I have had the discussion of the square crop unusually frequently lately, and those conversations have led me to this blog post. The crop of a photo, or often-times lack of a crop, can be a very important element of a piece. It is literally the frame of the photo, the defining lines that determine what the viewer will see. It is a main factor in composition and lighting, and often determines exactly how one will frame the image.
Because it is such a major formal aspect of a photographic image, the question is often raised to me about why I use the square crop. One will notice upon visiting my portfolio that all of the images are square, save for a few very early images that were created when I had not found my photographic niche quite yet. This is something that I established with both care and respect for the medium of photography. It was not something that I began because it looked better on flickr, or because often a square frame will make a bigger impact on the viewer (depending on the subject matter, of course). For me the decision was one that coincided with my ideals and philosophies about photography and specifically the images I wanted to produce.
I want to create worlds within our world; this idea makes up the very reason why I create photographs. I create worlds that I wish I could live in, where the things that hide in secrecy suddenly find themselves in the open, waiting to be shared. One thing, among many, that can break this continuity of story in a photograph for me is the framing, or aspect ratio. When a photo is taken as is, the aspect ratio is somewhere around 2:3. This screams PHOTOGRAPH. It says that someone placed a camera and clicked the shutter. I am taken out of the world that might have been created. When I create a square frame in my images, they read as something outside of photography, outside of a human-made creation. They are suddenly these tiny worlds that I can see myself falling into.
In no way am I making the point that photographs left “uncropped” are inferior to a square crop, certainly not; it is a personal preference for me, one that stems from my desire to do away with seeing the medium and instead see the art for what it is. I intend for my art to be seen as something different than photography, and so I find a square crop appropriate. But there is one small detail about this “square crop” that I would like to expand on…
Unless absolutely necessary, I do not crop my images into squares. In fact, images that may surprise you have not been cropped, but rather are a blending of multiple photos to create a square frame. My reason for this is twofold. First, when I compose an image in my mind, I compose for a square. I do not compose a frame inside a little square within my rectangular viewfinder; I compose for a larger square. All of my creations are created with the intent of becoming a square. And so, for example, when I receive a comment on a photo where the person says, “You shouldn’t have cropped this, would have been better left normal” I say that the image was created for the square, and if I made it rectangular you would be missing half of the image. Let me show an example, a photo that I created yesterday that is easy to see my process:
"Immortal Bird"
In this photo I filled the rectangular (normal) frame with myself, shot what I needed as the bulk of my photo, and then tilted the camera down to show the “lower half” of the photo. This is done by using various techniques of blending two photos into one, which can be made difficult depending on what is in the frame. For example, lines can often be tricky to match up and must therefore be recreated. Because of this expansion, my frame is closer to 4000X4000 pixels, rather than a crop which would make the frame 2500X2500 pixels. This brings me to reason number 2 for not cropping the image: I can print my photos much larger because of this. My photo “Ballet Vacate” has a frame that is nearly 8000X8000 pixels because of the amount of photos I used to create one image. I continually expanded the frame instead of shrinking each image and placing them into a normal frame.
This process can be difficult, especially on photos where my whole body fills the frame. This then requires me to piece my body together and make it look seamless, as though I had cropped the image and I had captured my entire body to begin with. See examples below.
"The Inconvenience of Spirits" The top and bottom of this image are taken from other photos. It was difficult to blend them to create one photo because there are so many straight lines.
"The Inverse Square" For this image I had to piece my body together. To do this, I shot my upper body and then tilted the camera down to shoot my lower. I also shot extra wall space to my left and right to expand further. This image is 7 photos combined.
For me there is essentially no such thing as a square crop, there is only the square expansion paired with a world of meaning behind it.
{ 8 } Comments
Goodness, your work is just beautiful.
And then, your skill is just as beautiful.
Brooke,
I read this essay with much interest. You write so eloquently and your argument is very convincingly delivered. I love what you say about getting away from the photographic format – it makes perfect sense for your art. And yes, it does seem to enhance the surreality of your images. More power to you for having thought it through and for sharing your opinion.
As always your blog entries show your talent as a communicator as well as an artist. Thank you.
Fascinating. I never thought about the square cropping in your photo, but as soon as you mentioned it, I knew exactly what you were talking about. I had no idea how much work went into it (merging rather than cropping)
Couldn’t one argue, then, that you would have more skill if you took the time to figure out how to complete the picture within the frame rather than, as you mention doing multiple times, taking a photo of your top half, then your bottom, then merging them? The megapixel point of merging, not cropping, photos isn’t really a skill you have so much as it is a rationalization you’re trying to make about how that can be considered a skill. I can understand that the ability to edit a photo well (and what is \well\ but a subjective term anyway) is a skill in itself, but editing is still secondary in the world of photography. I agree your pictures are pretty, I appreciate the thought you put into what you make, but I’m just left unimpressed all around. Why so many layers and textures? All I feel from those is that you’re trying to cover up poor Photoshopping skills of merging your lower and upper half. Not that you’re trying to impress me — I am just a viewer. Your art is for you.
@Counter Point – For me, it would be much easier to step back or use a wider lens to capture my image and then simply crop it, and it is often a temptation (and sometimes it is what I must do), but the point is that I print my photos very large, and in order to print as large as possible I need to create the biggest frame possible.
I have much practice in both composing for a square frame as well as composing for a merger, both of which are skills. Is editing secondary in the world of photography? In my world it is an equal part. Yes, we all need good compositions and technical skills when shooting, but for my art I need post processing just as much. And although I do not show my original images, I guarantee you that using texture does not “cover up poor Photoshopping skills.” Texture is not a magical cover-up, it is used to accentuate the imagery. I think that it adds that timeless feel to it.
Thank you for your comment. That is what art should be…one big debate :)
Perhaps it is time to write up a blog entry about the use of texture…
Thanks for that cool post. It really got me thinking. Shame on me that I had not thought about the possibility before to create a square shot without reducing the picture size but instead increasing it. Used this technique for my latest shot: http://www.flickr.com/photos/prozac74/4355840483/
Thank you. This has informed and inspired me. Just a great idea.
I recently discovered your work on flickr.
I want to learn how to do it myself since I saw especially “the inverse square”.
I would come to your course if I had the opportunity, but I have no budget plus I’m from (= in) Germany.
{ 3 } Trackbacks
[...] Sehr spannend: Brooke Shaden erklärt, warum sie ihre Fotos im Quadrat macht [...]
Мне этот вопрос не ясен….
I have had the discussion of the square crop unusually frequently lately, and those conversations have led me to this blog post…..
Большое спасибо за информацию….
It is literally the frame of the photo, the defining lines that determine […….
Post a Comment