It has been only a few days, but a lot of thinking has been done in regards to the square image as “the one way” or at least the dominant way of the future.
Things I have noticed so far.
Most of my previous images can be made square. Some are pushed into the size, occasionally with a little too much tension introduced, others go easily. Occasionally an image actually becomes obvious and useable, when it was previously over looked (looking with “square eyes” has actually netted me several new compositions), and many are stronger than their rectangle form.
4:3 ratio has helped as it looks like I basically shoot squarer naturally than I did with 3:2 cameras, which also leads me to think, we are all slaves to our chosen formats. The 4:3 format looks to be forcing me to concentrate on the middle of the frame naturally, aware that the sides are of limited value. I am no longer shooting “semi wide” format and I seem to have adjusted to it..
Most of my 4:3 images clean up and gain strength when cropped square, almost like they are finding their true form. There is almost always extraneous detail on the edges that is surplus, even detrimental, to the image that is often only left in to retain dimensional consistency. I think that if I was shooting 3:2 ratio, this would have been deterrent enough, probably pushing me towards panoramic format instead.
Square is easier to frame with well. It is clean, logical and balanced. There are no sides that have to forced into the frame and even thinking of width becomes adjusting height or a “spreading out” of the image area. Every part of the frame becomes equally important. In square i am surer of my framing. It either works or it does not, clear and simple. It seems to have the same effect as the old trick of looking at an image in the mirror to see if it is balanced.
I will be using slightly wider lenses to get the compositions I get now, or over time start to crop tighter. This extra tightness is actually going to be used as for creative benefit. The tight frame is much harder to implement with a rectangle as the looseness of the frame and forced width rarely suit any subject perfectly. This, I suppose could be said of the square, but there is something very settled about the square, very humble and unassuming. Even miss-queued compositions can sit well. It is actually hard to frame badly, although their is usually a best framed option. Something I particularly like is the lack of rules. You can break them all.
Rule breaking centring. This as a rectangle image lacked strength. The eye wandered across the frame finding little of interest at the edges. The square increase the strength (and relative size) of the line in the middle and helps justify it. The eye now runs north-south rather than centre out.
The balance required in the rectangle frame (unless a true cinema wide format is used) is loose and can be contradicting, even confusing (even the choice between portrait and landscape shapes can be vexing). The square is strong from any direction it is applied, so lower left, upper right, centred, bottom edge all become viable and easily implemented. Rather than being locked into a shape, the shape becomes an aide to creative framing. Maybe it just because using it semi exclusively is new to me, but it is amazing how freeing it feels.
There is less cropping.
The common lens weakness of sift corners is mitigated or avoided fully. This is not a huge problem with M43 lenses, but what little there is, is avoided.
Any shape paper or frame can harmoniously accommodate a square (or squares).
Printing ideas pop up, rather than print to frame shape trouble shooting.
Feelings of “what if the square is too limiting” are addressed by the knowledge that all shots are taken in RAW, so the extra breathing space is still retained for later, but so far this has not been an issue. Shooting for square seems to eliminate the desire to look for rectangles.
Shooting square really fits M43 camera handling. The waist high or eye piece dynamic, square framing preview and minimal pixel loss all blend seamlessly into a harmonious work flow. If I was still shooting 3:2 SLR’s we would not be having this conversation.
The only other format that appeals is the 2:1 or wider cinematic format. I have set this up as a custom shooting set as a high res 16:9, intending to crop even wider. High res is probably not necessary and is limiting in application (maybe an EM1-X for and held?!). Any regular rectangles now seem to be a confused nothing of a format. All restrictions are artificial to a point, but your images have to be committed to a shape at some point. Too me the only two things that are important in a format are (1) being invisible as possible and (2) being as powerful as possible.
The multiple subjects in this image drawing the eye around the frame is diluted in the 4:3 ratio original. A square would not suit as the dynamic would be lost, so extra wide it is. The eye lands first on the woman in the middle, then either left or right and back.
Technically imperfect, this image still has a feeling of drama out of proportion to it’s subjects. Cropping wider eliminates the distracting irrelevances above and below and the dynamic of the main subjects comes very much to the fore.
All is not perfect in Squaresville. I have noticed a tendency to shoot wide rather than crop tighter, but this will come as I become more practiced.
There is also a tendency to flatten and over organise the frame, making the frame very rigid. I need to pay more attention to depth, blur and the near-far dynamic.
I still have rectangle shooting habits, like turning to portrait orientation instinctively.
I need to re-learn my lenses, especially my wide angles. I think I will have to stick to zooms in the near future until I acclimatise as my 17 feels like a 25 and my 12 feels like a 14, but the added thought process of landscape or portrait orientation is gone, so zooming will likely not confuse the issue (see above).
To summarise, I am still happy with the move to square, but I am also aware there is a little work and practice to do.