DO THIS To Bring New Life To Your Images!
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 13 апр 2024
- The square format is fascinating to explore and gives a whole new dimension to photography.
It encourages a different way of shooting, and a new way of seeing.
Refresh your photography by shooting square, and give your images a new style.
Don't be there, be square!
Check out the video for more!
To support this channel on Patreon please go to:
www.patreon.com/Zenography?fa...
Thanks for watching!
In astrophotography, the squeare format is still used today (sony imx533 sensor for example). For a lot of deep sky targets, the square format is the one fitting the best (for example galaxies). Also if the format is square you can expect almost the same image quality close to every edge of the frame
I didn't realise that, thanks for the info.
Love my Mamiya C3 - 6x6 is terrific. Great video.
Been shooting square format in my film photography almost exclusively since I got into film, shot my a trip to Taiwan and Japan with a Pentacon Six and love the shots I got back. Sometimes I'll shoot square on my X-T3, it's a great format.
Very clever analysis. On my digital cameras, I shoot in 3:2, from my 35mm experience but, since I first shot with a Yashica Mat 124, that I quite often select the 1:1 format, for all the reasons you very well described and explained. And they made my best photos to expose on my living room.
A very popular square formatt was the Kodak Instamatic with it's 126 cartridge, I was given one as a teenager by my mum for a birthday present.
I believe my father's Kodak Brownie from the 1930s takes rectangular 6x9 images -- eight images to a roll of 620 film. That seems to have been fairly common in the US. The popular Brownie Hawkeye of the 1950s took square photos -- a simpler design, which did not require a separate viewfinder for landscape photos since the image was square. As for less expensive 35mm cameras, the Argus C-3 (1939 - 1966) was a very brick-like American copy of the Leica rangefinder, and it was quite popular.
Square format looks better on Instagram. I often crop to a square. Looks great on prints too.
Great idea. I am going to have a go at different formats. Thank you
I think you are on to something. Setting, or limiting, the parameters actually frees one up to explore creativity.
I love the square format. A few years ago, I bought a very reasonably priced TLR camera and I now enjoy shooting 120 medium format film. Lots of fun
I started really thinking more about the square format as I began putting more of my images on IG. I still tend to shoot in whatever formats are native to the camera I'm using, but I do so with more of an eye toward cropping the final image to a 1:1 square.
I like to experiment with shooting in a square when I use my phone camera. This allows you to reduce compositional dilemmas and thus speed up taking photos.
I'm not going to be playing poker with Mr Zanzibar he's got a perfect poker face 😂
Thanks for keeping the video square today. Great information.
Thanks, glad you enjoyed it.
The advantage of the square image is not to spoil (crop) too much of the "good" part of the round (!) image circle, especially with cheap, bad lenses.
Of course it would be viable to crop the square image to rectangular ratios, as vice versa the rectangular to square, if needed.
I don't need another 35mm camera, but the Robot was a german square shooting 35mm, and it is sorely tempting
Brilliant idea, thanks! I didn’t even realise the Fujis had a square option. Wonder what lenses work best, feels like this week’s project’s sorted!
Glad it was helpful!
Don’t forget Kodak Instamatic and Agfa Rapid. Both has been an entry to photography for lots of people, and both were square.
supercolour swingers...there were a few around in the 70's alright..another great informative episode, always a pleasure to chill and get a nice information download on a Sunday evening
Hello Nigel, many thanks! I'll try it on my Nikon Z6. Good idea! As a young boy, 9 years old, I started taking pictures with a Porst camera with 126 films (in cartridges), first black and white then in color. It was in 1978/79. So it began. In 1981 I got a polaroid 1000 SX 70 camera. Taking images was expensive. Best wishes, Ralf
I thought I was the only one who felt emboldened by going square. Cropping out a square patch from landscape or portrait has helped my compositions become more intentional and free of clutter.
It certainly helps to clear the clutter, no doubt about it!
I've got a Kodak brownie camera and I also have a camera that looks a lot like the roliflex you have I need to get home from work and start searching for it in my collection of photography gear I've collected both new and used an vintage I'll be tied up for a few hours 😆
Square! Hassleblad! the glory of medium format! btw I think the standard 3:2 aspect ratio the easilest to compose thanks to the rule of thrids. I found using rule of thrids a little hard in M43 which is 4:3 by default, and even harder in 16:9 etc. video formats.
Agreed, of the rectangular formats I find 3:2 the easiest to work with.
