Cropping of the squares?

  • Thread starter Deleted member 21335
  • Start date
D

Deleted member 21335

Guest
Ok so who shoots square and crops it into a rectangle? I really want to make some rectangles but for some bizarre, unknown reason, I am reluctant to throw some of my negative away to cropping. Am I crazy? Not everything suits a square. I have done it once but recently I think when folk see images from a Hasselblad, they expect to see a square! Perhaps I need to change the mindset. Share your thoughts please. :)





Regardless of your answers I will still lust after a Pentax 67ii for a reasonable price. :)
 
Carl Hall said:
If you're going to crop 6x6 to a rectangle, why not just buy a 645? No cropping and more shots to a roll!
Click to expand...

Exactly Carl, exactly. But if I am going to spend any money, it's going to go towards a 67ii when one becomes available at the right price. There is one at the moment in Harlow but it's a 4 hour drive. :(
 
I crop to whatever suits the image... the joy of shooting with a Hasselblad (or other square format MF) for me was that the negative was big enough to be able to throw a little away if needed and still have a big old lump of fillum to work with - and of course that there was none of that messing around twisting the camera 90 degrees of you wanted to go from landscape to portrait.

At the end of the day, unless you're entering something into a "no crop, no PP" competition, where it's compulsory to show the film rebates, stuff it - crop to suit the picture.

Before the Cartier-Bresson acolytes come down on me like a ton of bricks, that's not to say i'm advocating sloppy framing - far from it, but - as you say - not everything suits a square framing.
 
gazmorton2000 said:
Not everything suits a square.
Click to expand...

And not everything suits a rectangle. :)

I hear what you're saying and I don't usually crop my own squares either, but shooting 6x6cm actually affords you the freedom to choose between square and rectangle. You're obviously free to lust after the Pentax 67, but I don't see how you'd really be gaining anything over your Hasselblad.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nod
TheBigYin said:
I crop to whatever suits the image... the joy of shooting with a Hasselblad (or other square format MF) for me was that the negative was big enough to be able to throw a little away if needed and still have a big old lump of fillum to work with - and of course that there was none of that messing around twisting the camera 90 degrees of you wanted to go from landscape to portrait.

At the end of the day, unless you're entering something into a "no crop, no PP" competition, where it's compulsory to show the film rebates, stuff it - crop to suit the picture.

Before the Cartier-Bresson acolytes come down on me like a ton of bricks, that's not to say i'm advocating sloppy framing - far from it, but - as you say - not everything suits a square framing.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the response. Good to hear other peoples way of thinking! :)

skysh4rk said:
And not everything suits a rectangle. :)

I hear what you're saying and I don't usually crop my own squares either, but shooting 6x6cm actually affords you the freedom to choose between square and rectangle. You're obviously free to lust after the Pentax 67, but I don't see how you'd really be gaining anything over your Hasselblad.
Click to expand...

Yeah someone said that to me once before. I have the choice with making squares. Hmmmm, it's not really a case of gaining anything (except a little bigger negative I guess) but they are beautiful. :) Definitely a want not a need though and to be honest, I would probably be better to really learn how to use the Hasselblad as well as I can. :)
 
gazmorton2000 said:
Yeah someone said that to me once before. I have the choice with making squares. Hmmmm, it's not really a case of gaining anything (except a little bigger negative I guess) but they are beautiful. :)
Click to expand...

Well, if you want a new toy, that's fair enough, but you've already got the necessary equipment for taking great medium format photographs.
 
skysh4rk said:
Well, if you want a new toy, that's fair enough, but you've already got the necessary equipment for taking great medium format photographs.
Click to expand...

The money would buy a lot of film though so I am keen to try to learn to make some better images with the Hasselblad so will probably stick with it (until an offer I can't refuse presents itself).
 
I crop to suit the subject. Sometimes a square is best (different proportions can create different subjective effects over and above the actual content); sometimes not. I look at it this way: I have cameras with ratios of 1:1, 1:1.17, 1:1.25 and 1:1.5. When I photograph something, I don't usually have them all available to me, and I have to use whatever I have to hand. If one format better fits the subject than another, I have to crop if I don't have the "right" one.
 
StephenM said:
I crop to suit the subject. Sometimes a square is best (different proportions can create different subjective effects over and above the actual content); sometimes not. I look at it this way: I have cameras with ratios of 1:1, 1:1.17, 1:1.25 and 1:1.5. When I photograph something, I don't usually have them all available to me, and I have to use whatever I have to hand. If one format better fits the subject than another, I have to crop if I don't have the "right" one.
Click to expand...

Yet another argument for using something with as big a Negative as possible to start out with (weight/carrying considerations notwithstanding) (y)
 
I try to avoid cropping my 6x6 shots and just compose for a square now. If I do want a more oblong ratio then I pick up my Pentax 67. The negative isn't that much bigger but the mental approach (taking into account the wider ratio and the eye-level composing) in taking photographs is different enough for me to justify keeping the two formats.
 
If I want to crop, I crop.

Wouldn't give it a second thought.

