View Full Version : Challenge of composition with an RF
Nine months after purchasing my first RF, I continue to find composition much more of a challenge than with either of my dSLRs. Is it just me? If this is typical, why is this much more of a challenge?
Here are few from my last roll of TriX. Critique,particularly about composition, would be really helpful
http://copperbee.smugmug.com/Film/Leica-M3-1/000009/894900005_HYXGz-L.jpg
http://copperbee.smugmug.com/Film/Leica-M3-1/000013/894783155_JqFPQ-L.jpg
http://copperbee.smugmug.com/Film/Leica-M3-1/000016/894925911_LeUTt-L.jpg
http://copperbee.smugmug.com/Film/Leica-M3-1/Stream-HDR-000024/894778509_8RuJp-L.jpg
Dear Patti
The most successful compositions for me are the second and fourth picture, in that order, but with a large difference in success.
The first pic begs the question of what and why is that stuff on its left, the third has extraneous stuff on both left and right edges. Get closer with the third subject and turn your camera vertical here, AND decide what the/a pic is about before you shoot for the first pic.
You asked, so I told. Composition problems have nothing to do (in my opinion) with the camera you use, maybe with the aspect ratio, but any 35mm camera (digital or film or ...) will give you the same problems as you have.
can you post some examples of your work with dslrs?
the first one makes sense, with the posters and fuzzy peach boxes, but the others are a bit "hmm...what's she trying to do here?"
here's a nice quote about the difference you're experiencing.
"There's a profound difference between the simple non-reflex, direct-viewing camera (such as a rangefinder Leica) and a SLR. With a reflex you tend to make the picture in the camera; with the other, you see the picture and then put a frame around it. The RF camera is also faster, quicker to focus, less noisy, and smaller, but these advantages are much less important than the fundamental difference."
—Elliott Erwitt
Leigh Youdale
06-08-2010, 19:42
Patti,
Are you also making the transition from colour to mono? The reason I ask is that it's always more of a challenge to create a 'good' image in B&W than it is in colour. Colour draws the eye and separates elements in the photo whereas in mono you have to rely much more on the interplay of shapes and tones. These usually need to be more significant than elements in a colour shot might be. For example, a colourful but fussy background in colour can look OK but in mono it just looks fussy.
I agree with a couple of the preceding comments too - the need to decide 'why' you're going to take the shot and what feeling you're trying to convey to the viewer, frame better and maybe even crop extraneous elements from the edges of an image. There's nothing sacred about the format or dimensions.
I find myself that framing a scene in a reflex viewfinder (either SLR or TLR) tends to isolate one's eye a little from the direct view and the act of composition somehow becomes a little more deliberate than when using the direct view in the frame of an RF. Just one of the differences.
I'm also a bit curious about the appearance of significant grain in the first and fourth shots but not the other two. That's another issue of course, but it looks like the middle two were taken with correct exposure in good light whereas the first and last were taken in poor light, probably underexposed and so you got 'flat' negatives - but the grain??? What speed did you rate the film at for these four exposures and what development did you give the film?
wlewisiii
06-08-2010, 19:52
A couple of thoughts -
First you need to concentrate on light vs dark with monochrome. Look for the shadows and learn how they change an image. You might find the book "On Being A Photographer" by Bill Jay and David Hurn useful.
Also parallax will prevent what you see in the finder from ever being exactly the same as what your lens records on film. Accept that and that cropping is a useful tool to adjust your composition to what you want it to be.
#4 has a whole lot of potential to my eyes. But how I'd shoot it is likely quite different from how you see it.
William
paulfish4570
06-08-2010, 20:05
Take the Erwitt definition so kindly provided, then go for the light, and a photograph may meet you there. B&W photography is so much more about the light, or the absence of it, than color photography.
Color can be such a distraction from good composition. Interesting light - and shadows - can reveal composition even among the most ordinary things ...
Patti,
I like the first one. IMO, it can benefit from straighter lines (watch your perspective when you shoot) and a bit of cropping. Like the attachment, if you permit.
Nr. 2 and 3 would have been more impressive if you had gotten closer to what I assume you wanted to shoot.
