Cropping of the squares?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted member 21335
  • Start date Start date
The D800/D810 and D4 still have 5:4 crop modes. I think most digital medium format backs/cameras are 4:3 which is closer to 5:4 than 3:2 as well.
 
Some great replies. With the hybrid workflow, printing squares isn't a problem with regards to wasted paper etc I guess.

I shall try and embrace and compose for the squares! Especially on my trip to Iceland.
 
gazmorton2000 said:
Some great replies. With the hybrid workflow, printing squares isn't a problem with regards to wasted paper etc I guess.

I shall try and embrace and compose for the squares! Especially on my trip to Iceland.
Click to expand...

H'mm I just can't see landscapes of Iceland looking right in square format, but you can prove me wrong.
 
excalibur2 said:
H'mm I just can't see landscapes of Iceland looking right in square format, but you can prove me wrong.
Click to expand...

There are plenty on the line. I found them when I was doing some Googling to see what was possible. [emoji4]
 
Maybe I'm a film heathen but as a photographer I don't understand the apparent fear of cropping images to suit your vision? I agree that shooting 6x6 delivers a unique result dimensionally when every digital camera you buy defaults to a rectangle but that's not to say there's anything wrong with preferring a rectangular shot after you've developed the negs. After all, we're all just trying to get a result we like whether that's exactly as the negatives were intended to be or if you've cropped down to one corner because the rest of the shot didn't work (in your own eyes).

Practically I can understand the wastage aspect of printing but again, that's a personal decision that none of us can tell someone else what to do about.

With regards to shooting square in Iceland, I think it's a bit naive saying that its landscape won't look right unless it's rectangular. As well as the really good 6x6 examples Nick shared I'm sure there are just as many awful looking rectangular images too!
 
But better by who's standards? What is better? The photographer who chose to present them as squares will have composed and shot as a square. It's his work and who's to say what is better for his or her work?

There are some beautiful shots in that link and I'll have a look on the big screen later today.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Last edited:
For me, there is nothing as aesthetically pleasing as a well composed square. I'm far more likely to crop a rectangle to a square (yes I know a square is a rectangle, but you know what I mean) than the other way round.

Having said that, I see absolutely no reason to limit myself to the imposed format of any camera. I'll do what I want to do. End of.
 
joxby said:
How does that work then Terry, it seems as though you put the format before aesthetics, like you are commissioned to fill a pre-dimensioned space in a magazine or whatever, and shoot something that shape on 6x6, and then crop it.
Click to expand...

Don't fill the frame. Leave some space around the subject matter.


Steve.
 
Yeah I'm not opposed to knocking 1 inch/CM off my shots to make a nice square if its looking that way once its on the screen.
 
stevelmx5 said:
Isn't that because you didn't specifically search for 6x6 images like Nick did....

As per my last post, any digital camera you buy today and most cameras in general for the last 30 years default to a rectangular crop so it's pretty obvious that the majority of shots in a search will not be square
Click to expand...

There is no reason why a digi owner can't crop his shots to sq, in fact I do it my self sometimes (rectangular format) when there is some crap either side of the subject that I don't want. There were some great shots in Nick's link esp the houses and I would agree in rectangular format it wouldn't improve.......but it is all down to what you like and the rectangular format for scenery just looks right to me and I don't know why.

Maybe a better link and supposed to be "great scenery shots"
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=g...O6GO4XfaNjFgLAI&ved=0CCEQsAQ&biw=1920&bih=959
 
Last edited:
stevelmx5 said:
Maybe I'm a film heathen but as a photographer I don't understand the apparent fear of cropping images to suit your vision? I agree that shooting 6x6 delivers a unique result dimensionally when every digital camera you buy defaults to a rectangle but that's not to say there's anything wrong with preferring a rectangular shot after you've developed the negs. After all, we're all just trying to get a result we like whether that's exactly as the negatives were intended to be or if you've cropped down to one corner because the rest of the shot didn't work (in your own eyes).
Click to expand...

