10.19.2015

Square aspect ratio portraits are infinitely better than any other aspect ratio. Prove me wrong.

Amy. In the current studio. 


14 comments:

Andre said...

http://lumieregallery.net/wp/9798/arnold-newman-portrait-of-igor-stravinsky/ Apparently cropped down from a relatively squarer 4x5.

Joel Bartlett said...

No question about it, after all that's why the U.S. State Department requires passport photos to be 2" x 2". Although, that's also proof that it doesn't assure good pictures.

stephen connor said...

'Way back in the film days, I tried working with a Hasselblad, but just couldn't deal with it. Now, thanks to the magic of m4/3, I'm totally hooked on square format.

Anonymous said...

Good call Andre - that's one of my favourite portraits.

For the most part I agree with kirk though. The bulk of portraits I take are square format. Love it.

sbimson said...

Totally off topic but if you haven't seen this I thought the remote power control might be useful with your Ranger setup. http://www.elinchrom.com/announcements/Skyport-Plus-HS.html

Kepano said...

Instagram is one of the main reasons I started framing for a square crop. I tend to create a lot of negative space when I'm shooting a rectangular frame, so learning to compose in a square is a continued challenge for me.

Anonymous said...

Do I need new glasses (on my nose, not my camera) or is the focus on the subject's lips, not her eyes?

Hugo

Ray said...

So, like, who has a square picture frame?

PhotoDes said...

I find I'm drawn to portraits that make use of negative space to good effect.

For example, I found this one in just a few minutes. It may look familiar.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-z7Le_YdEbZs/TQGbdtNxM-I/AAAAAAAAB3k/qEDemFU3g1c/s1600/new+autumn.jpg

amolitor said...

Environmental portraits are a totally different beast, and often benefit from a wide frame.

Kirk's doing a different thing. I might be wrong on this, but my recollections are that Kirk's portraits are almost entirely The Subject, with the subject making eye contact with the camera. Often square to the camera, but not always. But mostly the eye contact is there.

That creates a single focal point, you're looking at her eyes first, face second, and maybe the set of the shoulders after that. There are deep reasons for this which cognitive scientists could tell you all about at length over drinks.

Anyways, I think you could make a strong case that this creates symmetries that virtually demand a centered subject, and strongly lean toward a square frame.

But ultimately, does it work? If it works for you pretty often, well, that's all that really matters, right? Theory be damned.

Anonymous said...

Square format is great, but it's an artifact of "waist level" viewers in square format roll film cameras. Since it was not easy to rotate TLRs, they left final image formatting to post-processing.
But square is still great in its own right.

Philip Lewis said...

Well I use 1X1 a lot on the Olympus OMD cameras when shooting people. If not I often crop them in LR to 1X1. So, I agree I suppose.

Ray said...

Two posts down from this is a picture of a softball pitcher.

Crop that picture square and tell me if I have I proven you wrong, or have I proven beauty is in the eye of the beholder? Is it all subjective? sigh.

Abhishek Cherath said...

I haven't seen too much of your work, but even if had, I'm oddly certain that this portrait would be my favourite.