square composition
Boris Kozintsev
could someone give a reference or just share thoughts as to what
are the basic rules of the composition for the square (6x6) format
as opposed to, say, the 35mm rectangular format.
Thanks
Boris
Allen Greenky
The 'rules' haven't changed, you still have your '3rds' and quadrants, diagonals,
s curves, heros etc. Some popular compositions become harder to see, like a long
narrow panarama like horizontal with the main subject on one side and either
blankness or a contrasting texture on the other side.
I found that when I shot square, I saw things square, it became very hard to crop
something to a 5x7 cause they were so narrow.
david sanders
<b...@math.umd.edu> wrote:
>Hi,
>
>could someone give a reference or just share thoughts as to what
>are the basic rules of the composition for the square (6x6) format
>as opposed to, say, the 35mm rectangular format.
>Thanks
>
>Boris
>
There's no such thing as square composition. Humans see the would as
rectangles. So just back off to get everything in the picture. Then
compose the shot later from the proof. That works if your doing
negatives but transparances are a different ball game.
David
Boris Kozintsev
>There's no such thing as square composition. Humans see the would as
>rectangles.
Why would 6x6 be a popular format then? From a physical point of view,
I'd say humans probably see world as circles.
I think I have to re-phrase my original question. I would like to hear from
those artists who choose not to crop their square images -- what advantages
of the square media do they utilize? Of course I understand that one can
always use a 6x4.5 portion of the frame to get a rectangle.
Boris
Daniel Fellman
looks right. In 35mm terms you would have to go to a wide angle lens to get
the same composition, but you then suffer from an altered (distorted?)
viewpoint caused by the lens.
Another reason why people shoot 6x6 is it allows them to create a print in
either landscape or portrait, using a cropped part of the negative
equivalent to a 6x4.5 coverage.
Daniel
Clyde Soles
> There's no such thing as square composition. Humans see the would as
> rectangles.
One of the dumbest statements I've seen in a while.
Mel1wood1
writes:
>could someone give a reference or just share thoughts as to what
>are the basic rules of the composition for the square (6x6) format
>as opposed to, say, the 35mm rectangular format.
>Thanks
Basically a square composition eliminates the need to consider wether the
composition will render better as a vertical or as a horizontal. This saves you
time and allows you to concentrate on other factors like exposure and picture
composition.
mel
Mel1wood1
writes:
>>Umm picture composition includes vertical or horizontal framing. If
>>everything was about time savings we would all be using digital
>>cameras from k mart.
Think for a moment, with either camera format you will encounter the
actual picture composition .... I make a distinction between the "actual"
picture, and the vertical or horizontal composition selection. Because they
are two distinct elements.
However with a square format you do not have to decide which way to hold
the camera, vertical and horizontal questions are eliminated with square
format. Many a picture can be enhanced or destroyed if the incorrect choice of
vertical or horizontal composition is not properly selected. So this is a time
saving feature...
Now as for the element of time .... as a photojournalist photographer, many
of my subjects are on the move, and I don't have a lot of time to grab a shot.
If you are doing landscape photography or portraiture photograpy, then time is
no longer an element.
>
>Saves me time taking pictures, saves me time downloading them cause
>they're of too poor quality, saves me time in earning the money for
>decent glass.....
You may not like it, but time is one of the most important factors in
photography. It is not a negative thing, if you want to slow down, that's your
own personal decision.
>
>
>If you like square shoot square, if you like rectangle shoot
>rectangle, lifes too short to be bothered with this crap.
I cannot understand; if you have this attitude towards the post then WHY would
you waste your time replying to it?? Having both formats, I know full well
that this distinction is not a small thing with me and obviously some others.
mel
Alistair
<b...@math.umd.edu> wrote:
>Hi David,
>
>>There's no such thing as square composition. Humans see the would as
>>rectangles.
>
>Why would 6x6 be a popular format then? From a physical point of view,
>I'd say humans probably see world as circles.
There is one very practical reason why 6x6 is popular. If you use a
waist-level finder, then realising that your non-square image is the
wrong way round is a real hassle. If you try to use a waist-level at
eye-level, but side-on, you will understand what I mean (the image is
upside-down).
I have spent some time using a Bronica 6x4.5 SLR, and I found that it
really was useful for my sort of outdoor, handheld work with the
eye-level pentaprism finder. My 6x6 is usable with the waist level
(OK, I know that I have just bought an eye-level finder for it, but
that's another story...)
>I think I have to re-phrase my original question. I would like to hear from
>those artists who choose not to crop their square images -- what advantages
>of the square media do they utilize? Of course I understand that one can
>always use a 6x4.5 portion of the frame to get a rectangle.
>
>Boris
>
It is strange. I almost always print just about the whole of my 35mm
negative, but I almost always crop the 6x6s. Just occasionally, the
square format is good at creating a very "up-front" image with lots of
impact.
