Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,317   Posts: 1,536,759   Online: 1057
      
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 45

Thread: Square printing

  1. #11
    Fintan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Ireland
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,793
    Images
    2
    No formula Les really, I just like to print full frame and square. Its just an extra challenge especially with fixed focal lengths. Its how I pre-visualise. I'm not long enough [or good enough] taking photographs to have a "style" yet but this is just how I like to do it. Photography for me is a journey and not just a destination.

  2. #12
    Les McLean's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Northern England on the Scottish border
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,610
    [quote="Fintan"]No formula Les really, I just like to print full frame and square. Its just an extra challenge especially with fixed focal lengths. Its how I pre-visualise. I'm not long enough [or good enough] taking photographs to have a "style" yet but this is just how I like to do it. Photography for me is a journey and not just a destination.


    Pre-visualisation is about the mood, message held within the subject or how you see the subject and not about the shape of the final print. Style evolves through seeing and making photographs and concentrating on "why" the photograph was made. As a matter of interest the reason that I feel so strongly about this issue is that for the first 15 years that I made photographs I used a 6 x 6 Minolta Autocord with a fixed 80mm lens and for a time framed and printed everything in the sqaure format of the camera and then realised that my photographs were becoming a cliche. I understand that you like square images, so do I and I often print them, but please do be careful not to overdo it.

  3. #13
    Fintan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Ireland
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,793
    Images
    2
    points taken Les, thank you. Apologies to matherto for hijacking your thread

  4. #14
    blansky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Wine country in Northern California
    Posts
    5,029
    Fintan said:

    I agree with you, people love this format. Personally I cant understand why someone like Michael would buy a square format and almost never print square.
    That is a valid question. When I started with a Hasselblad I was just starting my business. I shot exclusively color portraits. Studio portrait photographers generally buy ready made frames, folders etc from our suppliers. The range of frames is extensive and high quality.

    Unfortunately, they as well as the folders for small prints only came in 4x5, 5x7, 8x10, 11x14, 16x20, 20x24, 24x30 etc. never square.

    So it is a habit that has stuck with me and I rarely "see" square.

    Michael McBlane

  5. #15
    Fintan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Ireland
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,793
    Images
    2
    makes sense alright, ready made square frames/mounts are not so common.

    Funnily enough it was album sleeves that got me interested in photography, maybe thats where I get it from.

  6. #16
    skahde's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Germany
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    425
    Images
    4
    I'm trying to follow a top-down approach. Decided on the framing and try to fill them now. Unfortunately I decided on rectangules but keep on composing and printing square <g>.

    Stefan

  7. #17
    gma
    gma is offline
    gma's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Texas
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    793
    Images
    9
    skahde,
    That is exactly why I say it is better to make a square print from a square negative. When you are making the exposure you see the whole square and not a cropped rectangular image. I think this is why I have never wanted to use 6x6 format.
    [FONT=Century Gothic][/FONT][SIZE=7][/SIZE][COLOR=DarkOrange][/COLOR] I may be getting older, but I refuse to grow up!

  8. #18
    Cheryl Jacobs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Denver, Colorado, USA
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    1,707
    Images
    211
    Yeah, as Michael mentioned, I do lots of squares. Really, it's just the way I see. Something about the rule of thirds within a square really appeals to me. And on rare occasions when an image works with dead-centered composition, square can really pack a punch. When I used to shoot 35mm, I found myself constantly wanting to chop off one end or the other, so I just went with it and bought a 6x6.

    A lot of times for me, since I primarily photograph people, it's about negative space (no pun intended.) I like room for context, whether it's explicit or implicit. I use my 6x6 mostly for candids, so there really is no time to think about anything other than 'the moment' before I hit the shutter. Sometimes I find the need to crop something out. Usually, though, I've managed to take it all in subconsciously (I know that sounds snobby) so I can generally print full frame.



    - CJ

  9. #19
    ksmattfish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Lawrence, KS
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    88
    Images
    21
    L7, baby...

    I fell in love with square prints with my Rollei TLR. Then it's film advance jammed, and it's waiting on a repair budget. I bought a WL finder for my P67II, and now I find myself composing for the square when I'm using it.

  10. #20
    jd callow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Milan
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,002
    Images
    117
    I shoot 6x6, 6x9 and 4x5. I would love to say that I choose the format that best suits the subject, but that would be a lie. I find that the square is more demanding. It is far less dramatic than the 6x9 (same as 35mm) and less formal, to my eye, than 4x5. The square is less forgiving of unused space. By its very nature, every area is equal and requires attention.

    When I compose w/ the square I don't think in thirds spatially but maybe in importance. In that I will put something of lesser importance (~33%) on one side and some thing of greater importance (~66%) on the other. Or use that type of balance front to back. Another technique is to have the foreground lead you to the subject. The final technique I seem to employ is to stuff the frame with the object. This stuffing causes the square to become a container that just barely holds the image. In all formats negative space is important and is possibly most important in a square.

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin