 |
| "Shooting square" helps this portrait draw attention to the eyes. In a rectangular format, there would be too much extra space for the eye to wander around in. |
I
periodically come up with challenges for myself in order to expand
and improve upon my photographic abilities, both technical and
aesthetic. This is a long accepted practice, and I've (usually) found
it does help me “think outside the box”. Most of us can fall into
creative habits which can not only limit what we produce when it
comes to our images, but leave us in a rut as well.
I'm
starting 2019 thinking inside
the box. A 1:1 box that is. Square photos.
Why
am I doing this?
There
was a time when a great number of photos were being taken with
cameras that shot in square format. 2 1/4” square (120 film format)
twin lens reflex, and then later single lens reflex cameras were once
the choice of professionals and enthusiasts. They wouldn't do a
wedding or portrait shoot with anything less. Even amateurs would
find themselves “shooting square” with a variety of “box
cameras” and lower end models, such as the various “Brownie”
iterations and the 126 Instamatic of the 1960s.
One
advantage of square format cameras is there is no need to change the
orientation of the camera for “portrait mode” as is done with
rectangular format cameras. This can also be a bit of a disadvantage,
because if you do want to frame a shot in a vertical format, you have
to crop off a portion of the frame. Still, this wasn't that much of
an issue when cropping from 120, medium format cameras because the
resulting image would still have more detail than that taken with
most 35mm films.
However,
various factors-most notably the growth in popularity of 35mm cameras
as well as the 110 Instamatic, rectangular format, mostly with a 3:2
ratio, has pretty much taken over photography. The exception is still
professional or enthusiast use where medium format dslrs are
preferred.
So
then, why shoot in square format?
Good
question.
I
already crop rectangular images to square compositions regularly.(I
shoot Olympus m4/3 cameras, which happen to have a native 4:3 ratio).
Sometimes an image looks best that way, especially portraits. Often I
“previsualize” an image that way while I'm composing in the
viewfinder. (Previsualization is an important aspect of creating
strong and appealing images.) Other times, I decide in post
processing that an image will look better in a 1:1 ratio.
Since
my mirrorless cameras allow me to set a 1:1 format that appears that
way in the viewfinder, I've decided to “go retro” in a way and do
most of my personal work that way for the next few months. The goal
is to force myself to think of compositions in terms of the benefits
and constraints of a 1:1 ratio.
 |
| I had my camera set to square format, so this is what I saw in the viewfinder. I switched to 4:3 format and didn't see a composition I liked as much as this. |
Aside
from the afore-mentioned benefit of not having to turn a camera on
its side to compose an image, there are some aesthetic opportunities
afforded by shooting in square format:
- The “Rule of Thirds” takes on a different dynamic. The squares and intersections of the Rule of Thirds are equally distributed within the frame, which can both help or hurt using this technique for composing.
- The dreaded “dead center” framing can actually work well in square format. This is because there is less “dead space” along the sides.
- The format itself creates a different emotional/aesthetic response in the viewer. It can create a more “static” appearance: it actually leads the eye to stay within the frame more. This can either lead to boring photos, or force better use of not only Rule of Thirds, but “S” curves, triangles and other methods of composition that make for more engaging images.
- "Negative Space" can create a decidedly different effect than when used in rectangular formats.
- Square format stands out from the multitude of rectangular images people see every day.
So,
if you're looking for ways to broaden your photographic horizons,
give “shooting square” a try. In fact, you don't even need to
“shoot square”. You can always just go back through your existing
images and experiment with cropping in 1:1 format if you don't
already. Still, this doesn't get the creative juices flowing quite as
much as actually making captures in 1:1 format.
If
you have a mirrorless camera, you can probably already set it to 1:1.
It will only produce .jpegs in that format: RAW will still be
rectangular. Many smartphone cameras allow for setting 1:1 ratio.
There are also smartphone apps you can download that offer this
ratio. Compact cameras are a mixed bag: some allow for 1:1 shooting,
some don't. You'll just have to check the menu to find out.
If
you shoot with a dslr, you're pretty much stuck shooting rectangular
and cropping in post. This is where previsualization comes in, which
is a good thing to work on anyway. It can take time and practice to
look through a rectangular viewfinder and see the image as a square
composition, but you can do it if you are patient. People shooting
35mm cameras did this for decades.
Give
thinking inside the (square) box a try. You might find it opens up
levels of creativity you haven't touched on before.
