#XF16

Square Affair - with the X-Pro2!

Originally wanted to title this post “It’s Hip to Be Square”, like the refrain in the 1986 song “Hip to Be Square” by the American rock group Huey Lewis and the News … but it wouldna been appropriate. Any of youse know why? In that song the singer’s saying he’s starting to conform to the establishment coz he can’t stand the stress of being a rebel no more: i.e. it’s Hip (= cool, fashionable) to be Square (= conformist, following the rules). In photography most images have a rectangular aspect ratio (3:2 or 4:3). Using a square image frame (1:1) is therefore relatively rare, so you actually gotta be a bit of a rebel & break outta the rules if you wanna “go square” 😉!

Lantern and its shadow, seen with X-H1 and XF 90mm F/2 @F/8, 1/210 sec, ISO 400

Since 2010 Instagram has enjoyed a great success as online image sharing platform - until August 2015 only square images were allowed, driving somewhat of a renaissance of the square format: As Instagram is mainly viewed on smartphones, using a square image format means you aren’t required to turn your phone sideways for landscape images, allowing for a more ”smooth” user experience…

But the square format was there long before Instagram came along: Around 1930 first professional larger square format cameras appeared (Rolleiflex, Voigtländer and Hasselblad to name a few), using a reflex mirror to project the image onto a matte glass plate which could be viewed from above. This image was upright but laterally reversed. So if the camera would’ve had a rectangular image format it would have needed to be turned onto its side for portrait images, which would then have resulted in an upside-down viewfinder image! To prevent this inconvenience the manufacturers of the time stuck with a square image format

Interestingly enough there does not really seem to be much older history of the square format, eg. dating back to the times where images were still painted (at least I couldn’t find anything …)

Anyway, with the advent of the digital age came a greater flexibility regarding image aspect ratios, allowing the photographer to choose already in camera or afterwards in post production from a plethora of image formats from 16:9 to 1:1

You can apply the square format during image capture (obviously this works only for JPEG´s - the RAW image always uses the full native format of the camera) or in post production. I usually prefer to decide that when developing the image in Capture One Pro - some images only lend themselves to the square format at a second (or third) glance!

Original image, with 1:1 square crop

For example, take a look at my first image of this post. I only saw the potential for a tighter square image format when preparing it for uploading to my blog (inspiring me to create this post “Square Affair” on the square image format 😉) On the picture with the blue square frame you can see how it looked originally: Cropping it to a square shape has left out unimportant parts of the image, focusing on the main elements, lines and shadows. I imagine this has just always been a square image just waiting to be discovered! What do you think?

So, what’s behind all this “square” talk? Basically the main quality of this frame is that it creates a natural sense of balance, stability & symmetry. None of the sides is favored, preventing any distraction from the image content. The square composition allows you to eliminate negative space & superfluous elements in your image - excessive space in an image invites a viewer’s eye to wander away from the subject & makes your subject look a bit lost. The square has an inherent classic & beautiful design, which if carefully applied will make your images stand out from the crowd! Because the square lacks any horizontal or vertical bias the viewer’s eye tends to be guided in a circular motion, often converging towards the centre of the image

Wall with shadow of another lantern, captured on X-H1 with XF 90mm F/2 @F/8, 1/600 sec, ISO 400

In the above image I could leave out the right side of the rectangular frame because the shadow of the lamp already tells the story - don’t need to have the lamp itself inside the frame no more 😉)

Original image with 1:1 square crop

See here the original framing on the image with the blue square frame. In this case I was not really happy with my initial picture - should’ve gone a bit closer to leave out the white strip on the lower edge of the frame … I learnt from this that you gotta “work” the image more - instead of just one or two frames per subject it would be better to try out different perspectives, distances & framings, giving you more material to work with and increase the chance of getting that perfect image!

As you can see in the image with the lamp below the square format also circumvents the otherwise ubiquitous “rule of the thirds”: The square frame gives you more freedom to place the central element of interest - usually a slightly off-centre position of the main subject is enough to create sufficient tension in the composition!