Hello Nigel, many thanks for an excellent video, offering, as always, a wealth of good advice. I am not, by any means, an optical expert, but it has always seemed to me that shooting in either landscape, or portrait format, wastes a lot of lens potential, compared to square format.
Hi Peter, glad you enjoyed the video. Using the square format has been a really interesting exercise and in many situations it does indeed seem to work more efficiently than landscape or portrait.It's been quite a breath of fresh air!
The first camera I bought was a Kodak 66 folding camera that took 2.25" images I usually use 16:9 now I sometimes crop to square if I want to isolate the subject . How about looking at old folding cameras in a future edition they were a big part of photographic history
I find switching to square format from time to time helps me recharge my 'composition' battery.
I have 2 Cameras that can use the square format, a Canon SX740 and a Sony Phone, I love them both.
The first camera I used was a 620 film camera, the second was an Ilford Sporti 6x6 camera. I don't actually remember being conscious of any difference in formats but then again I was only 14 at the time! I think I probably prefer the aspect ratio of 35mm film as 's more like the view our eyes see but it's not unknown for me to crop some images to the point they are virtually square!
I think Ins ta g r am favours a square format
If you want to get into the square format on a small budget, look at the Agfa Isomat-Rapid. It's a budget selenium cell auto exposure camera with triplet lens so it won't blow you away, but it does the job. Just be aware that you need two Agfa Rapid or SL cartridges and load them yourself in a perfectly dark room, but it's easy to do, you just push the film in.
There's the even cheaper Agfa ISO-Rapid series but I would not recommend these, they have simple meniscus lenses that really don't produce nice results.
I feel like square format on 35mm film is very overlooked, it gets you the square aspect ratio and also saves you film compated to 36x24mm. Slightly more expensive are the Berning Robot cameras, but they're gorgeous, extremely dense and well-built, full manual exposure interchangeable lens cameras with triplet, Tessar and even the Schneider-Kreuznach Xenon 40/1.9 double gauss lenses being common.
I actually owned one of the early Canon rangefinder cameras model # IIIB same mount as Leica rangefinders of the day or earlier. One of the Leica lenses I owned was a 9 cm f4 (black) and the other was a 50mm Elmar f3.5 Leica collapsible lens. Both were m39 mounts. Same as the Canon rangefinder body. I do believe the 9CM was built before the end of WWII. Looking through either lens I could see small imperfections ( bubbles) didn’t seem to affect the pictures.
Bubbles often seem to have formed in the manufacture of old glass - the old FSU cameras referred to it in the manuals that came with the cameras - they too said it wouldn't affect image quality and I've found that to be correct.
I owned a Polaroid Swinger as a teenager! White camera with black accents. Really expensive. Blades and razors. Cheap camera, expensive film packs.
I learned to shoot film as an adult with a Rolleicord. Istill prefer composing on a ground glass.
Please, share more of your square compositions.
Real L7 man 😊
:)
Very interesting Nigel. It’s a shame my Sony cameras only allow 3:2 & 16:9 options meaning you need to imagine the square composition in the view finder which is harder. P.S. Mr Zanzibar needs a cap!
my Sony allows 4:3 too
Has someone stood on Zanzibar at😀 some point in the past?
I hope not, it may effect his ability to play the Hammond organ, to which he is devoted.
My comment is the type of comment that will make you get rich.
If you read it, you'll go on to becoming RICH.
RICH beyond your wildest dreams...
Once again a very badly researched vlog. Roll film, 120, 127, 620 etc films were printed with various numbers on the backing paper and the format of the camera's that used them used a variety of formats. The bakerite Brownie 127 produced 8 on the film, from memory, I think square was 12 on but someone can google that. Some cameras like he Norca III Super shot 8 or 12 on 120 film the Ferrania Falcon shout 3 i/2 x 21/4. Just looking through the roll film cameras, the square format was not the dominant format. My 1955 Pocket Reference book has a large number of 35mm cameras from Ilford, Kodak. Iloca, and Wrayflex to name a few. The big advantage of the square format is you do not have to rotate the camera to move between vertical and horizontal format. Square format can be interesting but if it was really special, photographic paper would be in that format.
Older cameras weren't exclusively square of course, but a large proportion were, and the square format was far more often used in the early part of C20 than it is today. Thanks for looking in.
my first square format was a Rolleicord
Love the video, but just want to point out that 110 is not square. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/110_film
You're right, thanks for pointing that out. After printing, I remember that in the 70s quite a few 110 images would end up almost square, so square-ish I guess!
The 126 Cassette used to be square.