen
aoresteen
J
  • Article Article
The Pentax Papers, part 1, 1919 to 1973: From the founding of Asahi Optical Co. to the last screw-mount Pentax
2
Replies
26
Views
5K
Jason Schneider
J
J
  • Article Article
My Bout With Bronicas: One man's adventures in the mysterious Land of Zenza
2 3 4
Replies
74
Views
14K
wes loder
wes loder
Back
Top Bottom