MP Guy
06-10-2005, 20:08
To take a good picture, a mediocre photographer needs a combination of coincidence (be at the right time at the right place), creativity (maximise the effect of a shooting opportunity) and equipment (have the tools available to realise the desired effect). A good photographer doesn't need the coincidence: he relies on creativity and equipment to take a good picture in any circumstances of any subject. A very good photographer doesn't need the coincidence nor does he rely on equipment: he solely relies on creativity and is master of the equipment. He won't rely on his camera to take control over his. The very good photographer will not be surprised when printing his pictures, because he knows not only what has been shot but also how the camera has projected the light of the opportunity on the film.
A very good photographer knows what he shoots. He uses the camera as a painter uses his brush: a piece of reality is transformed into an impression that carries a message, pleases the eye or fascinates in some other way. But compared to the painter, the photographer has an extra challenge, because the painter has full control on what is ending up on his canvas and he's free to interprete reality, so in fact reality doesn't have direct impact on his impression. Yet the photographer has to use his camera and whatever he shoots onto the film, has to be projected directly from reality. To get a grip on the impression and making it as fascinating as a painter's creative impression, the camera is a very defective tool that the photographer has to take full advantage of... and more.
A very good photographer won't allow the camera to do thinking beyond his control. Whether or not a camera has automatic functions, whether or not a camera is manually adjustable, that is not important, as long as the photographer is completely aware of what the camera is doing to the light of his opportunity.
Now let us look into practice and find out why the camera-market is dominated by SLR-camera's. What have SLR-camera's brought to photography since they were introduced some decennia ago and gradually took over the bulk of the camera market? Let me explain by a comparison to text processing tools on computer, that have gone through a similar evolution. Microsoft Word is the SLR-camera of the text processors, as it offers to the user a wysiwyg experience. Earlier tools, like LaTeX, didn't offer that and yet it's not obvious to get the same professional-looking report out of Word as you can produce using LaTeX. This looks illogical, until you realise that the main difference between Word and latex is that the first is designed for the user, the latter for the result.
SLR-camera's are designed to give the user the impression that he has interactive control over what the camera is doing to his shooting opportunity. But that's what it is: 'a' impression. The live impression of looking through a viewfinder filled with focusing screens, meter needles and leds flashing is another impression than what will result from the actual printed photograph. And that's what SLR-users tend to forget, not to say they're blindfolded by their tool, not realising that a viewfinder is just another fancy tool on the camera to be used for what it's worth.
There's nothing wrong for a photographer to involve all the tools he can get to minimize the 'surprise' when seeing the printed result of his effort, as long as he understands the technology and does not depend on technology. And when he has a camera with some advanced tool, he should keep asking the question: "am I making a better picture by using this tool and why is that so?" If the tool keeps answering: "you need me because you want to see what you will get", the photographer should realise that his tool is mainly designed to please his experience of taking-the-picture. For his own peace of mind, he should switch to a tool that's designed not for his own pleasure, but for the pleasure of those admiring the final result of his creativity. And that tool may very well by a rangefinder camera.
Rangefinders come in all flavours, but one thing they have in common: the light they're catching on their lenses reflected from the photographer's shooting opportunity, is reserved for the film and the film only and that's clearly understood by the photographer, who's final goal is for the light to hit the film and who wants to be provided with a more or less extensive set of tools designed to get the camera settings right for the impression he wants to make on the picture. The rangefinder for accurate focusing is one of these tools. Whacking a mirror up and down on each exposure is not one of these tools.
Rangefinders go from very basic to very advanced and there are models for mass consumption as well as for high-quality professional use. Behind any of these camera's may stand a very good photographer who knows his tool, and who would not that easily trade it off for another model, even be it another rangefinder. Classifying rangefinder camera's is quite impossible, as throughout history there has been a very complex genealogy of brands and models, inventing, improving and copying features and tools. Compared to this, SLR camera development seems to have followed a linear path, although allover they have more or less the same toolset available. This diversity is one of the reasons why rangefinder users seem to become addicted to their favourite camera on the one hand, because they know it's behaviour, but also tend to start collections to cover a wider range of features... or to get rid of superfluous features and progress into simplicity.
So let's come to a conclusion and be frank: is a rangefinder a better camera than a SLR? No it isn't; they both have limitations and advantages on the technical field. Is a rangefinder photographer a better photographer than a SLR photographer? No he isn't: a good photographer is not depending on the type of tooling he uses. Why then the special interest in rangefinder camera's at all?
