Square Crops - Why all the angst against them?

[Jay Gould]

While I do not photograph wildlife I enjoy looking at everyones' images.

Today, in this thread http://www.birdphotographers.net/for...9203-Big-Daddy Morkel made the comment

I used to detest square crops but I do find myself enjoying the odd one now and then

Why all the angst - "detest" - regarding square crops.

We see this type of comment often - nothing personal Morkel/just using your statement as an example - on all of the critique forums.

If the subject is otherwise will photographed, and the focus of the story is well placed in the frame (off centered for this discussion) what is the problem with a square crop if the overall presentation looks good.

Why doesn't a square crop "look good"?

[Roman Kurywczak]

Hey Jay,

I myself am not the biggest fan of square crops but it can and does work! I think this stems from the way we view things.......proportionally many things in life are not square. Going back to art school.....the human face is oval/rectangular......eyes and mouth on ROT positions. Square is even/symmetrical.....most things in nature are not but again.....it can work sometimes. The human figure isn't/shouldn't be square.....longer than wide. I think many of the guidelines and choices made like the 2-3 ration....16-9 are based that humans respond more favorably to odd or rectangular. I must have skipped the theory class....but the same goes for diagonal comps and "centered" conps. They can work....but they are the exception and need to be treated with care when composing and attempting. Make sense?

[Hilary Hann]

Jay, it is an interesting topic but I feel that it gets raised more in nature forums than for other disciplines of photography. I wonder if that is partly because many professional photographers spent years huddled behind their square format Hassleblads and became comfortable with the format. I have noticed that in recent years at the Australian Professional Photography Awards, some of the highest scoring images have been square, and this includes landscapes which have rarely been seen as suitable subject matter for the square format.

I must admit that although I am cropping more pano than anything at the moment, I love square formats and find them both interesting and challenging as getting the strong composition in that aspect can be tricky. But I suppose that as I develop my skills, I am starting to look for images which challenge both myself and the viewer to think about what I'm presenting and if it makes them uncomfortable, I'm somewhat reassured by that! (in an odd way....)

[Jay Gould]

Hilary, total agreement, Mate!

Me, I like square as much as any other crop.

[Ken Watkins]

Jay,

A very interesting question, I have no idea why people feel there should be rules as to composition and shape.

Perhaps it is something to do with just being familiar with the standard 35mm format, which after all was only a transfer from movie.

As Hilary said in the early days many roll films were square so I suppose they produced square prints.

[Roger Clark]

Hi Jay,
It is not just square, but also crops approaching square. I've had comments on BPN on my images that I cropped to 8x10 proportion where people said they didn't like the "squarish" crop.

Personally, I like any proportion that works for the image. I don't crop to standard proportions, I crop for the image.

Roger

[David Stephens]

My first camera was a 44mm square format TLR Yashica 44, so I learned to work with a square format at a young age. These days I end up with a square crop quite often, particularly when it's a tight shot of an animal.

[Andrew Merwin]

I agree with Roger. Use a crop that best presents the subject. Rules are guidelines. IMHO, if they are strictly adhered to, creativity suffers.

[Jeff Dyck]

Ditto on Roger's comment. I find the whole notion of preferred aspect ratios interesting and have never understood people's objections to crops / ratios out of the 2x3 just on principle. I came from a large format background myself and after many years of framing things up in my head in 4x5 and 5x7 ratios, I had a heck of time getting used to the elongated aspect of the 35mm frame when I started shooting digital SLRs. I still find 5x7 to be one of the most pleasing ratios.

[Hilary Hann]

I would be interested to hear some more from those who are dead set against square crops and their reasoning. Nothing wrong with just not liking something, just interesting.

[Tom Graham]

Might be interesting to stroll through an art museum and survey how many paintings appear square. (Not perfectly, but to the eye). Doubt if you would find even 5%.
Here's a web site with about 40 Rembrandts. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rembrandt . Only one appears square to me, most are closer to 4x5 aspect.
FWIW, I've always liked 4x5 or 5x7 aspects more than the 3x2 (which came by default from the 35mm movie film size, did it not?).
Tom

[Greg Basco]

Jay, an interesting subject. While I don't "detest" them like Morkel , I'm certainly not a fan. This is simply because I'm a big believer in composing in-camera and feel that with our chosen tool (the DSLR for most of us) that means working 2:3. I truly believe that composing in-camera is part and parcel of the art of photography, nature and otherwise, so for my own images, I don't like to crop. That said, I do understand that for some images a non 2:3 aspect ratio can work well.