Lantern surrounded by canvas roof, discovered with X-H1 and XF 16mm F/1.4 @F/5.6, 1/5 sec, ISO 400

Here you can see another example: The original image is nice, but includes too much empty (= “negative”) space on the left and right sides. Cropping it to a square focuses on the essential part of the image: The steps with their diagonal lines and railings. As you can see, the content of the left & right borders does not really add anything to the image & I think you will agree that the square image is much more powerful: The square frame gives the image a much more dynamic & interesting look!

Original image with 1:1 square crop

In this case I have to admit that I was planning to put this image into a square frame all along. By the way, using the full rectangular native image format and later extracting a square crop during post processing allows you to place your square off centre to create a different perspective. This can help if you are photographing a reflecting house façade or window directly from the front and want to prevent seeing your reflection in the image: You place the square all the way to one side of the rectangle, resulting in your reflection not being visible anymore!

Steps in a square frame, seen with my X-Pro2 with XF35mm F/2 @F/8, 1/180 sec, ISO 200

Now before y’all gettin’ too excited here, there’s just one caveat: When shooting square you gotta be aware (WOW, that rhymes ;-) that shooting in the square format reduces your lens’s effective angle of view. The angle of view of a lens determines how much of the image you can cover and is calculated according following formula: 𝜶 = 2arctan(d/2𝑓), where 𝜶 (alpha) is the lens’s diagonal angle of view in degrees, d represents the length of the image’s diagonal in mm (28.23mm for the uncropped Fuji APS-C sensor) and 𝑓 is the focal length of your lens in mm. For those of youse not so much into math here’s the thing: Cropping your native 3:2 aspect ratio image to a square 1:1 aspect ratio generates a field of view (FOV) which makes your lens look like the next longer lens in your system. For example Fuji’s XF 18mm / 28mm Full Frame equivalent FOV behaves like the XF 23mm / 35mm Full Frame equivalent FOV lens, the XF 23mm / 35mm Full Frame equivalent FOV like the XF 35mm / 53mm Full Frame equivalent FOV, and so on - basically you can multiply your focal length by a factor of appox. 1.2 when going square! See the below image, taken with the XF 16mm, it looks more like an image taken with the 18mm:

Dinner out with best friends, image taken on X-H1 with XF 16mm F/1.4 @F/2, 1/40 sec, ISO 2500, +0.7 EV

So I hope I’ve managed to inspire youse to experiment a bit with the beautiful, serene and classic square format, and hope you’ll “dare to be square” (again a rhyme 😉). Please share your experiences in the comments section below or leave me a note on my “about” page. Look forward to the discussion!

PS: The best thing about going square is: It don’t cost you nothin’, jeez - this accessory is completely FREE 😊!

Peace with y’all and wish a very nice weekend

Cheers,

Hendrik

If you like you can support me by sending me a small donation via PayPal.me/hendriximages ! Helps me run this site & keeps the information coming, many thanks in advance!

Fuji X-Pro2 System Meta Review 3xF - Behind Every Shadow there´s Light !

Weird title, huh ? But it´s true, I had ´em all - Minolta, Nikon, Hasselblad, Leica, then digital ... again Nikon, jumped ship to Canon ... then I 3xFFinally Found Fuji ;-) ! Yep, I know it´s the photographer that makes the image, not the camera ! Well ... not quite, I beg to differ - please read on for a "meta review" of the Fuji rangefinder system !

Contre Jour in the Park - Visualized with XF 16 mm f1.4 WR on X-Pro2

There are 3 steps in the image creation process which all consume time until you can review your results and learn from them:

  1. Image visualisation and framing (moving around, finding right perspective & selecting lens)
  2. Image capture (using camera controls to set exposure to get visualised result & focussing)
  3. Image processing (developing image to a reviewable result on screen and/or print)

The faster this process, the shorter are the learning cycles and the faster you improve your photography. Let´s look at the above steps in more detail and see how the choice of a camera system can & does influence them !

