Are squares better? Come with me as we throw a fork in the photographic microwave and investigate why you shouldn't underestimate the 1:1 image format.

Now... about that microwave.

We begin our little journey into the world of square format photography by addressing the glaring elephant in the room: there is no truly "better" image format when it comes to photography.

As argumentative as some of us can be about which framing ratio works best for certain types of photography, the sort of discussion we're about to have is, in the end, a wholly subjective one.

Of course, this is not to say there aren't preferred formats for particular scenes, subjects, and circumstances. When it comes to the square format, there are those who hate it, those who love it, and even more who think it was invented by Instagram.

Let's take a moment to dissect the obvious (and not-so-obvious) differences between photographs served up with that distinctly square flavor.

Medium Format vs 6x6 vs 1:1

There can be a bit of misconception when it comes to the square frame for photography -- namely, the importance of discerning the differences between 1:1, 6x6, and medium format photography.

Medium Format

The notion of what it means for a photograph to be classified as captured via "medium format" has continued to change over the years. There was a time when 4x5 large format was classified as medium format. Today, 4x5 is now viewed as the smallest entry into the realm of large format photography.

In the contemporary digital world, our "full frame" digital sensors are largely based around the dimensions of the 135 format (35mm) 3:2 ratio film frame, a format which was once adorably labeled "miniature" format.

Oh, how times have changed.

I bring up the idea of medium format because there is indeed a difference between medium, 6x6, and 1:1 format photography.

For instance, all 6x6 photographic frames (more on this shortly) are now accepted as "medium format" and, by definition, considered to be a 1:1 ratio.

However, not all 1:1 ratio photographs are 6x6, or even medium format, for that matter.

Strap in for this one. We're about to dive headfirst into a photographic word-salad that could lead to a pure existential freakout.

1:1 vs 6x6

The square, 6x6 medium format frame so adored by users of such cameras as the Hasselblad 500 series (500CM, 503CX, etc.) is widely assumed to be six centimeters by six centimeters square. This is almost true.

The actual dimensions generally hover around 56 mm by 56 mm. Of course, "5.6x5.6" just doesn't have the same ring to it.

This frame size (6x6) was also known as simply "two and a quarter," referring to its imperial dimensions of 2 1/4 x 2 1/4 inches. The 6x6 negative carrier for my Omega enlarger still reads as that dimension.

So, what does all this mean? Why even take the time to drone on about specific frame dimensions when it comes to 6x6 medium format? Well, it perfectly demonstrates the difference between square format and physical size.

While all square formats are technically 1:1 ratios, this is not limited to the 6x6 film format. Size literally does not matter.

Are you shooting a custom camera that accepts a 10x10 inch plate or film holder? Yep, that's 1:1. It is indeed a square, but it's certainly not medium format.

Are you a weirdo like me and enjoy shooting your digital camera with a 1:1 mask? If so, it's great to meet you. Unfortunately, even though we might like that artificial 1:1 frame, this doesn't mean it is dimensionally the same as a 6x6 format image.

In short, any image format possessing four equal (roughly) sides is considered 1:1, but the length of those sides can stretch into infinity.

It's easy for us today to incorrectly infer that all 1:1 format images are the same as 6x6. The advent of the 6x6 format, and to some extent the mainstream popularity of the 1:1 ratio as it pertains to photography, is largely responsible for this confusion.

However, there is so much more to this equilateral formatting equation.

Liquid Orientation

There is no winning when it comes to espousing one frame format over another. At the same time, this means there is no losing, either.

It's the opinion of this author that there is no truly good or bad way to frame a photograph, just as there is no good or bad beer... only "better" beer. I said what I said.

Naturally, there is no one-size-fits-all when it comes to how we choose to shoot or crop our scenes and subjects. Whether it's 4:5, 3:2, 4:3, or 1:1, the correctness of outcome is wholly subjective.

However, as all disciples of experience know, once we find a certain framing that feels right for a given photograph, there's no going back. It just works. We might not understand exactly why, but the sense of harmony that arises when we hit that compositional sweet spot is undeniable and true.

This is my sole defense for the continued implementation of 1:1 as one of the most adaptable shooting ratios for any type of photography.

What's that I hear? The undeniable clacking of pearls being clutched. Low gasps of bewilderment cast over a rising murmur of disembodied obscenities which have no place being repeated on such an estimable platform as Fstoppers.

Believe me, no one is more surprised than I am by my opinion of the versatility of the 1:1 image ratio. But why does the square format seem to work so well?

Perhaps the answer lies in the simplicity of equal space.

