composing on a square format

U

ujjwaldey8165

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,842
Name
Ujjwal
Edit My Images
No
Over the christmas holidays, I used the Mamiya 6 . I have never used 6X6 before.

I found it very difficult to compose a shot without leaving a lot of top/bottom blank witout any interest. Intuitively I seem to think in a rectangular frame.

Is that usual? Is there a particular trick to thinking in sqaure? Is it a mere matter of using it a lot more?

Any help and advice please
 
I find the same if I try to frame something with my hassy! So it's not just you. I think part of the "problem" is that we have got used to the standard rectange and konw from experience what works and what does not. I found it a help to go to Google Images and look at ones shot on square format (A search on hassleblad will bring up hundreds) have a good look and study what works for square composition and have another go. (Not that I've taken anything at all decent myself but hopefully it will help)
 
The rule of thirds applies despite the aspect ratio. Also, you can still compose for 'normal' ratios if you want to - just crop the bit you didn't compose for :thumbs:

I loved composing on 6x6 because (IMO) the rule of thirds with this ratio is more natural and (again imo) is the best because all the points of the thirds grid are equidistant.
 
I had exactly the same problem when I started to using square format. If you try and apply rectangular thinking it just doesn’t work. After a bit of practice it soon clicked though. What makes square format so good is that compositions that work square just wouldn’t work in rectangular. I just cleared my mind of all the composition rules I had learnt and initially spent a lot more time than I would normally composing the shot through the view finder until it looked right.

You can see some of my efforts here.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/andrew_hatfield/sets/72157620982717778/
 
I remember reading an article on this a few days ago actually but for the life of me I can't remember on what site it was, if I find it again I'll post the link.

The jist of the article was that there are that there were 2 ways to compose a square format picture, either centre focus or the rule of diagonals. Centre focus is pretty self explanatory and the diagonal rule is similar to the rule of thirds in that you compose to an imaginary line, only that it runs from corner to corner diagonally instead of across the frame.

Sorry I havn't done a very good job explaining it, like I said if i find the article again I'll link it as it gave full explanation on why you use these methods and gave good examples too.

EDIT: Bingo, found it! Diagonal method

Also found this too for more advanced techniques: Wim van Velzen: Square Scotland
 
Thanks everyone for the advice and the links. Its gratifying to get such helps and reassuring to know I am not alone with this issue.

I was using a 50mm; which caused additional problems with the composition; I should begin with the 80 mm and then use the 50 mm later.

Ekimeno; I see what you are saying about cropping; but thats a sort of cop-out. If I am going to use 6X6; then I need to learn composing it in that format. Offcourse, not every shot will lend itself to a square composition; and cropping is a useful trick; but surely its not a substitute to square format composition. I may never learn to compose in a sqaure format; and eventually go back to 645; but its worth a try.

AH5168 : thanks. All your shots are portrait though; do you have any landscape? Its landscape I found very difficult; especially to capture anything of interest to fill the top and bottom bit. I seem to cover a lot of sky, or uninteresting foreground with it. I can see how the shot of a valley will look nice ( especially if there is a good sun in the mid ground); or that of a tree to cover the vertical space; but couldn't think of many composition with equal vertical and horizontal space)

Someone here ( Joxby?) had said that he finds square format easier. I wonder what his trick is.

Back to thinking in square...lets see if I can get it.:lol::lol:

Ujjwal
 
I've been shooting square to the exclusion of everything else for so long that I find oblong awkward..:shrug:
There's no trick, I shoot just as much crap as everybody else, probably more. I compose in thirds mostly, I think it works more often than not.
Oblong composition isn't difficult, but I have to stop and consider it, whereas square....I don't..
Even allowing for unfamiliarity, I still think square is easier.
 
Thanks Joxby ( my memory was correct, it was indeed you :) )

I am assuming you dont usually crop. So how do you manage the extra space on the top/bottom. i.e for the extra sky/foreground, do you look for something of vertical interest ( I can think of tree or a tall structure such as a church spire etc).
 
Nope, I just cut it into thirds like you would oblong.
I don't see extra sky or foreground, there is no extra anything in my mind, oblong is the format with something missing, a slice cut off either the top, bottom or the side, square is the full picture.
Square is viewing the World through a window.
Oblong is viewing the World through a letter box
Maybe its more a question of choosing the right subjects.

I don't crop unless its to get closer, for that I will still burn in hell though.
There is no point in shooting a nice big neg to then throw half of that loveliness away, but we don't shoot big zooms do we.
You have to crop, even if its just to straighten the edges up, if you go in to a shot saying you can't crop, I think that's a good attitude, then if you have to....at least you tried..:lol:
 
Thanks Joxby...your window/letterbox analogy was really good. Offcourse, when I see out of my window, I dont think anything is wrong; why then should a photograph haveing the view be. Good one really, I will imagine looking through a window; and then the shot will be crap because of me, not the format.

I am very bad at composing - photographing really - but I always try to take a shot such that it will need no cropping, doing this and doing that. For me, once a shutter is pressed, its final. I know this is a very personal thing, there are others, great photographers even, who think an exposed negative is merely the fodder for post-processing. And that post processing is what makes a great photograph ( not unlike some film makers who treat footages merely as a feedstock for the editing table, where their films are made. I think it was Goddard who said that. And then there is the other extreme - film makers who will only shoot where they will edit. No more, no less. So effectively they do rough- edit as they shoot; and join up the pieces later. Orson Welles, I think, did it that way. Both valid approach)
 
Using movies as an another analogy made me laugh a bit. I just finished watching Planet Terror (Robert Rodriguez flick) where the editing pretty much made the movie. Truly excellent :thumbs:

I personally don't like cropping my negs or slides - as joxby says - it's a waste of a lovely big piece of film. But if the shot is crying out for a crop, sometimes you just have to do it, even if you do burn in hell.
 
I love shooting in a square format ~which I will do more of this year~ and find it a quite natural way to frame things.

However I do know where your coming from ujjwaldey, as an idea why not cut your self a square hole out of some cardboard then walk around seeing how the world looks through it.

Charlie Waite does a similar thing when he is composing his landscape images to decide which lens to use.
 
I don't crop unless its to get closer, for that I will still burn in hell though.
Click to expand...
:lol::lol:You'll be in good company though.

Square is very different animal to get to grips with but you will. The card idea is a great one, as is just taking the camera everywhere and just looking through it.

It will just fall into place one day and you'll wonder how you ever survived in a rectangle.
 
If you are using it for landscape I think you have to think about filling the frame with something other than the landscape if that makes sense.

I don’t do much landscape but here is one of the few examples I have.

Italy.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top