1. Image Visualization:

True, a camera can´t make the blind see, it can´t replace the intuition, creativity & perception of the photographer, it can´t help those inspiring images find you (yes, images find you, not the other way around !) ... But I kid you not, the camera viewfinder can sure as hell block your creative photographic process and throw rocks into the path of capturing and creating the image you visualised ! I always struggled with those SLR viewfinders - seemed kinda like sticking a haze filter in between my eye and the scene !

Trees casting diagonal shadows - Seen with XF 35 mm f2 WR on X-Pro2

Then I "fund" Leica (pun intended - damn thing cost me an arm & a leg) - the "transparency" of
it´s rangefinder cleared up the fog in front of my scene & seeing beyond the frame made photography feel like being able to carve my image out of reality. However what came after that was a pain in the butt ...

2. Image Capture:

The Leica´s fiddly, not always reliable manual focussing & centre weighted exposure metering are simply not well suited for fast focussing and balancing lighting with the limited exposure latitude of film (using Zone System). This cost me a lot of time during image capture. And then ...

3. Images Processing:

It still took ages till i could review the images - no "quick-check-and-redo-if-not-happy" with analogue photography, no sir ! Then along came digital - instant WYSIWYG (what-you-see-is-what-you-get) ! No more processing delay but i was again stuck with that "hazy" SLR viewfinder (no rangefinder style digital cameras available at that time ...). Another disadvantage was size & weight of DSLR´s - so, unfortunately I didn't have my camera with me often ... below image only "happened" coz i had my compact Fuji with me !

People casting diagonal shadows - Found with XF 35 mm f2 WR on X-Pro2

So, then I Finally Found Fuji !

it must´ve been a very clever person at Fuji who got the inspiration of combining modern digital technology with a clear Leica-esque rangefinder and traditional "photographer´s" control dials (and all that at a reasonable price too !)

For me the Fuji X-Pro2 & lenses is the ONLY camera system with minimal impact on my creative process - it kinda never gets in my way:

  1. Fluid Image Visualization by transparent optical rangefinder viewfinder, allowing me to also see the larger context of the image outside the frame-lines (OVF)
  2. Lightning Fast Image Capture by reliable autofocus and multi zone metering or intuitive at-a-glance exposure adjustment using traditional manual dials for the 3 original exposure elements (ISO, aperture and shutter speed)
  3. Immediate Accurate Final Result Review using Fuji´s amazing film simulations (especially like the ACROS one with red filter !): SOOC JPEG´s are immediately useable and have an amazing film-like quality !

So, what more would I want ? Well if you askin´ me like that a short 70 mm f1.4 WR (105 mm FF equiv.) telephoto and a more compact 16 mm f2 WR would just be fan-tas-tic, c´mon Fuji you can do it ;-) !

Why ? IMO the 50 mm telephoto (75 mm FF equiv.) Fuji is planning is too short (had that on my Leica and didn't like it) and the amazing XF 90 f2 WR (135 mm FF equiv.) is too long - flattens faces too much. On the other hand a 90 mm f1.4 would´ve turned out too bulky, but that f1.4 70 mm would really hit the sweet spot ! Anyway with Telephotos I usually use the EVF (could never do that on my Leica ...)

As for wide-angles I prefer to use the OVF to see "around" my scene - great to capture the best context and cut out of the scene ! So my XF 16 mm f1.4 for me blocks too much of the OVF, a 16 mm f2 would be more slim, comparable to the XF 14 mm f2.8 & less intrusive !

Modern wheel vs. old pavement - captured with XF 35 mm f2 WR on X-Pro2

I hope y´all liked my "3xF Finally Found Fuji" meta review, thanks for looking by ! If you´ve any questions and/or remarks please leave a comment, I´ll answer ASAP ! Wish you a great Sunday and the best of luck for your photographic endeavours,

Best regards

Hendrik

I hope you enjoyed reading this post - If you like you can support me by sending me a small donation via PayPal.me/hendriximages ! Helps me run this site & keeps the information coming, many thanks in advance !