Open Mike: Square

I really need to work on comments this morning. I'm fast getting far behind again. I've had a couple of less-than-productive days, although I seem to have found time for exercise and for typing practice.

I confess I didn't know that I could set my Fujis to shoot square. I know why—it's because when I got them I looked for a 4:3 ratio, which I prefer most, and they don't have that, so I just left them set to 3:2 and forgot about it. They also have a selection for a longer, skinnier aspect ratio—16:9 I think? The camera isn't handy at the moment—and I never use that either.

I've never been attracted to the square aspect ratio per se. Most times I've shot with square cameras, I crop. It's only attractive to me on the iPhone because it makes the "camera" more natural to handle, removing some of its inherent awkwardness.

I did come across these recently:

They're my aunt and uncle. Mary Polk, my mother's younger sister, with Sailor the standard poodle whom I remember as an uncommonly good dog, and her husband, my uncle Smokie Polk. They had a farm south of Lexington, Kentucky, where Smokie bred and raised thoroughbred racehorses for a number of decades. He was at some point the President of the Kentucky Thoroughbred Breeders' Association. I was always very attached to both of them; Mary is a wonderful soul, and I admired, and sought to emulate, Uncle Smokie (who was always called Al or Dr. Polk at Keeneland Racetrack. Smokie was a vet as well). They're in their eighties now, and long since retired from the horse business. Mary never worked that I know of, but she's very accomplished all the same: she's an outdoorswoman and canoeist, who I recall went on Outward Bound wilderness treks in her 40s with people half her age, and she's an artist as well—she learned woodworking in midlife and built beautiful furniture. She not only designed the exquisite lake cottage they live in now, but she built most of the furniture in it. They raised four kids, and raised them well, and now the house is full of happy grandchildren every summer. They also own an island way, way up in the Boundary Waters of Canada where they have a small cabin—the trip in is so arduous that they've outfitted their skiff with survivalist supplies. Smokie is also an accomplished sailor, which is no doubt how the dog got its name. He's owned at least three boats since I've known him, not counting "stinkpots" (motor boats). Mary's canoes are the best of the best of the best.

In short, they've always been two of the coolest people I even know; that they're related to me is just an extra bonus. Uncle Smokie bred mainly middle-level racehorses, not the big-time names of the marquee races, but he did have a Triple Crown winner once—he was the breeder (not the owner or trainer) of Temperance Hill, who went off at 54.3-to-1 odds in the 1980 Belmont Stakes to beat Derby winner Genuine Risk and Preakness champion Codex to become one of the greatest long-shot winners in Belmont history. Temperance Hill was subsequently named Champion Three-year-old Colt of 1980 (all the Triple Crown races are for three-year-olds). The three Champion Three-year-olds preceding him were Spectacular Bid in 1979, Affirmed in 1978, and Seattle Slew in 1977, all names to conjure with; it was a golden age of American horse racing.

I took these portraits when I was ten. I think I was actually a pretty good portraitist when I was ten! Portraits are what I've always been best at. I had my first photo show in the dining room of my prep school when I was in ninth grade, and they were all portraits, of classmates and faculty members. Most were nabbed by the yearbook staff and used in the yearbook (without so much as a by-your-leave, which didn't seem unusual at the time), so I no longer have them.

These Instamatic prints are tiny, only 3 1/2 inches square including the borders, taken with a Kodak Instamatic on Verichrome Pan film. The film was 126 size, in a one-piece cassette that dropped into the back of the camera. The resolution is very low—the lens is probably a doublet or triplet. I don't actually know. And I don't know its speed or focal length, either. (It was an Instamatic 104.) [UPDATE: it was a plastic 43mm, f/11, single-element meniscus! Take that, Olympus 25mm PRO with your 19 elements! Thanks to several readers for this.] The Instamatic was the brainchild of Dean M. Peterson, one of the greatest unsung inventors in the history of American photography. It was designed in response to research that exposed the fact that loading film was one of the things consumers felt most insecure about. It shot in square format only, and the pictures came back from the drugstore printed square.  

