PDA

View Full Version : The square & the landscape!



Pages : 1 [2] 3 4 5

harveyje
04-19-2005, 04:40 PM
Square, vertical, horizontal, panoramic - doesn't it all depend on you, the subject, and/or what you want the image to be in its final form.

bobfowler
04-19-2005, 04:55 PM
I can go either way on the crop/no-crop issue. If I see something in the viewfinder and like the composition square, I'll shoot with the intent of a square print. If I see some extra on the top/bottom/sides that really doesn't need to be there, I'll crop. I love working square though, it's so much more comfortable than tilting a big-assed camera on its side.

blansky
04-19-2005, 08:55 PM
I've shot 6x6 professionally for 30 years and have probably printed no more than 2 or 3 square prints.

Michael

mikewhi
04-19-2005, 09:50 PM
Personally, I bought a 6x6 so I could shoot square. I'd rather buy a square camera than crop a rectangle. I think the square format really is a challenge compositionally, especially the landscape. I have always thought of the viewfinder as a space to fill until I have this intuitive reaction that it's 'right'. Which is why I like to print full-frame and in the format of the camera. I concentrate on utilizing the available space in the viewfinder - I don't ignore it - I emphasize it. For 6x6, my eyes were really opened by Harry Callahans' book "Waters Edge" - really masterful use of the 6x6 in the 'landscape'.

-Mike

Leon
04-20-2005, 01:49 AM
Square, vertical, horizontal, panoramic - doesn't it all depend on you, the subject, and/or what you want the image to be in its final form.


that's exactly the point John. There is no right or wrong, just what makes sense to you.

Baxter Bradford
04-20-2005, 03:53 AM
I endorse having a look at how well Charlie Waite (www.charliewaite.com) has done with his square landscapes. Primarily working in colour, he also uses B+W. Having bought an SQA on impulse 5 years ago, discovering his books helped me enormously with landscape and in the use of the square format.
My SQA doesn't get out much now, but I do still appreciate good square images. Think of them as a happy halfway house between Portrait and Landscape format!

mikeg
04-20-2005, 05:43 AM
I endorse having a look at how well Charlie Waite (www.charliewaite.com) has done with his square landscapes. Primarily working in colour, he also uses B+W. Having bought an SQA on impulse 5 years ago, discovering his books helped me enormously with landscape and in the use of the square format.


I bought his two landscape books a year or two ago and I've been going back over them recently. Partly because I've been finding the 35mm landscape format too rectangular! I know you don't have tell me -- I'm weird ;) I find I'm often cropping the sides off my negs during enlarging. It's this reason, and the fact that I'd like a bigger neg, that I've just bought a C220. We'll see how I get on over the next few months!

One thing that Charlie Waite seems to advocate a lot in his work is the use of a step ladder to gain some height. Seems like he takes one on many of his shoots. I must admit, I can't see me hiking across the South Shropshire Hills with a step ladder strapped to my back, my tripod is bad enough, plus this new C220 is no featherweight ;)

Mike

david b
04-20-2005, 12:29 PM
http://www.apug.org/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=6931

A great example....

eagleowl
04-20-2005, 12:42 PM
...the photos of Charlie Waite-and having just visited his website,I admire him even more!
I tried to get one of his books a while back,but (just my luck!)it had been deleted!!!

mikeg
04-20-2005, 02:06 PM
...the photos of Charlie Waite-and having just visited his website,I admire him even more!
I tried to get one of his books a while back,but (just my luck!)it had been deleted!!!

The two that I've got are his "The making of landscape photographs" and "Seeing landscapes". The first one was published 1992 and the second 1999. Both seem to still be available on Amazon UK at GBP 9. They're both good books, the second is slightly more modern, better paper etc. They both deal with his thinking behind his photos for example, why he often uses 6x6. Sometimes he has several versions of the same photo taken at different times, slightly different angles etc, and he explains why one "worked" and the other didn't. Also, he's not afraid to crop if he feels the image needs it. Both recommended.

Mike

pitchertaker
04-20-2005, 02:24 PM
Seems to me that everyone is making a good arguement for shooting 6x7 -- crop it to a square if the images demands it. I, for one, subscribe to the "crop it to what the subject demands" -- the heck with the format, just make sure one side of the resulting image takes full use of the long side of the negative.