I'll join you over in the heathen camp mate... It's all about the end result - I tend to "pre-visualise" nearly all my shots anyway - the ones I don't generally come out rubbish (or even worse than the ones I DO plan) - and frequently I shoot on the ETRSi or the EOS3 and think "I wish i'd still got the Hassy, this would look great square" - but, I just get on with it and shoot on what I have with me, and crop accordingly. if I'm not 100% sure on the composition, I'll even waste even more film "real estate" by framing a little looser, just to give me more scope when looking at the image on a BIG screen at home...
 
excalibur2 said:
the rectangular format for scenery just looks right to me and I don't know why.
Click to expand...

There's a reason that the rectangle on its side gets called landscape, and the one on its end gets called portrait... hundreds of years of art history...
 
Back in the '50s and '60s when Dad was a working pro, customers would sometimes specify a particular crop ratio so Dad would simply mark the focussing screen on his Rolleiflex with a chinagraph pencil. These days, most of my shots end up on A series paper so I tend to shoot slightly loose then crop slightly from the relevant areas, just like I used to when I was shooting loads of B&W and doing my own printing. If a shot suits a different crop better than it does a native one to the camera, making the crop is part of the "creative process" IMO!
 
TheBigYin said:
There's a reason that the rectangle on its side gets called landscape, and the one on its end gets called portrait... hundreds of years of art history...
Click to expand...

I suppose it's going to be one of those threads:- for scenery, sq or rectangle and the only answer would be to look up all the old master's paintings and all the great photographers shots and add up all the sq and rectangular formats...and the winner would be by majority. But then who cares if you like your own shots ;)

Rembrandt to start the ball rolling o_O :-
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=r...v&sa=X&ei=tnr9VJqPEsq57gbTmIGwBQ&ved=0CCAQsAQ
 
Last edited:
If anyone cares to read my thoughts on image shape, send me a PM and I'll send a link to my book. It's on pages 100-104 and has too many photos illustrating the points to make it easy to post here. I even include a circular one...

Mark - another Tutorial post?
 
StephenM said:
If anyone cares to read my thoughts on image shape, send me a PM and I'll send a link to my book. It's on pages 100-104 and has too many photos illustrating the points to make it easy to post here. I even include a circular one...

Mark - another Tutorial post?
Click to expand...

Stephen - that would probably be a really good subject for a tutorial yes...

I'll drop you a PM and have a read of it (as Yv and I did with the previous Chapter) with a view to its suitability for adding it to the Tutorials
 
StephenM said:
I even include a circular one...
Click to expand...

I saw a circular image recently (in a square frame), and it looked quite stunning. Made me wonder why we don't see more... but then, I guess it's more complicated framing circular images, and perhaps there's a chicken/egg situation re the post processing tools we have (I've never seen a circular crop option, for instance).
 
ChrisR said:
I saw a circular image recently (in a square frame), and it looked quite stunning. Made me wonder why we don't see more... but then, I guess it's more complicated framing circular images, and perhaps there's a chicken/egg situation re the post processing tools we have (I've never seen a circular crop option, for instance).
Click to expand...
Surely if you're framing in a square frame then you only need to cut a circular mount?
 
I've never tried it, and my PhotoShop skills are almost non-existant, but if I had to do it that way I'd be looking at using Microsoft Paint to create a circle, fill it to get a solid block, and then use it as a layer (suitably sized) to overlay and make a selection to let the centre show through. No idea if this can be done; it's just my first thought as to what I'd try looking up.

A matt is the simplest way. How many old portraits were in oval matts?

As far as I know, only Kodak made a camera giving a circular image.

Edit to add:

I've just Googled and found a method that is completely done in Photoshop.
 
Last edited:
StephenM said:
As far as I know, only Kodak made a camera giving a circular image.
Click to expand...

A few fisheyes give a circular image... This shot was taken on digital but I've used the same lens on 35mm.
GPN_5881 by gpn63, on Flickr
 
Terrywoodenpic said:
A photographer has little if any control over how his shots are reproduced or even which ones are selected and for what.
.
Click to expand...


I see, but when you say "photographer" you actually mean professional photographer, only pro's are subject to the influence of a client, which doesn't apply to 95% of this forum membership.
So the obvious question is, do you carry that modus opperandi through in to your own personal work ?

I dunno about that interview a pro in the business section crap, interview a Terrywoodenpic, or a Stevesmith, or an Edbray would be an infinitely more interesting thread..:)
 
joxby said:
I see, but when you say "photographer" you actually mean professional photographer, only pro's are subject to the influence of a client, which doesn't apply to 95% of this forum membership.
So the obvious question is, do you carry that modus opperandi through in to your own personal work ?

