Why not square?

[frXnz kafka]

Thanks for the info Derrel.

I think a lot of other people missed what I was trying to say. Why not shoot a square image, and then crop it to a rectangle in PP? That way orientation of the camera would be less important.

I agree that a rectangular image is more pleasurable to view, but that's the finished product. As for monitors, no they're not square, but they dp seem to be getting wider.

Probably because it's easier to move your hand a little bit than to crop every single image you shoot. You're also wasting a lot of your image plane by doing what you suggest.

Some 6x7 medium format cameras have revolving backs, so instead of rotating the camera you just rotate the film back. It obviously adds a lot of bulk, and isn't really practical for 35mm cameras.

 

[Rifleman1776]

Most of the answers just say we use rectangle because we are used to rectangle. And, that may be the correct answer.
I have wondered why not square also. With square, we could crop and frame any way we want with the camera. Unwanted 'stuff' is just cropped off anyway. Personally, I am not an adherent to standarized formats anyway. If the picture calls for it to be 2"X10", so be it, that's what it is.

 

[Buckster]

Most of the answers just say we use rectangle because we are used to rectangle. And, that may be the correct answer.
I have wondered why not square also. With square, we could crop and frame any way we want with the camera. Unwanted 'stuff' is just cropped off anyway. Personally, I am not an adherent to standarized formats anyway. If the picture calls for it to be 2"X10", so be it, that's what it is.

You can already do that. Just shoot and crop at will, including to portrait.

Because turning the camera a quarter turn for a portrait shot is so much work, amirite?