I find I'm much more sympathetic to Kodak's whole program now than I was then—the advertising campaigns about "memories" and the little packets you'd get back from the drugstore with a neat stack of square prints with white borders, with the month and year stamped in the margin of each. Turns out that was a very robust and useful program. It has that sort of confident, plainspoken mid-century vigor about it. By the time I became an art student it was conventional to denigrate Kodak's resolutely middlebrow approach to photography—we were awtists, after all—but as aging has scraped away some vanity and ambition I've come to realize that Kodak was more right than wrong. I'm thankful I have these prints now, and thankful I can so easily place the date to April of 1967.

I'm not sure if there would be anything to be gained by "trying out" the square format of my Fujis. But it does have some of the appeal of simplicity, the square—a reminder that the real challenge of technique is to get past it, so that, once past, we can get down to work.

Mike

Book o' the Week:

ArtCurious: Stories of the Unexpected, Slightly Odd, and Strangely Wonderful in Art History by Jennifer Dasal (Penguin, 2020. Adapted from the popular podcast.)

This link above is a portal to Amazon, through which most anything you purchase will be credited to TOP. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

Original contents copyright 2021 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

KC: "Thanks for weaving such a nice story into this discussion of aspect ratio. I hope your aunt and uncle have a chance to see this post. As a former Lexingtonian I have to point out that the local racetrack is actually called 'Keeneland.'"

Mike replies: Thanks! Fixed now. My cousins reminded me of this when they saw the post.

Michael J. Perini: "Charming Pictures to be sure, and I couldn't agree more that as you say that Kodak 'was more right than wrong.' A company that realized and was willing to pay for pure research. Some great scientists and engineers there—they even invented digital. They were a supertanker and in the end, just couldn't turn the wheel fast enough.

"Like many TOP readers I shot with almost every format out there but mostly 35mm, 6x6, 4x5, and 8x10. The film camera I loved most was the Hasselblad. I did some good work with that camera. When I picked it up I 'saw square.' But when I was shooting 35mm or 4x5, I never missed the square format. I just shot what I shot.

"But even though I haven't shot a square camera in years, I often find nice square compositions hiding in my 2:3 files. Occasionally I will see a composition that is begging to be square and compose it that way on the 2x3 sensor. I've never felt the need for a square camera viewfinder to 'see' square or any other shape. I usually think—get the picture in whatever shape you can get it with whatever camera you have—if it is a strong picture, it will survive. If it is not, its shape doesn't matter."

Dan Khong: "One does not need many elements to shoot good pictures. The Instamatic lenses were like magnifying glasses but they made a lot of folks happy. The Tessar lenses stood their ground over many decades. They still produce astounding pictures in Rolleiflex TLRs. One might conclude: An average camera in good hands is better than a good camera in average hands."

Steve Belanger: "Great post, Mike! Thank you. I too had an Instamatic 104, given to me by my older brother as a birthday gift. My introduction to photography at age 12. My family and I took a trip to Montreal in 1968 to see the 'Man and His World' exposition. I still have a handful of great photos and memories of that trip."

Crabby Umbo: "By the way, I consider the 126 cartridge to be another of the great 'lost formats.' Manufacturers not only made rangefinder bodies with quality glass, but Kodak made a reflex with interchangeable lenses. The whole 'chink' in the armor was the cartridges' inability to hold the film flat, and in an exact enough plane to really get quality out of the image. My Mom had a high quality version with a glass lens and a wind-up motor drive, which I loved to use, but was always frustrated with the blurriness! A simple concentration on fixing that cartridge, and it would have had real legs. Can't believe Kodak made the decision to go with increasingly worse formats like 110 and Disc, all while the consumers were abandoning their models to go with the image superior autofocus, autoload, point-and-shoot 35mms. Sheesh!"

Mike replies: I believe the origin of the idea that eventually became the Disc was to solve the film flatness problem.

Peter Croft: "I find square format frustrating. I can never work out whether to hold the camera horizontally or vertically.  :-) "

Mike replies: Here's the trick: neither!

Actually, though, I had a photo school classmate who did a project shooting a square camera in the diamond format. 

SteveW: "'It's hip to be square!' —Huey Lewis & the News."

Frank Field: "Square format is not easy to shoot, I think. I see Michael Kenna as a contemporary master of square format. Study his compositions and your square format images are bound to improve."

Comments

[Hélcio J. Tagliolatto]

The power of photography!
And...man, your uncle's picture seems to be taken today.