I dunno about that interview a pro in the business section crap, interview a Terrywoodenpic, or a Stevesmith, or an Edbray would be an infinitely more interesting thread..:)
Click to expand...

Although Rolleis and hasselblads were used by thousands of amateurs for many years they were the life blood of professionals in almost every sphere.

Camera clubs had them in profusion but you would never see a square picture in a competition or exhibition, where 15x12 or 20x16 were the norm, and even the 12x10 print was rare In amateur circles.
However loads of sqare snapshot cameras were made, and the square enprints were very common indeed.

I do tend to prefer an oblong format, but I do have a few shots that only work as a square. I rather like taking panoramas but they never seem to view well on paper.
 
Last edited:
RaglanSurf said:
Surely if you're framing in a square frame then you only need to cut a circular mount?
Click to expand...

The original Kodak camera took circular images.
as did the first metal camera made by voigtlander.
 
Terrywoodenpic said:
The original Kodak camera took circular images.
as did the first metal camera made by voigtlander.
Click to expand...
Yes I get that Terry, I wasn't saying circular images didn't exist but my comment was in response to Chris's comment that framing circular images was more complicated in square frames.
 
I didn't know Voigtlander had made one. Thanks.

I just had a recollection that in the dim and distant past when I made contact prints and used printing frames, that as well as the "standard" inserts you could get to create a white border, you could also buy oval ones. Possibly round ones as well? I can't recall. I remember that I did have one that let me have a white border round a 35mm size negative printed on the standard size of gaslight paper of the day. I expect that they're all tucked away in an obscure cupboard now.
 
StephenM said:
I didn't know Voigtlander had made one. Thanks.

I just had a recollection that in the dim and distant past when I made contact prints and used printing frames, that as well as the "standard" inserts you could get to create a white border, you could also buy oval ones. Possibly round ones as well? I can't recall. I remember that I did have one that let me have a white border round a 35mm size negative printed on the standard size of gaslight paper of the day. I expect that they're all tucked away in an obscure cupboard now.
Click to expand...

Oval frames and images were very popular in Edwardian times. I have a box of unused oval convex glasses and thin metal fames from those times, that I picked up many years ago.
 
Terrywoodenpic said:
Although Rolleis and hasselblads were used by thousands of amateurs for many years they were the life blood of professionals in almost every sphere.

Camera clubs had them in profusion but you would never see a square picture in a competition or exhibition, where 15x12 or 20x16 were the norm, and even the 12x10 print was rare In amateur circles.
However loads of sqare snapshot cameras were made, and the square enprints were very common indeed.

I do tend to prefer an oblong format, but I do have a few shots that only work as a square. I rather like taking panoramas but they never seem to view well on paper.
Click to expand...

Being an old fart I agree, when keen photographers did their own printing (no computers around), sq photos were not common which probably helped form my opinion preferring rectangular shots...also I did own two 6 X 6 Rolleis so have experience and 6X6 is just not for me.
Also had a crappy 35mm (or maybe it was 127 or whatever) camera that gave about 1" square shots and never like it, also owned the ugliest bakerlite TLR camera in the world that gave 6X6 but didn't like that also.....so overall I guess I'm not square and never will be.
 
Last edited:
joxby said:
I dunno about that interview a pro in the business section crap, interview a Terrywoodenpic, or a Stevesmith, or an Edbray would be an infinitely more interesting thread..:)
Click to expand...

While not agreeing 100% about the interview a pro thread (I enjoyed the occasional non-wedding shooting pro's stuff, but the white dress & suit stuff bores the scat out of me) I think that there is actually some scope for a similar kind of thing within the environs of the "gentlemans club"... Doubt many people would actually be up for it, however, and we'd NEVER manage to turn it around in a single week...

However - I think it would be best if this was taken to another thread for discussion / organising. I'm out for the rest of the day now, but if someone want's to post up a "Interview a Filmie" thread to Gauge Interest, we can take it from there...

Idea would be that people sign up as being "game to be interviewed" - some may not want to get a grilling... then the thread originator writes 10 questions PM's em to me, and I PM them to the victim chosen interviewee, get a reply, and post them into a single locked thread...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top