Why does square format work?

[Hamish Gill]

I read somewhere the other day that the square format is considered the most artistic!
I through being bombarded by Petes square images and requests for square images then with my subsequent purchase of hasselblad find my self agreeing

I find it easier to frame a shot that I find aesthetically appealing in the format

I don't really know how to explain this so I thought I would see what people thought ...

One idea that I have is through taking a some what scientific approach ...
Have a look at this
Hasselblad Historical - Focal length comparisons

An 80mm lens (slightly longer then normal on a blad) when compared to 35mm would give a angle of view equiv to51mm (normal) on the horizontal but 34mm (wide) on the vertical
so a normal focal length is arguably more normal on a square format camera ...

This demonstrates the point
This was taken with my d3 and 50mm normal lens

This was taken with the blad with 80mm normal lens

I have ppd them to look the same, but to me the second one is a much more aesthetically pleasing photo

I wonder I this is of any relevance to anything?

One way or another in hoping that we can perhaps explore this a little

 

[Larry Bolch]

Throughout the history of art, the Golden Ratio has been considered the most ideal proportions. It is approximately 1:1.618. It is also referred to by a variety of other names—Golden Mean, Divine Proportions, etc. It works for all visual arts, including architecture.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_ratio

If the subject matter does not demand other formats, I generally use it for cropping on my web-site galleries and albums on Facebook. Photoshop makes it easy since you can insert the dimensions into the crop tool. I generally use 1280×791. With a typical 2:3 image from a dSLR, it trims a small amount from the vertical dimension.

The Fibonacci sequence where each successive number is the sum of the two previous numbers eventually falls into this ratio. There is enough about it on the web that you could easily spend the rest of your life in a study of it.

 

[Allan Batchelor]

I tend to agree with you there Hamish. I favour the 2nd too but Im not sure if its the square crop as such or its the fact that the river looks more appealing in it if you know what I mean

 

[Dave Moss]

Perhaps its because we are use to art photography in square format because of the use of medium format cameras in this field

 

[adrian jordin]

I suspect the second photo looks better because of the extra framing that bit of foreground gives...

 

[Pete Askew]

It is interesting isn't it. Although the main foreground is lacking much detail and 'content', its presence does seem to balance the image. The eye flows in to the same areas that are covered by the other shot but the presence of the extra foreground does seem to make a difference. Maybe it is because the elements of the image itself become the main compositional 'tools' rather than the framing. I have two portraits of Ina in the studio. One is square shot and on a Hasselblad, the other is a near full crop from a D3. One is a head and shoulders portrait whereas the other is more 'glamorous' in content and much more dynamic but it is the square shot that, for me at least, draws the eye most. Not quite the same comparison I know but still...

 

[Hamish Gill]

Be interested to see them Pete

My photo was only meant as an example of the idea not proof of concept as such ...

I find it easier to frame square images and find them more aesthetically appealing

I am aware of the 3x2 format being the closest fit to the golden ratio, but it I'm not sure I find it as easy to frame!
Maybe it is novelty of 1x1 shooting for me?

 

[Larry Bolch]

I am aware of the 3x2 format being the closest fit to the golden ratio, but it I'm not sure I find it as easy to frame!
Maybe it is novelty of 1x1 shooting for me?

That could very well be. A new challenge is generally stimulating. If the subject matter says square, a square crop it will be, not matter which camera I used.

 

[Brian Moore]

The square is more appealing here to me also,...largely I think due to that foreground area of the canal and the bend it takes.

 

[Hamish Gill]

If the subject matter says square, a square crop it will be, not matter which camera I used.

to true!

 

[Hamish Gill]

The square is more appealing here to me also,...largely I think due to that foreground area of the canal and the bend it takes.

Have you heard of the zeiss taxona?
I have a broken one knocking about! I think you would like it... it does 24x24 on 35mm film!
there are a few cameras that do it as it goes, the ziess tenax range and the lovely robot range
I will have a royal one day ... beautiful camera imo

ref Robot I
that all said, the taxona is the least expensive i am aware of!

 

[Larry Bolch]

My Stereo Realist does a 24×24 pair. It has been retired in place of the much finer Fuji W1 stereo.