Pitchertaker

Whiteymorange
04-20-2005, 03:27 PM
Just a penny's worth of subjective observation on the square. The corners pull more on the composition in a square, and imbalance, that wonderful creator of tension within the frame, is a more delicate thing - easily overdone. All in all, it is very much worth the effort. I have used square canvases for both landscape and for still life painting for years.

Three rules of thumb: Keep the horizon out of the center, use the rule of thirds and break the frame with a strong movement or significant visual line.

There. Free advice and worth every penny!

Whitey

waynecrider
04-20-2005, 05:17 PM
I agree with the point about flipping a big camera and lens.

Personally I returned to 6x6 because I can pull a 645 neg out of it if need be for an 8x10 print. The square print also reminds me of looking out a window for some reason. It constrains the view and focuses the attention more.

Wim van Velzen does some nice stuff with a 6x6

http://www.fotografiewimvanvelzen.nl/landscape-portfolios.htm

dancqu
04-20-2005, 06:00 PM
What`s your view on this? In my case, I need to relearn
composition and perspective with the 6x6, wasn`t easy to
see square. Isn`t a balanced composition harder to achieve
than with the familiar rectangle?


If you stop and think about it you have in mind making use
of each and every square centimeter of film area. A 6 x 4.5 will
put 15 or 16 frames on a 120 roll, cropped to a 3:4 ratio.

Comparitively, formats other than square are much less
convenient to use and they are slower to use. Also they are
heavier and more bulky do to needed viewfinder add-ons. Of
course the camera is always balanced upright and in the
darkroom the image on the easel is also always upright.

I've a RZ-67 needing some clean up and repair. Those
doing the work may be able to disable the screen's portrait and
landscape mode masks. I hope to have a full 7 x 7 screen with a
grid to help in composition. As it is, and it goes for any format
screen other than square, flipping or rotating of the entire
camera or back plus rotation of finder is necessary. I've
made my 6 x 4.5 Bronica usable by adding their very
fine rotary finder; weight and bulk. Dan

gchpaco
04-20-2005, 06:32 PM
My problem with shooting 6x7 is the 6x7 cameras out there. Having inspected them, the Mamiya RB67 might actually be about the same size as my Bronica S2 (which is quite a bit larger than a Hassy), but it's not really convenient for hiking. The big Pentax is better about this, but I like having detachable backs and not having to flop the camera onto its side. I can't afford the Mamiya 7. The GS-1 doesn't have a rotating back but is probably the most acceptable to me otherwise.

I've actually settled for a 6x9 folder for bigger than 6x6 in MF; it's lightweight, portable, good results, and rectangular. And anyway I like the way square compositions work.

Bill Mobbs
04-20-2005, 06:34 PM
Just a penny's worth of subjective observation on the square. The corners pull more on the composition in a square, and imbalance, that wonderful creator of tension within the frame, is a more delicate thing - easily overdone. All in all, it is very much worth the effort. I have used square canvases for both landscape and for still life painting for years.

Three rules of thumb: Keep the horizon out of the center, use the rule of thirds and break the frame with a strong movement or significant visual line.

There. Free advice and worth every penny!

Whitey

Now here is some advise I can use. It is worth every penny and more!

Thanks Whitey

jmilliron
04-20-2005, 06:56 PM
http://www.apug.org/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=6931

A great example....

Thanks David! The square format is challenging to me but at the same time, I find it very refreshing. Might go so far as to say its revitalized my interest in photography.

-jason m

seoirse
09-23-2008, 03:20 PM
Take a look at a website which demonstrates the power of the square image...


www.strand-photo.com


Regards,
S.

dpurdy
09-23-2008, 04:26 PM
Michael Kenna is no slouch with a square.
People are different. I get the format of my camera ingrained in me so I see how it sees.. which is why I like the Rollei with only the one lens length. That vision parameter is permanently stamped in my brain. When I get tired of looking through a normal square I take a short break with a different camera.
Dennis

haris
10-03-2008, 07:48 AM
I have nothing against it, and have seen square landscape photographs I really like.