Almost square.

Random thoughts while waiting for for the quick size to set on the "holidays" of the frame I'm regilding. "Holidays", house painter speak for missed spots.

The above photo is in the 3:4 aspect; almost square, which is the normal aspect for small digicams. I've become used to it; enough so that when I started using my iPhone camera, the 3:2 aspect was ... disconcerting. See previous post. This may explain my current comfort with square.

That my most recent paintings are 1:2, might be a reaction to the photos, which I still, consider sketches. The 16:9 aspect, or "wide" in cameras is not wide, but actually a crop of the image.

Maybe I should give it another try.

Sometimes what is not included, can be as important as the included, in both paintings and photos.

I doubt this would work as square, as it needs the strong vertical as foil to the flower and leaves, though it is 4:3 as the 1st. photo is 3:4. (Height precedes width) Also, it wouldn't work as square because I said so, as the artist.

This is a square crop of the 1st. image, and one that I find unsuccessful; in fact it seems vertical, rather than the subdued horizontal, which renders it with an Asian quality. Had it been composed as a square, rather than cropped to square, I'm sure it would be more successful. That was one of the points in the article on TOP.

This is not to say that one should not crop, but composing in the camera is the first step.