For much of my photographic life I shot primarily, and by choice,
square format BW. I used Minolta Autocords, Rolleis and Bronicas. The
proportions of the film image never particularly bothered me. The
square was the most versatile way to image with a waist level finder.
It allowed for vertical or horizontal cropping or none at all. Since
the sizes and proportions for paper and film were decided by different
industries, it is not surprising that they don't agree. It is kind of
like the 10 hot dogs and 8 hot dog buns situation. I cropped however I
thought the image demanded, not how the film or paper format demanded.
I suppose there is pressure though to compose within the limits set by
the media.
Don
Guy Glorieux wrote:
Emily L. Ferguson said:
"He sees in squares anyway...
What an interesting comment. I've got the Mont St-Michel book and the
prime reason I bought it is that the composition (plus a lot of other
features in the photographs, of course) is nothing like other books on
the Mont St-Michel.
I wonder how many members of this group also see in square. How many
see vertically. Personally, perhaps because my vision tends to work in
such a way, I see horizontal and - more and more so - panoramic. But
I also have a fascination for well a articulated square vision. Square
is more difficult to shoot than the 24x36 format but, in my own view,
it can yield much more powerful images.
Anybody has views on square vs rectangular, horizontal vs vertical?
Guy
2008/11/20
It's
fun, doing the research for a project like this, but at a certain point
it's time to just go out and do it yourself.
If Kenna is shooting digitally he's not using a 35mm digi. He sees in
squares anyway, and makes beaucoup bucks.
--
Emily L. Ferguson
mailto:elf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
508-563-6822
New England landscapes, wooden boats and races
http://www.landsedgephoto.com
http://e-and-s.instaproofs.com/
|