Nr. 4 might look good in color, but looses a lot in B+W, due to lack of structure. There is another tree shot in your same smugmug gallery that I like much better.
My 2 cents,
Roland.
It's not the RF that's standing in the way of composition. It's the subject matter, or rather the lack of it. Working with an RF is the same as with any other camera. You have to have something that really, really interests you and then make the best possible image of it. What doesn't work is thinking along the lines of 'here I have this camera and now I need to take a great picture with it, so I'll walk around and shoot some random stuff'..
If you find it hard to come up with what really interests you, or if that's a topic you've already exhausted, then there's of course an alternative; take a roll of film, and take pictures of friends and family doing their favorite job/hobby/sport whatever, and then compare that to what you've shot so far.. The shots will have a purpose, and will appear better composed because of it..
umcelinho
06-08-2010, 23:41
I personally prefer pure B&W, with no tint, and 2:3 aspect ratio for 35mm. I'd crop the shots and adjust the tones accordingly. I like the first shot (and I liked ferider's suggestion).
I like how the second shot shows this kind of eerie backyard, but maybe it lacks having something to focus attention on, like on the third shot. on this one, I wouldn't leave thin strips of tones like the one below the car shadow, and I tend to prefer not leaving small tips off the frame, but either leaving bigger parts out or having them inside it. shot number four could benefit from having darker shadows, having a stronger contrast.
taste is personal, and I have no formal instruction on photography, my comments are thus based on how usually see things.
Jamie Pillers
06-08-2010, 23:59
Hi Patti,
How have you been? Nice to see you taking the brave step of putting your work in front of other photographers! :)
Regarding these four photographs, I find something interesting in each one. I have to crop a lot to capture what I like... but its there, for me anyway. If these are prints, use 4 strips of mat board to make a movable border and move them around each image. You may find you eye gravitating to essential parts of an image that 'pops' out. I'm not good enough, or fast enough, to fill an entire frame of any kind of camera with only the great stuff. I react to scenes in the world often for reasons I don't understand. Once I spend time with the print, two things happen. Hopefully I discover what was so interesting to me and then I crop it down to that. The other much more difficult thing is to recognize, for those images that don't excite you, what you were responding to and why the way you dealt with it in your camera didn't work. I think this is one of the really great aspects of photography... allowing it to pull you farther along the path of self-discovery.
Another thought: I can't remember who said it, but to paraphrase: "If your picture isn't good enough, you weren't close enough". To me this doesn't necessarily mean that you need to smash your lens up against every interesting scene. To me it means that I, given my slow brain, need to pause to carefully look at a scene and try to figure WHY I'm interested in it (often in the mere split seconds we photographers are given to make 'art'). THEN take a picture of that aspect of the scene. The great photographers can do this a LOT! Photographers like me either need to spend much more time trying to figure this out before pushing the shutter button, OR we can just blast away for a some years and try to find the essence that way.
To the RFF moderators: This thread that Patti started is one of a type that is somewhat rare here... photo critique. I wonder if RFF would be interested in creating something like a separate 'room' here that could be reserved by a member for say some chunk of time, like "Wed., June 9 from 7pm to 7:30pm" when he/she would be presenting a few images for critique. The member would post on something like a bulletin board the reserved time and invite other members to show up at that time to critique the work. Personally, I find it very useful to have my images critiqued by others fairly frequently.
Jamie
tom.w.bn
06-09-2010, 00:10
To the RFF moderators: This thread that Patti started is one of a type that is somewhat rare here... photo critique. I wonder if RFF would be interested in creating something like a separate 'room' here that could be reserved by a member for say some chunk of time, like "Wed., June 9 from 7pm to 7:30pm" when he/she would be presenting a few images for critique. The member would post on something like a bulletin board the reserved time and invite other members to show up at that time to critique the work. Personally, I find it very useful to have my images critiqued by others fairly frequently.
Jamie
I'm not a moderator but that sounds complicated to me. There is already a form "Clubs, Critique, RFF Projects, Salon" where you can ask for critique. Used it myself already and got some nice feedback.
tom.w.bn
06-09-2010, 00:16
I can't confirm that composition with a dslr is easier in general. I like it when I see what's going on outside the framelines in the rangefinder. But that's only true in the standard range from 28mm to 50mm. When using < 28mm or > 50mm I don't like the viewfinder principle of a rangefinder camera.
