Square format


Posting rules: It shouldn't need saying, but... play nice. Please keep your discussions civil. You can disagree, just don't be disagreeable. And, of course, all of the usual stuff like no spamming. Tex adds: I'll be rigorously enforcing this as we go along. We're probably going to be a small community in a little lifeboat, so we can't have members at each others' throats. This is for the sake of the project as a whole. So when you post, pretend you're speaking in person with your very wealthy auntie who has always treated you wonderfully and currently lists you prominently in her will. I won't be tossing anyone out of the forums because we are all in this together (except spammers: immediate membership cancelation), but I'll delete suspect posts right away.


5 posts / 0 new
Last post
Doug
Square format

It's nothing specific to LightZone, but I'm starting to do more square crops. I wrote an article over at DPReview about square format, if anyone cares to read it. Most of the photos in the article were processed with LightZone.

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/9462076757/square-format-not-so-weird

tex
Doug, I love square format

You should check out the article by Kirk Tuck @ The Online Photographer. Posted last week I think(I put in a response rebutting, but whatevah...)

BTW, going to Drupal camp this Friday and Saturday.

[Edited by Doug: added link to Kirk Tuck article.]

Doug
Tuck and L7

Yeah, I think Tuck should've cut back the rhetoric about the non-square aspect ratios. Everything has a place in photography. As for 4:3, I've seen some suggestions that it might be the best general-purpose aspect ratio for snapshots.

I was a bit befuddled by the comment by Crabby Umbo that "studio portraits on Hasselblad ... all sort of look the same, except for the actual people". I had this bizarre notion that the point of a studio portrait was to capture the person. I didn't know it was supposed to be an artistic outlet for the photographer.

I'm also surprised by Tuck's statement (echoed in some of the comments) that "When I look into the finder of my camera I want to see a square frame ... Cropping after the fact is not the same." I guess I'm an old fogey, but we used to have this technique we called "pre-visualization". I don't have much trouble seeing 8x10 or square crops in the viewfinder. If I did, I could order a viewscreen with crop lines. Or mark the LCD on my digicam. Seeing the desired aspect ratio on the viewscreen is optimal, but it hardly seems a necessity.

In any event, all of the photos illustrating my article started off as 3:2 images. I selected these from my library because they looked like a square crop would serve them well. I didn't photograph any of them with square intent; I'm just now starting to do that, with my digicam.

[And full disclosure: I didn't photograph the last one — the Persian Air Services DC-7C — at all. My father took that one.]

Oh, I did like Ctein's comment: "All your aspect ratio are belong to us!"

kurt
Thanks for the article

All my life I've been shooting with 35mm format and I am sure it has fixed or jammed thinking and creativity. Your article clicked something in the back of my head and that was not the neck :-)

I have to try square format. I fully agree that it is suitable for some images ... and it is not so far from the 4x3 or 11x8 formats what I have tried.

kurt

Serschele
Formats?

In the last part of his life Ansel Adams was widely shooting Hasselblad, because view gear became to lasty for him. As I can remember he wrote somewhere (in "The making of 40 photographs", perhaps) that he had no difficulty to previsualize any format on the finder screen.

And "developpement" is an interpretation of the original/negative, as he and many others said. I'm using only 4/3 format sensors since entering digital in 2003. I often crop to square afterwood, having seldom prewiewed that when shooting. Who cares?