I love square negs, but part of the attraction is the flexibility to crop to portrait or landscape.
 
I don't mind a bit cropping myself and a big neg gives you that choice. However I don't buy the argument that a square neg is better in that regard. You can easily crop it to a portrait or landscape format, of course, but the same argument is true for a rectangular format surely....I can easily crop my 645 negs to a 4.5x4.5 square (which is still a fair size really for anything up to about a 12 inch print and substantially bigger than a 35mm neg), or my 6x9 negs to a 6x6 square, if I don't want a rectangle. And more often than not, a rectangle is what I want. I still love shooting with my Rolleicord however :D.

Format wise I'm just really happy with what I've got: 35mm, 645, 6x6 and 6x9...everything covered really (as long as I don't get the LF itch....:eek:).
 
I don't have any issues with cropping if it makes for a better image though I generally try to compose for the format I've got with me.
 
I've been shooting square a long time, whilst square isn't perfect for everything I compose sympathetically, that is I tend to make the scene fit the viewfinder, not the other way round.
The upshot of that is I've ended up with the majority of my best pictures only really looking right.....square.
This in itself wasn't much of a problem because they were mostly scanned, its only now that I'm printing that oblong paper makes things awkward.
If I was starting from scratch, and assuming I was gonna print, I'd not shoot 6x6.
If you can remember the shot you are taking is oblong, and you aren't irritated by chopping a great clonk of film off your frame, you'll be ok....but looking through the viewfinder as you shoot its often not so easy.
 
I have real difficulty composing with a crop in mind, so when I'm shooting square that's how it generally remains. Though both my primary formats are broadly square any way (6x7 and 5x4) and if I'm honest the frame lines are three for squares when I do think a scene would be hip.
 
Wowza, a lot of responses and a few different views. Thanks for the insight! I am tempted to learn to compose and shoot squares to be honest, with the odd rectangle when I have it in mind. But I shall definitely stick with the Hasselblad and try and learn how to use it well.
 
I am afraid I am like joxby I try to make the image fit the square, if I want to shoot rectangles then bust out the 67 or 35mm I can't ever recall cropping a 6x6 to 6x45 image, just seems plain odd to me :)
 
I've been stunned by the number of squares I've shot that won't even go 10x8, and that's only mildly oblong.

You know how you always thought/heard/been told you should fill the frame when composing, well if you do that with square, I'd wager Hooleys bar bill that 90% of them (usually the best ones) won't crop to a 10x8 aspect ratio without fuxxing the picture up.

I dunno if there's a lesson in that I ought to learn apart from to stand half a mile further back and compose a 35mm x 24mm oblong in the middle of the square, that should cover all conceivable croppages, aaaaand straighten all me verticals...:D


oh wait......:(

/fail
 
I'd say that the lesson was that if the image is square, it should be printed as square...

The only thing that's worse (in my opinion) than the tyrany of the negative format is the tyranny of the paper proportions. The old (darkroom) paper sizes were the same size as plate/cut film negatives (except for postcard paper). Then there was no problem if you wanted to print the whole negative with no loss. I don't mind having a large white border on one side if that's what happens if the image is printed to my idea of the correct proportion.
 
Don't want to waste 25% of a 6x6 film frame on a 645 crop, when I should just have shot 645 in the first place.
Don't want to waste 25% of a 16x12 on a 12x12 print from a 6x6 neg.
Well, ok, you could use that 4x12 strip for testing or cut it in half for 2 6x4's ???.....I dunno, its all a bit messy.

Don't matter which way you cut it....crop it....square is several different shades of a pain in the arse...:hungover:
 
Looked at that way, if the image isn't the whole point of the exercise, then anything spent on paper is a waste. I can recall the time when photographers would print, print and print again until they got the exact image that they wanted and not worry about the cost compared to the result. But nowadays...

I'm only interested in the final result and don't worry overly about wastage. I wonder if manufacturing techniques in (say) lens making means that nowadays there is zero wastage with no lenses rejected as failing to make the grade? I'd always seen wastage (in terms of less than 100% yields) as inevitable in making anything worthwhile.

Be that as it may, if you find it a pain to produce square prints, then that's the end of it.
 
StephenM said:
I'd say that the lesson was that if the image is square, it should be printed as square...
Click to expand...

I'd say if the composition of the image was intended to be square, then it should be printed as square. If the image was composed as a rectangle, then I'd print it as a rectangle. Simple.

I admittedly compose 95% of my photos for the square, but there's absolutely nothing stopping any of us from taking a rectangular photograph with a 6x6cm camera and cropping accordingly. All of my own 6x6cm cameras even have rectangular frame lines to help in this regard.

Personally, I think many 6x6cm cameras actually make better 6x4.5cm cameras than most 6x4.5cm cameras themselves.
 
The paper wastage is all psychological, I've got loads of 10x8, but an 8x8 square seems a bit small, there's enough paper area for 9x9, better 10x10, so I've got some 10x12 warmtone, but a 10x10 seems a bit small when there's enough paper area for 11x11............and on it goes......:ROFLMAO:

no doubt if square paper was as all that was available, cropping from square to oblong would be several shades of pain in the arse....:coat:
 
Carl Hall said:
If you're going to crop 6x6 to a rectangle, why not just buy a 645? No cropping and more shots to a roll!
Click to expand...

