Square for Art, Thou Romeo?

A square (1:1) crop of this image enhances the lines and

directs attention back to singer Pokey LaFarge's face, without any 

wasted space or dead areas.

Instagram has a feature many consider quite annoying: they only accept square (1:1) format photos. You would think this would inhibit people from using the service, but that has not been the case. Though there are some technical reasons for the requirement I won't go into, I do have to say that the feature may also be responsible for helping millions of people improve the quality of their photos. Granted, many people overdo the various effects Instagram offers, but even working pros do that.

I'm talking about the aesthetic value of the square format. For many years, when medium format cameras tended to dominate advanced and professional photography, the most common format was 1:1, or in terms of negative size 2 ¼ inches square. For decades, until the 35mm SLR* took over, thousands of photographers used Hasselblads or Rollei TLRs** both in the studio and as their walk around cameras.

Many people still prefer the square format. In addition to it being a preset option in most editors, many digital cameras offer the option of setting the capture format to 1:1. In the case of cameras using an electronic viewfinder (such as mirrorless) the square format is what is seen in the viewfinder.

What is the advantage of square format if nearly all cameras are made with a default rectangular format, either 3:2 or 4:2? Or, in the case of many smart phones, the format is even “wide screen” 16:9.

Funny you should ask.

For years, Hasselblad advertised the 2 ¼ inch format their cameras used as the “Ideal Format”. Mainly this was technical, having to do with more efficient lens designs. It was also practical: square format cameras could be used in only 1 orientation, so the ability to turn the camera 90 degrees and still use it was not a design concern. All this was stuff for engineers to talk about: for most photographers, the “ideal” part of the format was, and is, the flexibility it offers. It's also a challenging format, because if not careful, you can produce very static, boring images with it.

At the time of capture, I already had this final image in mind.

Centering a subject like this actually works well with square format,

if done right.

First off, people who try shooting in 1:1 format will find it lends itself easily to portraiture. With a square image, centering a person in the frame is no longer a matter of having too much extra space or a static image. Square portraits often are more appealing because they are so static: the eye can stay pretty much focused on the subject, without wandering around to parts of the image that really don't matter, as can happen with portraits in other formats. Some portrait photographers love 1:1 so much that is all they use.

Portraits in 1:1 format can have a "mysterious" feel to them (at least for some people) even when it's not intended. I think part of the reason for this is, for various reasons, square portraits tend to make people focus more on the subject and pay less attention to aspects of composition. This is a subtle, subconscious aspect that doesn't affect all people. When it does occur, it results in portraits of a particularly personal nature.

Originally shot in portrait orientation, this 1:1 crop eliminates some

unnecessary space at the top and distracting elements at the bottom.

The result is a simpler composition that draws attention to the face.

What about other subjects?

That depends a lot on the subject. In many cases, a rectangular format is going to be preferable (that idea brings up how a simple change in format can turn a boring shot into an eye catcher, which I will discuss in another article). Our field of vision is wider than it is tall, so rectangle formats feel more “natural” to us. Since we don't like a lot of wasted, dead space in many photos, turning a camera 90 degrees to capture someone standing, or a building or tree, is usually for the best.

There are times, however, where a square format is what works best. When I end up going square, it can be with forethought (at the time I make the capture I have already visualized the image as a square crop) or it can be a “save”. 1:1 cropping was the only way I could get an image to turn out well.

All those “rules of composition” such as the “rule of thirds” and “S Curves” and “Diagonal lines” still apply to square format. In fact, they can be even more important because the format itself is so static. Done right, applying these composition techniques within a square frame can produce a photo with more impact than if the same subject were presented in a rectangular format. It can have the viewer saying “Wow” when otherwise they might just nod a bit. They might not even know why they find the image so impressive, because the last thing people notice about a photo is the format/aspect ratio.

Going square with this image allowed me to eliminate some

distracting elements, as well as create better balance between

the grave markers.

That all sounds good, but what about landscapes?

Landscapes, by nature, are assumed to be best photographed and presented in as wide a format as possible. That's been the case since painting became formalized, and a 3 foot wide by 2 foot tall canvas was said to be in “landscape orientation.” As I mentioned above, our normal field of vision is much wider than it is tall, so we tend to see the world in wide vistas. With only a few exceptions, portrait oriented photos of landscapes feel very unnatural to most people.

Square format offers a unique compromise when it comes to landscapes. Psychologically, the 1:1 ratio is “neutral” enough so that a photo what would seem odd in portrait orientation is acceptable as a square format. In fact, for certain types of landscape composition, square offers a composition advantage, similar to as with portraits. Square landscapes certain set themselves apart at photo competitions where 90% of the entries are in landscape orientation.

They key to going square with landscapes is to understand that while many landscapes are about capturing broad vistas and great subject depth, a square format landscape usually presents a closer, more detailed view of a scene. Think of capturing a few of the trees, instead of the entire forest. At times, square is the only way to do that effectively.

The image on the left is the original capture. Notice how your eye tends to move between the sign and the background, almost as though they are competing for attention? The square version conveys the same narrative, but makes the sign more dominant as the main subject.

So now is the time to stop complaining about how Instagram causes you to fret over how to square crop all those great photos you upload, and start exploring square as a creative tool. You can do this a couple of ways. One is “in camera” at the time of capture.

If you are using a smart phone, you can find apps for both Android and iPhone that project square format lines, or even just show a square image, in your camera app. With mirrorless or compact digital cameras, there are often 1:1 formats available in the menu options which will likewise show either format lines or just a 1:1 image in the viewfinder.

DSLRs are more problematic. Their eye level finders will not display any sort of guidelines showing how 1:1 looks. Some DSLRs will let you select 1:1 as a format option, and display it on the LCD during live view or when reviewing the photo. Don't view this as a a problem: view it as an opportunity to exercise your ability to pre-visualize a seen, something the best photographers have learned to do automatically.

The other way of going square is in post processing. Often this is the easier approach because you can move the crop around a bit until it's just right. Doing so does coast you some image real estate, but not usually enough to noticeably degrade the image. In fact, editing is a good place to start going square. Go through your stored images and experiment. Does cropping 1:1 make a good image better or worse? Does it take a so so image and give it new life? Spend some time working with square format, and you will find it improves your photography overall, not only by broadening the way in which you capture and present photos, but also in how you assess all your images, even the ones that are still best presented in a rectangular format.

Eventually you'll discover that it is hip to be square.

*Single lens reflex. A camera that uses a single lens, and a rapid-return mirror to reflect the image into the viewfinder. This as opposed to a **Twin lens reflex, a camera that uses one lens for exposing the negative and a second lens to project the image into a viewfinder. The mirror in a TLR doesn't move, making for a very quiet camera.