[Crabby Umbo]

Can't say enough about shooting "square". One of the whole reasons I bought into M4/3rds was to set the aspect ratio to 1:1 and walk around shooting like I was using a Rollei. I've done it multiple times and will keep doing it!

I will say this, when I was still a studio owner, and was looking for a 120 camera to shoot some corporate annual report stuff, I bought into the Hasselblad system because the lenses were the best (being a CZ fan), and it sync'd with all speeds. At that time, the early Mamiya RB stuff had "iffy" lenses, and the Bronica was a focal plane shutter (before the later SQ, 6X7, and 6X.45); there didn't seems to be many options to "count on" as a pro.

Eventually, the RB lenses got better, especially the last KL series, and the RZ stuff came along, as well as the later series Bronica's, BUT, I will say that there is sort of a "tyranny" associated with the square. When you are shooting it, the square sort of dictates most of what you're going to end up doing, especially when it comes to corporate portraits and groups.

I ended up buying a few RB's, with later series lenses, and probably 75% of the time, if I'm doing 120, I'll grab the RB before I'll grab the Hasselblad. Now that it's virtually all digital, if I could get anything for my "mint" Hasselblad stuff, I'd probably sell it and buy a clean Mamiya 6 for walking around when I want the square.

[Robert Roaldi]

I just checked and even the latest Fuji E4 offers 1:1, 3:2 and 16:9 but not 4:3. I would have thought that modern cameras would have incorporated as many of the aspect ratios from medium or large format as possible, as well as 4:3. If they include 16:9, presumably for the convenience of those making timelapses in HD video aspect, you'd think they'd offer other aspects too for maximum convenience.

[Bryan Geyer]

Kensington Racetrack? Well, that's really remote! You likely meant Keeneland Race Course, in Lexington, KY.

[Stan B.]

Square format can simplify things- particularly portraits (eg- William Coupon).

And why Fuji only squares the jpg, and doesn't have 4:3, I'll never know...

[Nico.]

Should you turn your Fujis to square format you will be using an effective sensor size of 15.6mm x 15.6mm.
Good old Pythagoras gives us an image diagonal of 22mm.
The Fujinon 23mm lenses will be the "normal" or "standard" lenses for square shootin’.

[Herman Krieger]

Square shooting can be a reflex action, or
visa versa.

[Michael Kohnhorst]

Hello Mike, I think you may mean Keeneland racetrack, not Kensington. https://www.keeneland.com

[Thank you Michael. Fixed now. --Mike]

[Dan Jansenson]

Instamatic 104: camera-wiki to the rescue:
http://camera-wiki.org/wiki/Kodak_Instamatic_104

Specifications
Type: viewfinder film camera
Manufacturer: Kodak
Year of launch: 1965
Film: 126 film cartridge
Lens: Plastic, single element, meniscus; 1:11/43mm
Shutter: mechanical leaf, with speeds of 1/90 sec. and (with flashcube attached) 1/40 sec.
Flash: Flashcubes (not Magicubes or X-Cubes)
Price: $15.95

[robert e]

I've been looking at that "Square" option in iphones all this time but never thought it might be a solution to the handling problem, and I even like square format! My policy against in-camera cropping was too rigid for my own good, perhaps. I've definitely lost some self-respect as a photo hacker.

So, anyway, Thank you for the tip! I made the switch and I'll see how it goes. However, it won't solve the problem of lack of handling area, which is the root of the awkwardness. Maybe I should look around for an aftermarket grip ;)

[Stephen Scharf]

"I confess I didn't know that I could set my Fujis to shoot square."-Mike

This only works when the camera image quality is set to a JPEG + RAW capture setting format (e.g. F+RAW).

Helps to read the manual, too. Just sayin'. ;-)

[Sal Santamaura]

... I don't know its speed or focal length, either. (Anyone know? It was an Instamatic 104.)...

According to this

http://camera-wiki.org/wiki/Kodak_Instamatic_104

it was a plastic 43mm, f/11, single-element meniscus.

[robert e]

P.S. I should have known that there are quite a few attempts at a camera grip for phones. Many are more elaborate than I'd want, but this one may be a contender--minimal but extensible:

https://www.shopmoment.com/products/shoulderpod-s2-the-handle-grip

[Grant]

I have always liked the square format. Alas, once I began wearing tri-focals, 16:9 seemed normal.
On the upside, in the out of focus areas, the bokeh is pretty good.

