Thoughts on the Square Image

Jen and I are back from our vacation in Maine. We had a lovely time, and I am sure we will write more than you might want to read about the trip. As you might suspect, we took our cameras with us and made many photographs (360 to be exact) on the trip. We are waiting on the film to be developed and scanned so we can share our images with you. In the course of photographing (and thinking about cameras, in general) I thought a great deal about photography, as well as the choices that I make in my hobby. What originally started out as an homage to the square image has now become some hybrid of a homage and a narrative about how I feel about photography now.

A friend loaned me the book that has the perfect quote in it, describing the square in a bit more objective manner:

The exact image size is 54 x 54 mm, with 12 images on one roll of 120 film. The 2 ¼ x 2 ¼-inch (6 x 6cm) square format established the popularity of the medium-format camera. Many good things can be said about the square format. The photographer has a wide choice in composing the subject and does not need to decide beforehand which way to turn the camera or the film magazine. Picture editors, artists, and graphic production specialists love square prints or square transparencies because this shape gives them full freedom to crop to their specifications. The 12 images from a 120 roll of film fit beautifully on a sheet of 8 x 10-inch paper, and because the camera is always held the same way, all shots will appear the right way up.

Square slides projected onto a square screen always fill the same area on the screen. Since the effectiveness of a visual presentation is destroyed by mixing horizontals and verticals on the screen, square slides make a much stronger and more effective visual presentation. (Pp. 1-2)

Wildi, Ernst. 2000. The Hasselblad manual. Boston: Focal Press.

In hindsight, the square image is what best represents how I see the world. I’ve been photographing for 14 years now, and my grandfather first taught me the fundamentals of photography with a medium format camera that produces a square image. The first real thinking I did about making an image was through that square. My grandfather’s obvious passion for photography was contagious, and so I went home hoping to get a camera so that I could begin learning on my own. After much discussion with my family, aided by my grandfather, I was extremely fortunate to end up with a camera that had a square negative. From the beginning of my more serious efforts at photography, “seeing” in a square format was how my eye was initially trained. Of course, that is relative, as very few of my early photographs are not all that great in the square - I generally cropped the images in the darkroom. It now occurs to me that as with most any other visual medium, it takes time to be proficient, and even longer to be good at understanding design and composition in the viewfinder.

I think perhaps out of frustration with my work in the square frame I left it behind for a time. I tried the ubiquitous 35mm rectangle and used that for several years, with mixed results. Although I took my college courses in design and drawing when I used a 35mm camera, I think what I learned about composition in those courses influenced the way in which I utilize the square format. I’ve been using the square since Jen and I have been married, and I think that is significant. Being married to Jen has allowed me to embrace fully who I am, as a photographer among many other aspects. After some thought about staying with the square, and some great discussions with Jen, I think I am here to stay. Yes, the square image is unusual (just try and buy a ready-made frame and mat for one), but perhaps the square is who I am photographically. I’ve heard it said that who we are is evident from youth, we may vacillate but we are essentially who we were as children. If this is true, I have always been a bit of a square, it just took me a while to figure it out.