Cheers,
Greg Basco

[Hilary Hann]

Tom, interesting thought re art galleries as I've looked at some of the modern galleries and noticed many square paintings so perhaps it is a changing perception.

[Hilary Hann]

Greg, I agree that composing in camera is ideal but I find that I can compose in camera with the idea of a pano crop or a stitched pano or even a square crop in mind. Perhaps just a different ideology.

[Tom Graham]

".....modern galleries and noticed many square paintings....."
That's the plus side to modern art. It does not matter whether it is square, round or pentagonal. Or whether it is even hung right side up or down .
Tom

[Hilary Hann]

".....modern galleries and noticed many square paintings....."
That's the plus side to modern art. It does not matter whether it is square, round or pentagonal. Or whether it is even hung right side up or down .
Tom

Yes, you are so right!!!

On another point, we try so hard here to make beautiful photographs, whether landscapes, avian or wildlife and sometimes I wonder why? I received some information on some exhibitions being proposed of African images and the photographs were just ordinary. No composition to speak of, not particularly well processed (i.e. colour a bit off, soft when they should have been sharp, dull subjects) and so sometimes art defies logic. But art curators somewhere must think they are really worthy. So much to learn, so little time.

[Greg Basco]

Greg, I agree that composing in camera is ideal but I find that I can compose in camera with the idea of a pano crop or a stitched pano or even a square crop in mind. Perhaps just a different ideology.

Hi, Hilary. I agree that if a non-2:3 aspect ratio is intended from the outset, that's a different story.

Cheers,
Greg

[Andrew Merwin]

Yes, you are so right!!!

On another point, we try so hard here to make beautiful photographs, whether landscapes, avian or wildlife and sometimes I wonder why? I received some information on some exhibitions being proposed of African images and the photographs were just ordinary. No composition to speak of, not particularly well processed (i.e. colour a bit off, soft when they should have been sharp, dull subjects) and so sometimes art defies logic. But art curators somewhere must think they are really worthy. So much to learn, so little time.

When push comes to shove, what is considered art is purely subjective. A museum curator may have a credentials but, pleasing art always comes down to what does the viewer like. I have seen art that is auctioned for millions of dollars that I would not give $.02 for.

Ultimately, I make pleasing photographs for myself.

[dankearl]

Jay,
nice discussion, but show me a good example of a square crop?
Our eyesight is rectangular, we don't view things as square.
I have rarely seen a good square crop of wildlife and never really seen a good landscape square photograph.
Why would you want a square crop?

[Andrew Merwin]

Why would you want a square crop?

Because that is the best way to show the image.

[David Stephens]

I don't think that I see rectangles. My unaided field of view seems more like an elongated oval. Maybe we're all different.

I think the square crop works because of the shape of the deer's head, the environmental encroachment on either side of its head and I just like the look in this case.

[John Chardine]

Obviously square crops were the elephant in the room. Good one for bringing it up Jay.

I think that ANY crop is fine and can look good. For me the image dictates the crop and I almost never crop to a specific aspect ratio unless someone wants it that way. Although I appreciate the philosophy of "getting it right in the camera", why limit yourself to a 3:2 aspect ratio or whatever your sensor happens to give you? Why follow that rule?

Specifically regarding square crop, I think they look great sometimes- it just all depends on the subject. What about "2 and a quarter square" film? I was part of a very successful photo workshop last weekend and one of the keynote speakers- Richard Martin- spoke. In part of his presentation he showed a selection of iPhone images he made. The iPhone sensor is square and the images were very attractive.

[Jay Gould]

Thanks David for posting a lovely square crop. I am going to do a scan of saved images for some images that present well and post some square crops; I invite you all to do the same!

[Charles Glatzer]

If the comp works the format is irrelevant!

