Square Crop

[scottvd]

Sometimes in the image reviews and critiques forum folks suggest a square crop - what does this represent? When is a square crop used, does it evoke a certain emotion or typically associated with something definable? Basically, when do you use a square crop, when you're trying to accomplish X...

Thanks,
`S

[gstark]

Scott,

A great question, and I'll be interested in the answers of others.

There are several aspects to this question. Let's start with (what I think) are the basics.

The typical DSLR shoots in something like a 3 x 2 format: that is, ration of the sides of the image are 3:2 - 6x4 inches in a print, for instance.

Some cameras - notably medium format (MF) film these days (Haselblad, Bronica SQ) shoot natively in a square format. 6x6cm in these cases - 2 1/4 inches square.

Now, using the different native camera formats sometimes requires that you, the photographer, think differently - and more acutely - about how you are going to compose your image in the viewfinder, based upon the format that you are shooting within.

This often also requires you to observe other parameters if, for instance, you are shooting for a particular style of end usage of the image. For instance, I used to shoot weddings on 35mm film, but I always needed to be mindful of shooting to crop, in-camera, for a 5:4 ratio. If I didn't, there was a risk that, during printing, the printer might need to cut off a person's feet (or head!) in order to get the image to fit on the particular paper size.

In a similar vein, if you're shooting for a magazine cover or an adverisement, you might need to arrange your composition to accommodate text such as the name of the magazine or product, or other text that might be involved.

Now, not every subject that you may photograph will be ideally suited towards the natural dimensions presented to you by your camera. A photo of a spectacular waterfall might be tall and thin, and a harbour frontage seen from the opposite side of the water might be long and thin, but a nude body in a fetal position might naturally fall within the boundaries of something that s closer to a square.

In making your images, you should try to keep those external parameters in mind, and you should also be shooting with your finished product in mind.

And then, in your PP, you look at the image, and as a part of your processing you can adjust the external boundaries of the image to hopefully enhance the image, perhaps making it a panorama style image, or perhaps trimming some of it so that it now has a square format, which is what we would call a square crop.

HTH.

[ATJ]

Here is an example of a square crop:



For this particular image, a square crop (equal height and width as Gary explains), works better than the traditional 3 x 2 crop.

[Reschsmooth]

I have no preference as I love the square crop or format, either by using the Rollei (not as often as I would like) or cropping a 3:2 image.

Some argue that a square format is not as dynamic as the other rectangular format. It is then argued that a square format requires greater consideration to the compositional elements of the photo than a rectangular image.

To me, a square format gives a sense of solid strength and symmetry to the image.

However, it all depends on your intention with the image. You can construct a portrait in landscape, vertical or square formats and they can all be fantastic images.

[zafra52]

The way I look at it, a square crop can enhance an image by getting rid off unwanted and sometimes distracting objects, providing the square shape compliments the subject as in the image above. However, it can also take away from the image if it doesn’t compliment the subject.

[scottvd]

Thanks everyone for the responses - very informative. My impression is the square crop is a "broken rule" - you have to know the rules (traditional rectangular crops) before you break it and use the square.

I don't think I'm quite there yet - I went through some recent photos that I never got around to PPing - tried a square crop on several but none looked good. I did find the 5:4 ratio flattering on a few though. Guess time will help with this.

I find it interesting that television and motion picture have made such a strong movement toward wide aspect ratios in recent years because it more accurately represents natural human vision, yet photographs don't seem to follow this trend. This is why the square crop is abstract to me, as our vision isn't anything close to square - but I guess photography represents capturing a subject caught in a specific moment in time - not so much a regurgitation of human vision.

Anyhow,
`S

[Killakoala]

Thanks everyone for the responses - very informative. My impression is the square crop is a "broken rule" - you have to know the rules (traditional rectangular crops) before you break it and use the square.

I think that photography rules are just guidelines. Not all that we see fits within those guidelines but some does. It just depends on the artist's/photographer's interpretation of the subject.

I don't think I'm quite there yet - I went through some recent photos that I never got around to PPing - tried a square crop on several but none looked good. I did find the 5:4 ratio flattering on a few though. Guess time will help with this.

Yes, with practise you will see which images look best in whatever format suits them the most, whether it's square, rule of thirds, 3:2, neat and in the middle or something weird and uncomfortable.

I find it interesting that television and motion picture have made such a strong movement toward wide aspect ratios in recent years because it more accurately represents natural human vision, yet photographs don't seem to follow this trend. This is why the square crop is abstract to me, as our vision isn't anything close to square - but I guess photography represents capturing a subject caught in a specific moment in time - not so much a regurgitation of human vision.

Sport looks great in widescreen. The difference as I see it is that TV is dealing with motion, which is what our eyes see. Photography deals with motionless, what our eyes never see, except briefly.

What we watch on TV is the present, it's happening right now (even pre-recorded stuff) whereas photography is all about capturing what happening in the past. As soon as you have pressed the shutter, the moment has already gone.

The square composition will suit some subjects better than others. There really is no hard-set rule to tell you which subjects they are. It all comes down to your own eyes and what you feel looks good. Photography is art and you, as the artist, will decide the final format for your images.

That's how I see it.