{"id":70441,"date":"2018-03-06T16:56:07","date_gmt":"2018-03-06T15:56:07","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/hipstography.com\/?p=70441"},"modified":"2018-03-06T17:01:52","modified_gmt":"2018-03-06T16:01:52","slug":"to-be-square-or-not-to-be-square-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/hipstography.com\/en\/news-en\/to-be-square-or-not-to-be-square-2.html","title":{"rendered":"To be Square or not to be Square"},"content":{"rendered":"

When Lori Hillsberg sent me her series \"Characters of New York<\/span><\/a>\", I had a bit of a visual shock when I saw the format of the pictures. Using a 16:9 format, she added a fierce energy to the series. I honestly think these pictures would not have been as powerful had Lori used the standard 1:1 format.<\/h4>\n

\"Lori-Hillsberg-Characters-of-NYC-21\"<\/a><\/p>\n

(Photo: Lori Hillsberg)<\/p>\n

Ever since Hipstamatic<\/strong> came into my life, I\u2019ve adored the square format for many reasons, among them something I\u2019d qualify as nostalgical. When I was small my parents took a lot of pictures and in the 70\u2019s the square format dominated. I still have a few of them lying around and, subconsciously, my brain has cherished the square format. In the following decades the 3:2 format took over, especially during the nineties with the emergence of the first digital cameras for the general public. As far as photography goes, I found this period to be quite disappointing: no effects, no filters, just \"flat\" rectangular photos, kept on hard drives.<\/p>\n\n\t\t