So... What is so great about a square format vs a FF (or anything else for that matter)??? Ok, so then there were professionals using only square formats and their camera/lens were...

Rongnongno Loc: FL

Ok, so then there were professionals using only square formats and their camera/lens were (still are) considered better than anything else'

Why?

This is a leading question, if you know the answer, by all mean post it.

If you do not, well you can make a guess or guesses. I left hints all over the threads I have created over the past months if not years...

If you really do not care and are the 'P' guy behind the camera, walk away, this is not for you.

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

Square is NOT better. Only because it was MF. If it had been any bigger as in 3:2, 5:4 etc the camera and lenses would have been huge and hugely expensive.
Ever seen a square framed pic, neither have I. All have been cropped because 1:1 is just not a flattering format!!! ;-)
SS

Rongnongno Loc: FL

SharpShooter wrote:

Square is NOT better. Only because it was MF. If it had been any bigger as in 3:2, 5:4 etc the camera and lenses would have been huge and hugely expensive.
Ever seen a square framed pic, neither have I. All have been cropped because 1:1 is just not a flattering format!!! ;-)
SS

1:1 is indeed an unflattering format but these are cropped to fit, right?

But you did not answer the question, what is the advantage of a square format?

BebuLamar

Of course if you talking about the square format being 6x6 the advantage that it's bigger than 35mm FF. As for just being square? I think many of those camera can not be turned to use in different orientation. At least not so easy so they make them square so you never have to turn the camera.
I actually saw square framed images before and yet a number of those weren't taken with a square format camera but rather cropped to be square.

R.G. Loc: Scotland

When I'm cropping I very often find myself gravitating towards 5:4 or very close, just because it looks right and gives me what I'm looking for much of the time.

5:4 (and even more so 1:1) makes very good use of the lens's sweet spot.

Rongnongno Loc: FL

Think lens negative/sensor combination.

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

Rongnongno wrote:

1:1 is indeed an unflattering format but these are cropped to fit, right?

But you did not answer the question, what is the advantage of a square format?

The answer is that, that format is as small/large as it can go and not get overly big while still being a good sized negative for great detail. The 1:1format is the MOST compact format in existence!! ;-)
SS

BebuLamar

Rongnongno wrote:

Think lens negative/sensor combination.

Oh yes. The square format has the largest image area for a given size of image circle.

Wilsondl3

Many pros used twin lens reflex cameras that were viewed waist level so a square format was used and then was cropped to a horizontal or vertical for the final print. You planed what you wanted when you took the picture left room to crop out what was not wanted. - Dave

LoneRangeFinder Loc: Left field

Rongnongno wrote:

Ok, so then there were professionals using only square formats and their camera/lens were (still are) considered better than anything else'

Why?

This is a leading question, if you know the answer, by all mean post it.

If you do not, well you can make a guess or guesses. I left hints all over the threads I have created over the past months if not years...

If you really do not care and are the 'P' guy behind the camera, walk away, this is not for you.

The 500cm I used about 25 years ago had a viewfinder with etched lines both horizontally and vertically. These were used to frame for either horizontal or vertical oriented prints. It also had some use for magazine cover work, i.e. the square image below the magazine "masthead". There may have been other uses.

MW

SharpShooter wrote:

Square is NOT better. Only because it was MF. If it had been any bigger as in 3:2, 5:4 etc the camera and lenses would have been huge and hugely expensive.
Ever seen a square framed pic, neither have I. All have been cropped because 1:1 is just not a flattering format!!! ;-)
SS

Actually, I was thinking just the other day that square framing seems to a current stylish trend, pRticlarly B&W. The seem to de figure for tony restaurants and bars.

Square is, I think, a visually weak image format. However, you can argue that this can be virtue. A rectangular format is sort of like a procenium sage - it is finite, limited in space - it suggests that all that there is to see and that the image is complete in itself. In the case of a square it cause the viewer to sense that there is more to be seen beyond the frame and by doing so triggers the imagination so the image includes psychologically what lies beyond the borders.

The above is a restatement as best I can recall from some Hasselblad adverts 3-4 decades ago. I've no idea if it is subtle insight or just marketing BS. I admit that I seen a few square format photos that seem to support this, but even more that don't.

Does sound inconclusive? Ambiguous? You bet!

MW

SharpShooter wrote:

Square is NOT better. Only because it was MF. If it had been any bigger as in 3:2, 5:4 etc the camera and lenses would have been huge and hugely expensive.
Ever seen a square framed pic, neither have I. All have been cropped because 1:1 is just not a flattering format!!! ;-)
SS

Actually, I was thinking just the other day that square framing seems to a current stylish trend, partucularly B&W. They seem to be just the thing for tony restaurants and bars.

Square is, I think, a visually weak image format. However, you can argue that this can be virtue. A rectangular format is sort of like a procenium sage - it is finite, limited in space - it suggests that all that there is to see and that the image is complete in itself. In the case of a square it cause the viewer to sense that there is more to be seen beyond the frame and by doing so triggers the imagination so the image includes psychologically what lies beyond the borders.

The above is a restatement as best I can recall from some Hasselblad adverts 3-4 decades ago. I've no idea if it is subtle insight or just marketing BS. I admit that I seen a few square format photos that seem to support this, but even more that don't.

Does sound inconclusive? Ambiguous? You bet!

Rongnongno Loc: FL

MW wrote:

Actually, I was thinking just the other day that s... (show quote)

The horizontal format came from the movies as they tried to imitate the human vision that is effectively made out of two roundish shapes overlapping each other, out of which a rectangle was pulled.

'It is natural' they say.

R.G. Loc: Scotland

BebuLamar wrote:

Oh yes. The square format has the largest image area for a given size of image circle.

In this case the circle that we're talking about is the sweet spot at the centre of the lens (the most distortion free and fringe free area of the lens).

Crwiwy Loc: Devon UK

Rongnongno wrote:

Ok, so then there were professionals using only square formats and their camera/lens were (still are) considered better than anything else'

You don't have to chose the aspect beforehand and have plenty of room to crop.
For a professionals view;
https://www.karltaylorphotography.com/blog/why-professionals-use-medium-format-cameras/