Chas

[Jay Gould]

I am at the Photographic Society of Queensland 2012 Convention. On of the speakers is the infamous Nature and Underwater photographer Darren Jew, multiple Winner of the AIPP Nature Photographer of the Year Award.

http://darrenjew.com/?page_id=955

http://darrenjew.tumblr.com/


During Darren's talk - a very timely talk for this thread - he discussed at length his new love of iPhoneography, the wonderful square image, and the use of Nik Snapseed.

Apparently there are significant image sharing websites of phonography images amongst professionals and amateurs.

When I went to NewcZealand a couple of years ago with Kah Kit Yoong, all other photographers were snapping away with their square crop iPhones; now I know why!!


There is an iPhone 5 in my future!!

[Hilary Hann]

Darren is a star, and a very generous photographer with his knowledge.

Funnily enough I have an exhibition coming up which is just iPhone landscapes, who would have thought?

People pay big money for iPhone (smartphone) prints but it has taken me a while to come around to the idea. I would love to have shared some of Kah Kit Yoong's amazing talent, very envious.

[Daniel Cadieux]

I have to admit that I am not out there looking for square crop material, but once in a while an image screams "SQUARE CROP!!" and I have no hesitation in doing so when it is called for. I'm a 2:3 comp guy at heart so sometimes it does take extra effort on my part. Actually, composing panorama is much easier for me!! Here is a square one that I posted a while ago that I thought worked quite well:

http://www.birdphotographers.net/for...=gull+preening

[Jim Kranick]

I think perhaps it's the "younger" photographers that started with 35mm that think in a 2x3 way. I find it interesting that a number of people do not like to crop their work or so it seems.

My first two cameras (back in the 1950s) were 120 roll film TLRs. I have no problem with square prints (thats the way they came from the drug store) or cropping an image to any ratio. In fact I crop almost everything at least a little.

Question: must phonography be done on an iPhone and square or can one crop the iPhone image. Or for that matter can I shoot on my FF DSLR, crop it square and call it "phonographic like."

[Tom Graham]

Another thought on the subject by Thom Hogan ( http://www.bythom.com/ ).
"... I do believe that the square frame gives no clue to orientation and lets the abstract speak more for itself..."
The image he is discussing is rock patterns.

Tom

[Greg Basco]

Another thought on the subject by Thom Hogan ( http://www.bythom.com/ ).
"... I do believe that the square frame gives no clue to orientation and lets the abstract speak more for itself..."
The image he is discussing is rock patterns.

Tom

Tom, that's interesting. Thanks for sharing that.

Cheers,
Greg

[Elliotte Rusty Harold]

I confess I almost always crop to the same aspect ratio as comes out of the camera, usually 3:2 or 2:3, unless the image screams for a different aspect ratio.

This week I noticed that some of the time it makes sense to instead a crop to a 4:3 aspect ratio. In particular when doing a slide show, most digital projectors provide that aspect ratio so you might as well crop for the display. Similarly, if you know the picture will be printed full bleed on a 11 by 8.5 calendar page you should also crop for 4:3.

Beyond that I can't really justify any particular aspect ratio. I too am curious to hear any theoretical grounds to prefer one aspect ratio over another in any given situation.

[Jack Breakfast]

Just a quick thought...it seems easy to "detest" things in the world of art! For example, I detest iphone photos and the of-the-moment hipness that surrounds their creation and sharing. They are ubiquitous and I am sickened by their substance-free pseudo-oldtimey-ness. (Please forgive some of the non-words in that last sentence.) That said, I adore the square format, and feel that just about any crop can work, depending on the image. Then again, we all have our personal prejudices; we wouldn't be human without them, for better and (mostly) for worse. Often the square format looks more "natural" to my eye. Different strokes, folks!

[Hilary Hann]

Jack, funny you should mention the iphoneography craze as I used to feel much the same, however I have been converted by what I've found. I was asked to join an exhibition for smart phone images and when investigating what you can achieve and see with these little cameras I have been amazed at how differently you look at subject and composition. It has been liberating. So with an open mind I'm exploring a different type of photography and enjoying it immensely, realizing that they only impact it is having on my regular photography is to make me look at the world a bit differently.

As you say, different strokes. It has brought the fun back, I have to say.