Portraits

Squares love people. It seems as if the 1:1 format was built for portraits, and I suppose some might argue that it was.

Shooting portraits in square format allows the photographer to dispense with some of the trappings involved with either vertical or horizontally oriented rectangular formats.

Namely, there is no need to rotate your camera in order to switch to vertical orientation -- there is no vertical. This was a characteristic of Victor Hasselblad's original design for the Hasselblad 1600F, released in 1948.

The square format allowed for more efficient studio and field work since the photographer no longer needed to reposition the camera based on the preferred orientation.

For portraits, the square format allows for a more "orbital" viewing experience, especially when the subject is placed dead center in the frame.

Of course, this doesn't mean that your subject is locked to the center. Making use of empty space within the square format also lends itself quite useful depending on the situation.

If you've never tried shooting portraits in 1:1, then I suggest you give it a go. The equilateral borders make for interesting perspectives and can completely change the dynamics of the photo.

Landscapes

As much as I adore the 1:1 format, I'll admit that it took a while to embrace the "there is no up" concept when making use of the format in my landscape photo work.

Now, the square format has become one of my favorite compositional outlets for landscape photography. The reason? It's new, at least for me.

As someone who has spent their life shooting the landscape in a mixed bag of varying horizontal and vertical configurations, the symmetry of the 1:1 format was a breath of fresh air.

The idea of thirds segmentation for horizons goes completely out the window. Centering landmarks dead center somehow just seems to work.

Don't get me started about how well minimal landscapes work in 1:1.

Is it perfect for every landscape? Absolutely not. I still shoot quite a bit of 3:2 and 4:5 landscapes, but I can't seem to escape the pull of the squares.

If you can't tell, perhaps this proclivity to the 1:1 format for landscapes walks hand in hand with my adoption of a Hasselblad 500 C/M a couple of years ago.

Alternatively, maybe I was bitten by the square landscape bug when I fell in love with vintage box cameras in the late 2000-teens.

It's difficult to say whether I've grown to love square landscapes by nature or nurture. Then again, I suppose it really doesn't matter why as long as I appreciate the outcome.

Life

Somewhere outside the realm of landscape and portrait photography lies the shadowy ozone of still life photography. For me, "still life" encompasses all that is present in the world which isn't a person or a broad landscape/seascape.

My still life photographs are saturated with abstracts and minimalist compositions. Naturally, I've found that the 1:1 format also works beautifully for framing these types of images.

Empty space and central characters are how I would classify the best use of the square format for still life.

As arbitrary as it sounds, the lack of physical dimensional difference immediately brings into sharp relief exactly what is being photographed.

A Game of Squares

Earlier in this piece, I made clear my belief that there is no "best" format for particular photographs, only "better" formats. It's something I've always believed and still do.

I come to the defense of the square format for a number of reasons. Perhaps the foremost of which, and maybe paradoxically, is the newfound popularity the 1:1 format has experienced in the age of social media.

It's true, more and more people are shooting with the intention of viewing their final photograph as a single tile on Instagram or other social feeds.

The thumbnail is now king, and it's usually a square.

Because of this, the square format has somehow been cheapened, at least in my view; its basilar utility being robbed as a legitimate (whatever that means) compositional format for photography.

Even I, an adopter and consistent implementer of 1:1 formats, can't help but feel as if square photography will forever be linked to a gimmick, somehow diminished from its original form.

Yet, who knows if these are just the ramblings of a rapidly aging shooter who sees problems that just aren't there? Maybe so.

However, it seems others are seeing the potential benefits of making use of the 1:1 format in photography. I had a lengthy conversation about square format photography with one Fstoppers member, Salvadore Ragusa, after he commented on another article of mine.

Sal has been working for some years to bring the 1:1 format into more common use, not in the capture, but in the viewing of photographs through a digital frame system of his own design. It's quite an interesting concept.

Mootist of Points

It's easy to make it seem as if the 1:1 ratio, and indeed the square format itself, somehow needs my help in maintaining or finding its place in the world of photography.

This is not the case.

Many legendary and well-known photographers have used (and still use) the 1:1 format. Names like Michael Kenna, Vivian Maier, Richard Avedon, Platon, and a host of others all presented much of their work as squares.

Even one of Ansel Adams' most famous works, Moon and Half Dome, was originally a 6x6 medium format negative, later cropped by Adams during printing to produce the iconic image we know today.

My defense of the square format is a stance against dismissal. The 1:1 format holds more potential across the field of photography than being relegated to only one or even two genres.

No matter what you find yourself shooting, I urge you to at least take a walk to the square side.

Like the song says -- it's hip to be a... never mind.