ku # 531 ~ it's hip to be square

Summit cloud ~ Whiteface
click to embiggenOn yesterday's entry Andreas Manessinger had a few questions:

All your images are square .... but you most probably shoot with a 3:2 format camera ... How do you compose for square images? and, And now that I think of it: why square at all?

Why square? Well, first and foremost, I just have a feel and like for the square picture - it just feels right for the way I see the world. Not that I have any issues at all with rectangular pictures and lord knows I have made a zillion of them in commercial work. And, if you checked out my 8×10 view camera stuff, you know that I can handle myself well in the rectangular world.

But, I have always had a preference in my personal work for square pictures with a minor in the panoramic format and the late and much lamented SX-70 Polaroid square. I think that one of the reasons I really like the square is because the center of the frame is equidistant from the the 4 corners of the frame and much of what I want to direct the viewers attention to is at least somewhat centered in the frame. or, in some the cases, the visual action/energy "rotates" around the center of the frame.

I also know that the eye is more constrained within a square frame - there is less room to room. Since most of my pictures are also rather chock full of visual activity, to my eye and sensibility, the square (and the black edge) helps keep the viewer more focused on what I want them to see. The square creates a "tighter" composition, if you want to think in terms of "composition".

As to the question of how I compose within the entire visual field of the viewfinder, it's just a matter of experience. I know, within a very minor tolerance, how much of the viewfinder field I will be eliminating to get my square. This simply a matter of having it done it for so long. And, even though I just added a 3×2 format camera (Pentax K20D) to my longtime 4×3 format camera (Olympus 4/3rds), there has been no problem at all adapting to that viewfinder. 99.9% of the time, I crop a virtually equal amount of image off of both ends of the frame (give or take a hair width or two) in order to get my square picture.

That said, I do wish some sensor maker would grace use with a square sensor. One of the problems I have with the digital camera world is that, if the manufacturers don't see a BIG market in it, it won't exist. Sadly, unless you picture with film, there is no square viewfinder anymore.

Comments

[Sean]

Here's your square sensor:

http://www.rollei.jp/e/pd/MiniDigiAF.html

[Anil Rao]

> I think that one of the reasons I really
> like the square is because the center of
> the frame is equidistant from the the 4
> corners of the frame

This is actually a property of a rectangle. Since a square is a special kind of rectangle (all 4 sides are of equal length), it shares the same property. :)

[Martin Doonan]

More's the point, the centre is equidistant from the four edges of the frame. I like it because it doesn't emphasise left-right or up-down, both directions are equally (un)important.

I've been wanting a square sensor for ages, so I'll be right in line alongside you when it happens.

Interesting the way you see the sqaure from the centre of the frame - I always compose squares from one edge.

[Adam Maas]

If you've got access to a MF system that can take a Digital Back (Hassy, Contax, Mamiya 645AF, RZ and RB) the PhaseOne P20+ back is 16MP Square Format and can be rented fairly inexpensively. Hassy also sells a 16MP CFV square back for the 500 series bodies.

[Andreas Manessinger]

Mark,

Thanks for the answer and the link. It's interesting that I found your site just at the same time as my friend Ted Byrne had a "square" phase. Really seems to be hip :)

Regarding small markets, well, that's one of the worst effects of today's high technology: producing anything has become insanely expensive. Look at the absurd sums that go into new cars. It's completely out of the question that we see a new small producer of cars anytime soon. It happens that new brands appear, just look at "Tata", the Indian brand, but Tata has been a big company for a long time, and they really roll up their home market from the low end. Any chance to see a small manufacturer of middle or upper class cars in Europe or the US? No way. The same goes for cameras, computer CPUs, graphic processors, and it only gets worse and worse.

Actually I see some innovation come from the edge where I've least expected it: Micro Four Thirds could be a big success. Imagine silent cameras with interchangeable lenses. You could take photos at the opera, using long lenses, and nobody would mind. But maybe not. Soon we'll see what Oly is cooking.

Andreas