Because you'd need to use a prism finder in most cases with 6x4.5cm to shoot vertically, resulting in an increase in size and weight, reduced ergonomics (due to size and needing to turn the camera), and lesser magnification compared to waist level finders.

Yes, 6x4.5cm might get a few more frames per roll (only three in the case of Bronica and a few others), but I'd miss many more shots in the grand scheme of things, because I'd be less willing to carry my camera with its eye-level prism.
 
skysh4rk said:
Because you'd need to use a prism finder in most cases with 6x4.5cm to shoot vertically, resulting in an increase in size and weight, reduced ergonomics (due to size and needing to turn the camera), and lesser magnification compared to waist level finders.

Yes, 6x4.5cm might get a few more frames per roll (only three in the case of Bronica and a few others), but I'd miss many more shots in the grand scheme of things, because I'd be less willing to carry my camera with its eye-level prism.
Click to expand...

HuH some of the 35mm digi cameras are massive and people use them, and would think it would be easier for the electronics to produce a sq image but who makes em...anyway I'd rather have a prism than have an image reversed in the viewfinder.
 
Last edited:
In the heyday of the Rolleiflex and later hasselblad we very rarely if ever finished with a square format.
As the shots were very often used with shots taken on 5x4 we almost always cropped to that format.

I had all my viewing screens blacked out in the corners to give a 5x4 proportion , both upright and landscape.
Clients and editors required the submitted prints as 10x8's unless specially stated.

Even cameras that took 6x9 and 35mm were printed to 10x8.
As you often required to submit contact sheets with the prints, if editors or clients "saw" a different crop they could ask for it.

The Only time I made square prints was for a store in Madrid where we had to print to 3 meter square for their windows.

For the most part square format prints were thought visually unacceptable.

What I find interesting is that square versions of familiar shots, are now produced in retrospectives of famous photographers. when they would never have been produced in that fashion originally.

I remember at college being lectured about never limiting crops to the format of the camera, they encouraged us to experiment with extreme and non rectilinear formats. Particularly when associated with Graphic design.
 
skysh4rk said:
And not everything suits a rectangle. :)

I hear what you're saying and I don't usually crop my own squares either, but shooting 6x6cm actually affords you the freedom to choose between square and rectangle. You're obviously free to lust after the Pentax 67, but I don't see how you'd really be gaining anything over your Hasselblad.
Click to expand...


A Square is a Rectangle
It is one where the sides are of equal length

Editorially It give you the option of producing a portrait or landscape print.
 
Terrywoodenpic said:
Editorially It give you the option of producing a portrait or landscape print.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Terrywoodenpic said:
I had all my viewing screens blacked out in the corners to give a 5x4 proportion , both upright and landscape.
Clients and editors required the submitted prints as 10x8's unless specially stated.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure that my Hasselblad had a focusing screen that was scribed with 5x4 proportion lines portrait and landscape... may have been a non-standard one - indeed I'm fairly sure that for example Rick Oleson does a screen with that scribing...

http://rick_oleson.tripod.com/index-175.html - it's the #6609 one...
 
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...

A photographer has little if any control over how his shots are reproduced or even which ones are selected and for what.
The 6x6 image was thought more of a blank canvas, that gave the art editor the greatest options.
While I cetainly composed in depth and space, I rarely composed to an exact format.

I might well have preferred a portrait or landscape view, but the art editor or graphic designer makes the choice.

It was only when people started doing professional work on 35mm that filling the frame became a major issue.

I would be very happy if digital cameras captured the entire image circle. Correcting verticles and horizons would be far easier with less losses.
 
TheBigYin said:
I'm pretty sure that my Hasselblad had a focusing screen that was scribed with 5x4 proportion lines portrait and landscape... may have been a non-standard one - indeed I'm fairly sure that for example Rick Oleson does a screen with that scribing...

http://rick_oleson.tripod.com/index-175.html - it's the #6609 one...
Click to expand...

Many screens had various lines, and photographers even drew their own specials.

Blacking the corners prevented you putting vital elements where they would be later cropped.
 
5x4 as a format presumably still carries some influence as the Nikon D3 offers it not sure if it is still a feature of the D4
 
abbandon said:
5x4 as a format presumably still carries some influence as the Nikon D3 offers it not sure if it is still a feature of the D4
Click to expand...
I do not think 5x4 holds much sway today.... in the pastt it was very much the standard large format size in the UK and theUSA.
In europe the metric equivalents were more important, such as 9x12 cm 13x18 and 18x24 whicch all have different proportions.

Today a far greater influence is given by the A sizes which all have identical proportions to each other, and suit 35mmFF and aps slightly better.

when it comes down to it, there is no exact correlation between sensor size and common reproduction sizes for printing papers of any type.

just like as in the past film formats were a world of their own, so are sensors.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top