It's the special synergy between a very good photographer and a nice rangefinder camera that just gives this extra touch of fascination to the photographic impression. The special synergy that's only possible when the user loves and understands his tool, knows what it does, what it doesn't. The special synergy of a user who operates a tool that focuses on the light shed from his subject and integrates the tools he needs, but nothing more. That special fascination becomes real when a very good photographer uses an elegant rangefinder as a high fidelity amplifier his creative skills.
A very good photographer knows what he shoots. He uses the camera as a painter uses his brush: a piece of reality is transformed into an impression that carries a message, pleases the eye or fascinates in some other way. But compared to the painter, the photographer has an extra challenge, because the painter has full control on what is ending up on his canvas and he's free to interprete reality, so in fact reality doesn't have direct impact on his impression. Yet the photographer has to use his camera and whatever he shoots onto the film, has to be projected directly from reality. To get a grip on the impression and making it as fascinating as a painter's creative impression, the camera is a very defective tool that the photographer has to take full advantage of... and more.
A very good photographer won't allow the camera to do thinking beyond his control. Whether or not a camera has automatic functions, whether or not a camera is manually adjustable, that is not important, as long as the photographer is completely aware of what the camera is doing to the light of his opportunity.
Now let us look into practice and find out why the camera-market is dominated by SLR-camera's. What have SLR-camera's brought to photography since they were introduced some decennia ago and gradually took over the bulk of the camera market? Let me explain by a comparison to text processing tools on computer, that have gone through a similar evolution. Microsoft Word is the SLR-camera of the text processors, as it offers to the user a wysiwyg experience. Earlier tools, like LaTeX, didn't offer that and yet it's not obvious to get the same professional-looking report out of Word as you can produce using LaTeX. This looks illogical, until you realise that the main difference between Word and latex is that the first is designed for the user, the latter for the result.
SLR-camera's are designed to give the user the impression that he has interactive control over what the camera is doing to his shooting opportunity. But that's what it is: 'a' impression. The live impression of looking through a viewfinder filled with focusing screens, meter needles and leds flashing is another impression than what will result from the actual printed photograph. And that's what SLR-users tend to forget, not to say they're blindfolded by their tool, not realising that a viewfinder is just another fancy tool on the camera to be used for what it's worth.
There's nothing wrong for a photographer to involve all the tools he can get to minimize the 'surprise' when seeing the printed result of his effort, as long as he understands the technology and does not depend on technology. And when he has a camera with some advanced tool, he should keep asking the question: "am I making a better picture by using this tool and why is that so?" If the tool keeps answering: "you need me because you want to see what you will get", the photographer should realise that his tool is mainly designed to please his experience of taking-the-picture. For his own peace of mind, he should switch to a tool that's designed not for his own pleasure, but for the pleasure of those admiring the final result of his creativity. And that tool may very well by a rangefinder camera.
Rangefinders come in all flavours, but one thing they have in common: the light they're catching on their lenses reflected from the photographer's shooting opportunity, is reserved for the film and the film only and that's clearly understood by the photographer, who's final goal is for the light to hit the film and who wants to be provided with a more or less extensive set of tools designed to get the camera settings right for the impression he wants to make on the picture. The rangefinder for accurate focusing is one of these tools. Whacking a mirror up and down on each exposure is not one of these tools.
Rangefinders go from very basic to very advanced and there are models for mass consumption as well as for high-quality professional use. Behind any of these camera's may stand a very good photographer who knows his tool, and who would not that easily trade it off for another model, even be it another rangefinder. Classifying rangefinder camera's is quite impossible, as throughout history there has been a very complex genealogy of brands and models, inventing, improving and copying features and tools. Compared to this, SLR camera development seems to have followed a linear path, although allover they have more or less the same toolset available. This diversity is one of the reasons why rangefinder users seem to become addicted to their favourite camera on the one hand, because they know it's behaviour, but also tend to start collections to cover a wider range of features... or to get rid of superfluous features and progress into simplicity.
So let's come to a conclusion and be frank: is a rangefinder a better camera than a SLR? No it isn't; they both have limitations and advantages on the technical field. Is a rangefinder photographer a better photographer than a SLR photographer? No he isn't: a good photographer is not depending on the type of tooling he uses. Why then the special interest in rangefinder camera's at all?
It's the special synergy between a very good photographer and a nice rangefinder camera that just gives this extra touch of fascination to the photographic impression. The special synergy that's only possible when the user loves and understands his tool, knows what it does, what it doesn't. The special synergy of a user who operates a tool that focuses on the light shed from his subject and integrates the tools he needs, but nothing more. That special fascination becomes real when a very good photographer uses an elegant rangefinder as a high fidelity amplifier his creative skills.