View Full Version : The square & the landscape!

Pages : 1 2 3 4 [5]

01-19-2009, 11:15 PM
Noumin, thanks for the graphic comparison. Looking at your examples, I feel that the two end shapes (the square and panoramic) have the most visual impact per unit area. If I as printing those different shapes for a consistent feel to a show, I think I would tend to make all the vertical dimentions of those shapes the same, and not worry as much about the actual area...though the panoramic format might have to be different. Then it depends on how the images are displayed -- how close together, grouping same proportioned images together, etc.

And Bowzart's "If you can't or won't design within a specific bounded space, you can or will do NOTHING in this medium or in any other." is right on the money. It is what I meant be "filling all the negative" in my previous post.


02-18-2009, 06:37 PM
After reading this and as a rank amateur, I find great comfort that it isn't just me. I have now to date shot maybe 6 rolls with my Autocord TLR. Technically great, super sharp etc but composition just doesn't gel for me. Whilst taking the shot, I am there looking through and think I have a great composition then somehow it gets lost in translation when printing.

I prefer to fill the frame, I suppose what I am realising is that it is a change of mentality to do square but it offers a different experience and to persevere with it.

There is something about framing a shot with a TLR that is so different from anything else I have experienced, part of that is the square element, somehow the feeling of it being easier to find great compositions, part maybe the bent head. currently it all feels like a balloon just let go and floating outta reach but I can sense the great potential.

off to chase balloons .........