[J.N. Lauretig]

Fuji cameras have a 1:1 setting when shooting Jpeg or Jpeg+Raw with two slots. When shooting RAW the aspect ratios are unavailable. This was checked on my oldest X-E2 and newest X-T4.

[Arthur Locke]

Hi Mike, Speaking of single element meniscus lenses, check this out when you have a moment: https://www.flickr.com/photos/flickart43/27953202560/in/dateposted/. There are other good examples on Flickr. Re square photos, I think some are just better in that format. I use it whenever I think it gives me the best composition. Cheers, Arthur LOcke.

[Michael Korak]

MIke,

You continue to inspire me. Not just in my photography, but also in my feelings of my past. Having been born and raised in Oak Park, Illinois and spent all of my early years up to age 18, I always enjoy your looking back on Oak Park Camera and its effect on my love of cameras. I would frequent there many years after as my parents and brother lived in The Village (biggest one in the country back then), until this late 1990s.
Later, in the 1970s, I loved in many towns in the Southeast Wisconsin area. I was a Reimer's, Casanovas's and later a Crivello's fan.
Now, in today's OLP article you mention not only a couple, now in their 80's that tough from Kentucky, know the absolute BEST place to find peace and tranquility. BWCA, or Boundary Waters Canoe Area and Quetico Provincial Park across the Canadian border.
Thank you to your aunt and uncle for giving you the memories and your ability to pass then along.
Continued good health and good shooting to you, both photographic and pool/billiards,
Michael

[Earl Dunbar]

The first camera that was my very own was a Brownie Bullet. Likely it was made just a few miles from where I live now. It also took 127 film, but in roll form, and I’m sure the lens was also a meniscus. So the quality was pretty low, but when I could afford to use (the original) Kodacolor, the results were kind of dreamy. I still have prints around here somewhere - I continued to use it even after I had graduated from university until I eventually got my first OM-1. Now I shoot square with a Rolleiflex, but I’ve always thought it would be fun to have a compact 127 camera with a good, modern lens, exposure control, etc.

[Michael Korak]

Oops, I LIVED..in Oak Park! Until THE late 90's. That THOUGH in their 80".

I need to proofread before I hit "SEND"...sorry,

Michael

[Bryan Geyer]

I'd place "golden age of American horse racing" as the period from Citation's Triple Crown (1948) right up to the time of the 1990 Breeders' Cup, the year that the outstanding filly Go For Wand broke down in the Breeders' Cup Distaff. Every decade during that lengthy duration was memorable, and preserved the continuity of the sport's rich tradition. Sadly, the introduction (1984) of the Breeder's Cup event gradually displaced that tradition. Major races at other sites became minor attractions. The significance of progressive winning wilted, and the exciting challenge implicit in handicap racing died, so "racing" is now mostly a breeding business. Also a handy target for zealots that never really understood thoroughbreds anyway.

[Patrick W]

I suspect Aunt Mary would not agree that she never worked. I think there is a better way to phrase that statement.

[Pierre]

Nico: When I had an X100S I loved shooting square with the 23mm lens. I got the 2/23 for my X-Pro1 a few years ago. It was the only lens I took it to Portland, Oregon in 2019 and I did a miniseries of a cute candycolored upscale gentrified neighborhood at night. I was hoping to continue it in 2020 to make a project out of it but COVID put the kibosh on that.

[Terence Morrissey]

My first camera was the Kodak Instamatic 104 in 1972.

[Kenneth Wajda]

Nice portraits. Talk about time travel.

Though the date is when it was developed, nor taken. Many photographers back then kept the film in so long, lab techs said they often had on on roll of film: sand, snow, sand.

You might have been quicker than the average shooter.

I still like white bordered prints. I consider these finished snapshot photographs. The 4x6 borderless they went to later feel like images, but not photographs.

[John]

You want to hear something really stupid? A digital camera could be programmed to allow the user to enter whatever aspect ratio they want, yet no manufacturer seems to have ever thought to offer such a feature.

[Len Metcalf]

Square? Is there any other aspect ratio?

Smiling

Square is my shape to work in. I always photographed in what ever the camera gave me. I now realise this dogmatic approach caused me to hate particular cameras.

The first photograph on my first mirrorless camera was square and I rarely take it off. I look at older photographs and wish I had shot them square.

