I’m very happy this post didn’t sparkle a religious war about formats, but the very opposite. The CameraClara audience is REALLY intellectual, respectful, knowledgeable and insightful. The comments and the discussion in this post made my day. This is not the typical shitty internet we typically see. THANK YOU CAMERACLARA READERS, YOU ARE AWESOME. ❤️
I like 6x6, it was meant to be cropped and I often do crop to whatever aspect ratio works for the picture. Of course I’m framing my subject with the crop in mind or it won’t work. I also have a 6 x 4.5 back that I use sometimes.
Quick question: when you use the 6x4.5 back on a Hassel, does the camera make the back advance just enough to have more frames? Is that a separate back? I’m very curious on trying different formats, especially vertical, for the money sake (more shots per roll). It might be a newbie question, but I’m new to the V system.
Hi Raf, no the back is geared differently and has a mask for the 6x4.5 image. It advances the frames with the right spacing to get 16 frames. If you do get one, I highly recommend you get it serviced since these backs weren't used a lot and sat and thus the lubricants dried up and can cause spacing issues. They are pretty easy to service if you are mechanically inclined, lots of online resources too but if you're not comfortable, defiantly get someone who works on Hasselblad cameras to service it.
Interesting! I’ll surely get one! Now that I got a 3D printer, I’m also thinking about printing some frame lines and masks to help me doing shots with composition similarity! I’m mechanically inclined (loved this term!)
Ah yes I did forget to mention that I have a 3D mask that adds a top and bottom frame lines for 6x4.5 to the viewfinder, it's unobtrusive and works well.
I also love the 4:3! It’s like a JUMBO format for me, something tells me that 4:3 is like home. It’s cozy, comfortable, like a suburb house with more rooms than I need, but appreciate 🏡
Back when Instagram started, in my memory anyway, 1:1 was the default (maybe the only?) format for posting photographs (which was most of what Instagram was originally). For many years I continued to post only in 1:1 there even when the platform had changed and people were using other ratios. That's the only time I've really explored square frames, but you're right - the usual tricks in composition just don't work.
Yes! I remember when Instagram allowed non-square shots. That was memorable. I think the aspect I’m mostly enjoying is not having to turn the camera sideways! It’s so comfortable!
I hadn’t thought about that, but that explains the availability of 1:1 medium format cameras and not 35mm… I had a Mamiya 645 AF, and shooting it in portrait orientation was the worst. Actually, shooting it in landscape wasn’t much fun either 😅
I’m eyeing the NONS Polaroid back for the Hassel and it spits the photo sideways with a border on the right side. I’m picturing myself photographing sideways with the waist level viewfinder - a complete chaos 😂
I have shot in square format quite often. I like the format but as you mentioned, it depends on what type of photography you dealing with.
And to add to the discussion regarding standards... Who determines what the standards should be? If you like play around with 2:7 or 1:1,6 who is stopping you?
I have shot in square format quite often. I like the format but as you mentioned, it depends on what type of photography you dealing with.
And to add to the discussion regarding standards... Who determines what the standards should be? If you like play around with 2:7 or 1:1,6 who is stopping you?
Exactly! Who determines what is the photographer, the artist, the painter. That’s why I don’t dislike cropping too, part of the art is made in post-shot. Having a camera that produce a specific format is nice to shape your thoughts, but once the thoughts are mature, we can go digital and do whatever we want, especially with a medium format digital camera, right?
The square format brings such a modern, sleek, and elegant balance to a gallery space. But your post really made me pause and reflect on the deeper history of the frame.
Why does the square work so naturally for photography, yet remain so historically rare in traditional visual arts? Outside of a few modern and abstract painters, square canvases are true anomalies in art history. Long before our aspect ratios were dictated by the shape of a computer monitor or a smartphone screen, artists were naturally locked into the binary of landscape vs. portrait format (leaving aside specific architectural exceptions like medallions, tondos, or ceiling frescoes).
It makes me think that while traditional painting often tried to mimic or extend the natural scope of human vision (either the horizontal sweep of the world or the verticality of the body), the 6x6 frame does the exact opposite. It doesn't mimic nature; it imposes a perfect, artificial geometry onto it.
Your post beautifully highlights how changing the box completely resets the brain. The medium truly is the "massage"!
Thank you for the kind words and substantive and thoughtful comment! Your comment got me curious enough to investigate, and I just learned that the first commercially available camera that introduced a square format was the original Kodak Brownie from February 1900. The Rolleiflex in 1929 is what later elevated 6x6 from snapshot format to serious tool. I think they started doing that to have more frames per film roll, which ultimately resulted in vertical formats like the Pentax17, and nonsensely now reproduced in modern digital cameras like the Fuji X-half!
I had Portra in the camera, when I saw it I was like “omg this is so much Portra”— also, an interesting fact, I originally wrote the post without that photo because the film was drying when I wrote it, I scheduled the post for today in the morning, and when I woke up early morning, the first thing I did was to scan and convert, I saw that shot and thought “wow this one needs to be in the post, it represents a frontal shot so well”, I was able to add it before the post went live. It’s a good example to illustrate the “frontal angle” I approach, because a rectangular format would include things like the sidewalk and undesired elements. Thanks for commenting! I’m loving the comments section so far. I think I created something interesting on the internet. Look at the discussion!! 🔥🥹
I’m very happy this post didn’t sparkle a religious war about formats, but the very opposite. The CameraClara audience is REALLY intellectual, respectful, knowledgeable and insightful. The comments and the discussion in this post made my day. This is not the typical shitty internet we typically see. THANK YOU CAMERACLARA READERS, YOU ARE AWESOME. ❤️
I like 6x6, it was meant to be cropped and I often do crop to whatever aspect ratio works for the picture. Of course I’m framing my subject with the crop in mind or it won’t work. I also have a 6 x 4.5 back that I use sometimes.