Alistair
For photography as art, please visit
http://homepages.enterprise.net/eurgain
LDaneman
and CD covers!
Seriously, the 6x6 advantage is at waist level or the tripod. You can instantly
compose for portrait/landscape without turning the camera. Then, if you use the
camera enough, you will find yourself composing for the square! Some beautiful
photos are the result, especially in portrait and wedding work.
One other unique composition I have found with 6x6 is the 'diamond' shape. I
turn the camera 45 degrees and you get the most beautiful photo emphasizing the
foreground and the med-horizontal.
6x6 is a state of mind. I have just bought a GS-1 and am getting used to
switching the camera for composition. I do print rectangular often, and
appreciate the extra 52 percent of neg.
LAD
Ron Bean
arg...@peachnet.campus.mci.net (david sanders) writes:
>There's no such thing as square composition.
Why not? You can compose to any shape you want.
>Humans see the would as rectangles.
Would that be horizontal or vertical rectangles?
If humans only saw things one way, then only one of those would
be correct, and the other would be wrong. If both are valid
choices, then I don't see why a square format can't be equally
valid.
Actually, your eyes constantly scan around, focusing on one point
at a time. The pattern of scanning depends on what you're looking at.
IMHO some things look better in a square format, and trying to
force them into rectangles doesn't improve them. On the other
hand, some landscapes would look better as panoramics. And some
people seem to think portraits should be in ovals. It depends on
the image.
BTW I haven't noticed that magazines and newspapers crop their
photos to any particular aspect ratio.
>So just back off to get everything in the picture.
Or use a shorter lens.
Backing off changes perspective, changing the lens doesn't.
>Then
>compose the shot later from the proof. That works if your doing
>negatives but transparances are a different ball game.
If you're going to scan the transparencies for publication, you
can crop them any way you like (or any way the editor likes :-).
Paul cavka
>
> On Fri, 28 Aug 1998 15:25:45 -0400, "Boris Kozintsev"
> <b...@math.umd.edu> wrote:
>
> >Hi David,
> >
> >>rectangles.
> >
> >Why would 6x6 be a popular format then? From a physical point of view,
> >I'd say humans probably see world as circles.
>
> There is one very practical reason why 6x6 is popular. If you use a
> waist-level finder, then realising that your non-square image is the
> wrong way round is a real hassle. If you try to use a waist-level at
> eye-level, but side-on, you will understand what I mean (the image is
> upside-down).
>
> I have spent some time using a Bronica 6x4.5 SLR, and I found that it
> really was useful for my sort of outdoor, handheld work with the
> eye-level pentaprism finder. My 6x6 is usable with the waist level
> (OK, I know that I have just bought an eye-level finder for it, but
> that's another story...)
>
> >I think I have to re-phrase my original question. I would like to hear from
> >those artists who choose not to crop their square images -- what advantages
> >of the square media do they utilize? Of course I understand that one can
> >always use a 6x4.5 portion of the frame to get a rectangle.
> >
> >Boris
> >
> It is strange. I almost always print just about the whole of my 35mm
> negative, but I almost always crop the 6x6s. Just occasionally, the
> square format is good at creating a very "up-front" image with lots of
> impact.
>
> Alistair
> For photography as art, please visit
> http://homepages.enterprise.net/eurgain
Walking through most galleries one notices that sqare format is still
very popular with alot of art photographers. I would say just short of
50%.
Paul Cavka
Cgnomes
Shoot to the edges in one direction, horizontal or vertical. Then crop the
other direction to make the composition that makes the picture work. I shoot
square so that I can do this with the least possible work. Oy favorite dog
picture is 2 basset hounds, nose to nose. Printed 7 x 20 it was great and fun.
For weddings, I shoot square and print square.
John or Jenn
opened up a lot of previously unseen ideas...
Roger
format!
Roger
Svblad
I must say, I'm amazed at some of the responses you've received, and there very
much is such a thing as square composition. Forget about all that upsidedown
stuff while using the waste level finder, the image is reversed left to right
and is no big deal after you get use to it. Many of the best photograhpers of
the past (Ansel) and present (Micheal Kenna) have or still shoot square images.
I saw an original Ansel Adams print of some sand dunes which he shot with his
Hasselblad (and printed square) that was fantastic. As for practical
advantages, many wedding photographers use it so their pictures can be cropped
into verticals or horizontals. With that exception I can't think of any
practical advantages. The choice to shoot a particular format is entirely
personal. I have shot 35mm, 6x6 and 4x5. Some shoot only 35mm, some only 8x10,
some shoot it all. **A great photograhper, although he or she may have a format
preference, is able to compose interesting and or beautiful images in any
format.** To see some great square black and white photograhpy, in my opinion,
look at any books by Micheal Kenna. He shoots almost all square.