When I rediscovered square it was like finding home.

Some photographers shoot all aspect ratios whilst love the restriction of just one. Well that’s me.

Go for it Mike. Perhaps you’ll love it over time. Then again if it’s not you why bother pushing it.

[Alan Whiting]

At one point I was using a Contax 139 (35mm SLR), Mamiya 645 (120 SLR) and Rolleiflex more or less at the same time. I found there were subtle differences between the pictures I would see and take on the ground glass, as opposed to looking through the viewfinder; and those I would see and take in square format, as opposed to rectangular. I would rarely crop rectangular to square, and almost never square to rectangular. It sounds like I was allowing myself to be limited by my equipment, but it never felt like that. I will be interested in your experiences with square format.

[Dennis ng]

One of my surprise is that as many so call medium format digital camera use 4433 and you do square or 33x33, many 135 lens can be used. Yes 50 down to 30 mp. But that is ok.

[Eric Rose]

I have my Panasonic GX1 permanently set to square and B&W. Outfitted with a Panasonic 20mm f1.7 lens it's my go to street and walking around camera.

[Franz Amador]

My latest little hiking camera is the Panasonic LX100 Mk2. It has a slider switch on the lens barrel that changes the aspect ratio to 3:2, 4:3, 1:1, or 16:9. I thought it was a gimmick at first, but it fast became my favorite feature. It really nudges my creativity, and I'm always switching among the settings based on what I'm looking at. I most use 16:9, but 1:1 is a close second. 4:3 and 3:2 are fallbacks when the others don't work. Quite a change from always using 3:2 on my old Canon 5d Mk2.

P.S. I'm jealous of your aunt and uncle's life.

[Kenneth Tanaka]

I enjoy the square format! In fact, when I closely analyze many of my own frames I very often find that cropping to a square, not necessarily at center, improves the intensity of the image.

But I only shoot square with the Hassy 907x...mainly for the same reason that the Hassy 500's and the TLRs used a square; it's not well-suited for turning 90 degrees while shooting.

[Mike Cytrynowicz]

Uncle is wearing a Trilby, I believe?

[Jennifer C Blankertz]

Besides Kodak, a German company also made a 126 SLR. I forget who it was, but my father had one and it was my first experience with a "real camera".

[Rick in CO]

I may have been lucky but my Rollei SL-26 took very sharp pictures. Had interchangeable lens too! Very nice Kodachrome slides. A camera I wish I still had for sentimental reasons.

[c.d.embrey]

I seldom shoot square. This was the only square shot I could find, the rest were crops.

The parking lot of a hotel in Newport Beach, California. March 31,2020, 11:20:11 AM. This was the start of the lockdown, and no-one was visiting either the beach or or Disnyland.
iPhone XS- ISO 16, 6mm f/2.4 @ 1/305 second (portrait mode f/1.4).

Proper technique is key to shooting with a smartphone. Hold the phone like you were picking-up a paper-back novel, or your credit card—between thumb and forefinger. RN's take many photos with a small iPad every shift. The RN's hold the tablet between thumb and forefinger—no need for a two handed grip.

Do not hold your smart phone at arms length. Use it like you would use live view on you ILC. That's about 5 inches for me.

[Stephen S.]

I have many digital cameras that can shoot in different aspect ratios, but it always seems a shame to throw away perfectly good pixels. Imagine my surprise when I learned the Panasonic LX1 has a 16:9 sensor, so shooting that way is the optimum way! The later LX2 even has a 16:9 LCD screen, and I find myself wanting to own one. It's not an aspect ratio I love, and newer higher-resolution cameras I own will produce better images even after throwing away several rows of pixels from the top and bottom of their sensors, but there is just something that seems... appropriate about using the LX2 in its native format that I want to try out, for the sake of purity and experimentation.

[Sid]

Because I favored Kodachrome II and Kodachrome 25 films, I often turned to the Canon EF 50mm f/1.2 L lens, a superb lens, even wide open. As my digital cameras produce good results at high ISO values, I rarely use my fastest lens, a prime lens with a maximum aperture of f/1.7. The second fastest lens that I own today is a prime lens with a maximum aperture of f/2.5. My zoom lenses are even slower.

The fastest lens on my iPhone 12 Pro Max is f/1.6 and the image quality is excellent.