Quick question: when you use the 6x4.5 back on a Hassel, does the camera make the back advance just enough to have more frames? Is that a separate back? I’m very curious on trying different formats, especially vertical, for the money sake (more shots per roll). It might be a newbie question, but I’m new to the V system.
Hi Raf, no the back is geared differently and has a mask for the 6x4.5 image. It advances the frames with the right spacing to get 16 frames. If you do get one, I highly recommend you get it serviced since these backs weren't used a lot and sat and thus the lubricants dried up and can cause spacing issues. They are pretty easy to service if you are mechanically inclined, lots of online resources too but if you're not comfortable, defiantly get someone who works on Hasselblad cameras to service it.
Interesting! I’ll surely get one! Now that I got a 3D printer, I’m also thinking about printing some frame lines and masks to help me doing shots with composition similarity! I’m mechanically inclined (loved this term!)
Ah yes I did forget to mention that I have a 3D mask that adds a top and bottom frame lines for 6x4.5 to the viewfinder, it's unobtrusive and works well.
Bet!
Really enjoyed this. Square format and 4:3 (for me) help bring balance, clarity, presence to subjects, and look incredible on gallery walls.
I also love the 4:3! It’s like a JUMBO format for me, something tells me that 4:3 is like home. It’s cozy, comfortable, like a suburb house with more rooms than I need, but appreciate 🏡
Back when Instagram started, in my memory anyway, 1:1 was the default (maybe the only?) format for posting photographs (which was most of what Instagram was originally). For many years I continued to post only in 1:1 there even when the platform had changed and people were using other ratios. That's the only time I've really explored square frames, but you're right - the usual tricks in composition just don't work.
Yes! I remember when Instagram allowed non-square shots. That was memorable. I think the aspect I’m mostly enjoying is not having to turn the camera sideways! It’s so comfortable!
I hadn’t thought about that, but that explains the availability of 1:1 medium format cameras and not 35mm… I had a Mamiya 645 AF, and shooting it in portrait orientation was the worst. Actually, shooting it in landscape wasn’t much fun either 😅
I’m eyeing the NONS Polaroid back for the Hassel and it spits the photo sideways with a border on the right side. I’m picturing myself photographing sideways with the waist level viewfinder - a complete chaos 😂
I have shot in square format quite often. I like the format but as you mentioned, it depends on what type of photography you dealing with.
And to add to the discussion regarding standards... Who determines what the standards should be? If you like play around with 2:7 or 1:1,6 who is stopping you?
I have shot in square format quite often. I like the format but as you mentioned, it depends on what type of photography you dealing with.
And to add to the discussion regarding standards... Who determines what the standards should be? If you like play around with 2:7 or 1:1,6 who is stopping you?
Hey Marcel (I like your name!$
Exactly! Who determines what is the photographer, the artist, the painter. That’s why I don’t dislike cropping too, part of the art is made in post-shot. Having a camera that produce a specific format is nice to shape your thoughts, but once the thoughts are mature, we can go digital and do whatever we want, especially with a medium format digital camera, right?
The square format brings such a modern, sleek, and elegant balance to a gallery space. But your post really made me pause and reflect on the deeper history of the frame.
Why does the square work so naturally for photography, yet remain so historically rare in traditional visual arts? Outside of a few modern and abstract painters, square canvases are true anomalies in art history. Long before our aspect ratios were dictated by the shape of a computer monitor or a smartphone screen, artists were naturally locked into the binary of landscape vs. portrait format (leaving aside specific architectural exceptions like medallions, tondos, or ceiling frescoes).
It makes me think that while traditional painting often tried to mimic or extend the natural scope of human vision (either the horizontal sweep of the world or the verticality of the body), the 6x6 frame does the exact opposite. It doesn't mimic nature; it imposes a perfect, artificial geometry onto it.
Your post beautifully highlights how changing the box completely resets the brain. The medium truly is the "massage"!
Thank you for the kind words and substantive and thoughtful comment! Your comment got me curious enough to investigate, and I just learned that the first commercially available camera that introduced a square format was the original Kodak Brownie from February 1900. The Rolleiflex in 1929 is what later elevated 6x6 from snapshot format to serious tool. I think they started doing that to have more frames per film roll, which ultimately resulted in vertical formats like the Pentax17, and nonsensely now reproduced in modern digital cameras like the Fuji X-half!
I tried years ago. It never felt right and I am back to ‘normal’ 🤣
Ahahaha perhaps that was a prelude of what’s about to happen to me? 😅
New kid with a new you, substack post, hooked, yikes! Next month: Raf goes back to 16:9 😆
I like the "Pasta fresca"
I had Portra in the camera, when I saw it I was like “omg this is so much Portra”— also, an interesting fact, I originally wrote the post without that photo because the film was drying when I wrote it, I scheduled the post for today in the morning, and when I woke up early morning, the first thing I did was to scan and convert, I saw that shot and thought “wow this one needs to be in the post, it represents a frontal shot so well”, I was able to add it before the post went live. It’s a good example to illustrate the “frontal angle” I approach, because a rectangular format would include things like the sidewalk and undesired elements. Thanks for commenting! I’m loving the comments section so far. I think I created something interesting on the internet. Look at the discussion!! 🔥🥹