An ideal match: 120 roll film cameras and the square format

In this current age of the so-called “full frame” digital camera, with its 2:3 proportions, the square format, or 1:1 proportion, is somewhat of an outlier and perhaps even disparaged as a remnant of the age of 120 roll film. Even Instagram, which started as an emulation of square format instant photographs has opened the gates to a host of aspect ratios.

In this article, I dispute the notion that the square format is an outlier and argue that the format, and the film cameras that use it, are an ideal match. Furthermore, for those enthusiasts who are just getting into film photography, cameras using the square format can be purchased for quite reasonable prices, and I’ll get into some suggestions shortly.

But first, what accounts for the hesitation about the square format?

We might have the ancient Greeks to blame for this: the Parthenon in Athens has a 4:9 proportion, decidedly rectangular, which has long been thought of as an “ideal” proportion, pleasing to the eye. Or there might be some connection to human evolution, in which the ability to notice predators to the left and right was more important for survival than the ability to see up and down.

In any case, shooting to a square format does seem to require some care in the choice of subject matter.

For starters, landscape photography is not a good match for the square format. Indeed, the common rectangular formats are generally considered “too square” as well. Vast expanses of land, and pictures, including distant horizons, seem to want photographs that are wide and flat, what we used to call a “slim Jim” format. For full-length portraits, it seems natural to want a quite vertical rectangle; a square format would leave excessive space left and right.

All in all, I accept that a gentle rectangular format, such as the 4:5 proportion of sheet film, is a good compromise for many subjects, leaving the square format somewhat of an outlier.

Not so fast…

Photographic roll film started with George Eastman and the long history of Kodak’s amateur photography business. However, roll film, in particular 120 film was not considered a professional medium until the late 1940s, and it really didn’t hit its stride until the mid-1950s.

At that time, emulsion technology had progressed to the point where film stocks had enough sensitivity and fine grain to produce images worthy of large reproduction. So from then on, until the digital revolution, 120 roll film was a natural fit to replace 4×5 sheet film for photojournalism, portraiture, baby photography, weddings, and all-around subject matter.

I am currently using a number of twin-lens 120 cameras, including a 1949 Rolleiflex Automat twin lens reflex camera (TLR) that my late father left me. It works perfectly, and when I was a rather broke new professional, I used the camera for paying clients. As my career advanced, I was able to afford interchangeable lens 120 cameras (Hasselblad) and yes, I made a living shooting the square format.

Both the twin-lens design, and the interchangeable lens Hasselblad were cameras that worked best when you were holding them at your waist and staring down into a ground glass image. Clearly, it was impractical to turn a Rolleiflex, with its two lenses, sideways to shift from horizontal to vertical format, so these cameras had to use a square format, always held level from the waist. Then when the Hasselblad became a “go-to” camera for professionals, the square format settled in, and photographers learned how to use it well.

For one thing, improved film stocks meant that if you needed a rectangular picture, which was often, it did not degrade the final quality much if you simply cropped the square to a rectangle. For a full-length portrait for example, you still had the full 6 cm. of film width.

It actually turns out that many subjects fit naturally into a square format. I have shot hundreds of headshots of executives, models, and children, a natural square format consisting of a more or less round object in the frame of a square space. In other words, circular subjects, human or otherwise, just look right inside a square. Photographs with strong diagonals — say shafts of light — look right in a square format from one corner to the other. With practice and experience, you will soon find that a square box is a great place to put a lot of subject matter.

Camera selection

As I mentioned earlier, I started out with a twin-lens Rolleiflex Automat, and I like that style for people photography. A curious little detail that I have noticed is that subjects in front of my Rollei seem to calm down a lot quicker, and appear more relaxed, when I am not holding a camera up to my eye. The twin-lens design, held at waist level, allows you to maintain eye contact right through the snapping of the shutter, which might explain that observation. Also, these cameras are quiet, so quiet that often the subject is not aware you have actually fired the shutter.

Rolleis have zoomed in price lately and are worth every penny, but there is no good reason not to start out with a Yashica or Minolta twin-lens reflex camera instead. I own a camera named a “Wardflex”, apparently a private label branded for Montgomery Ward in the late 1950s I bought it off of eBay for a couple of hundred dollars, and the camera is built like a tank. It’s fun to use, has a decent lens, and I don’t worry about it getting stolen.

My experience with the film negatives from my Mamiya Six, an amateur camera using rangefinder focusing, all the way up to the best Zeiss glass on my Hasselblad, can, with good scanning, give me a digital file that equals any high-end DSLR.

In short, that large square negative from modern emulsions contains a great deal of data, and can produce some lovely results.

~ Michael