Works especially well for most design-oriented images. Generally effective because it maximizes image area; 800x800 = 64000 square pixels. 800 x 560 = 44000 square pixels. The latter is less than 70% of the area of the former, so the square crop carries a LOT more information, a precious thing at this size.
Works especially well for most design-oriented images. Generally effective because it maximizes image area; 800x800 = 64000 square pixels. 800 x 560 = 44000 square pixels. The latter is less than 70% of the area of the former, so the square crop carries a LOT more information, a precious thing at this size.
R.
Well said Robert. A pertinent question and a good answer. Personally, I do like square crops, but like everything else in photography knowing when to use them is key. In my mind it is a much a part of the overall artistic vision as the lighting, composition, subject etc. Just another piece of the larger puzzle. :)
Cyberlandz, I especially concur with Robert in that you maximize the visual real estate and detail which is advantageous here on DPC for a couple of reasons not the least of which is the entire image will fit on most decent sized screen all at once without scrolling. That gives the viewer the full effect all at once.
yes, i agree. maximizing the pixel count gives us more room for details, and a square crop gives us just that.
but solely for composition, without regard to pixel count, i may have tried it once or twice, but eventually dropped it and reverted to the normal rectangular. i know it should work well with some photos, but maybe i just need to pay more attention to my compositions, and eventually learn to know when it's best to use it, and when not to.
if you do a square crop and add in extra area, wont you lose some detail somewhere becuase of the 300k limit?
if i have an image at 800x600 (300k) and 800x800 (300k) wouldn't the first carry a better image quality?
In theory this is correct, however I believe the quality difference is negligible, and it's far better to go big than keep it small for quality. I rarely am able to submit a photo at 100% quality, but I'd never dream of going shorter than 800 pixels on any one side (I've made the mistake, once, for the resons you bring up).
I tend to be partial to a 3.5 x 5 " aspect crop, but I do occasionally use a square crop when it is what suits the composition best. I don't ever use the square as a default choice, only when nothing else works right.
I wonder if those who find the square format uncomfortable ever shot with a medium format camera where square is full frame option. Given the constraints on image size for entries, cropping out part of a 3:2 aspect ratio image to square it up will not really hurt image quality, as long as you shot with editing down to square in mind, there is an advantage to making all one's entries square.