Dear Patti
The most successful compositions for me are the second and fourth picture, in that order, but with a large difference in success.
The first pic begs the question of what and why is that stuff on its left, the third has extraneous stuff on both left and right edges. Get closer with the third subject and turn your camera vertical here, AND decide what the/a pic is about before you shoot for the first pic.
You asked, so I told. Composition problems have nothing to do (in my opinion) with the camera you use, maybe with the aspect ratio, but any 35mm camera (digital or film or ...) will give you the same problems as you have.
Ulligfd, thanks for your honest opinion. I really appreciate it.
In #1, the torn poster on the phone booth caught my eye. I wanted some context in the photo thus the bit of building and trash to the left. Without some surroundings, it was a nothing shot (which it probably is regardless). I took a closer shot in portrait and nada. This one is cropped - there's a lot more on the left in the original frame. I played and played with the crop, both in the camera and in LR2. Originally, the frame was overexposed (forgot to readjust the aperture after shooting indoors).
#3 I was trying to capture the nun leaning into the window talking to the cabby. Unfortunately, I wasn't close enough of fast enough focusing to catch it, thus #3. I see what you mean about a vertical crop. It was taken in bright sun.
#4 doesn't have that amount of grain on my MacBook. It is also somewhat darker. I find smugmug messes with my exposures when I upload. I shot this one on my belly in the woods on a rainy day.
can you post some examples of your work with dslrs?
the first one makes sense, with the posters and fuzzy peach boxes, but the others are a bit "hmm...what's she trying to do here?"
here's a nice quote about the difference you're experiencing.
"There's a profound difference between the simple non-reflex, direct-viewing camera (such as a rangefinder Leica) and a SLR. With a reflex you tend to make the picture in the camera; with the other, you see the picture and then put a frame around it. The RF camera is also faster, quicker to focus, less noisy, and smaller, but these advantages are much less important than the fundamental difference."
—Elliott Erwitt
Aizan, here are some B&W taken with my D90
http://copperbee.smugmug.com/Street-Scenes/Street-Photography/empty/882933919_vHPcM-M.jpg
http://copperbee.smugmug.com/Street-Scenes/Street-Photography/cara-cara-2/790270704_SxSiY-M.jpg
http://copperbee.smugmug.com/Street-Scenes/Street-Photography/empty/815781553_WZsF3-M.jpg
I've got to get to work. Thanks for all the feedback. I'll continue my responses this evening.
Mister E
06-09-2010, 03:38
CopperB, that first one from the D90 is something I really like. I'm not the least bit artistically inclined so I often have a bit of trouble composing. My critique for your original post is that none of your subjects are isolated. There isn't a theme or anything to the shot. They are sort of just pictures of nothing and something at the same time. My eye doesn't know what to concentrate on and it wonders. For me there is no attention grabber.
oftheherd
06-09-2010, 04:08
My 2 cents; in your first series, #1 wouldl have been better as a verticle shot showing the entire phone booth, with maybe a little bit of background frame around it. The other three come off as more just random snapshots, no real subject.
In the second series, #1 is interesting, it might or might not have been better if the "C" in camera was there. I can see it working either way. #2 is an interesting juxtaposition, but doesn't work so much for me as I am left wondering what is the advertisement on the right trying to say about its reference to the nuns. Maybe to locals it is obvious. #4 is a real winner! The child looking back really makes this shot. Good catch.
paulfish4570
06-09-2010, 04:16
All three of the D90 shots are worth a look. The third is a buster. Wild guess: the dslr leaves your mind free to run on its own; you are letting the RF own you. It is matter of comfort, perhaps a worry about developing later on. Get the shot, then be pleasantly surprised in the darkroom ... :)
mindcircus
06-09-2010, 04:52
I can think of one reason that you may find it easier to compose with your DSLR. If you have zoom lens on it, you have the option of "cropping" the image before shooting it. It takes time to get used to a fixed focal length lens. At least this happened to me...
One more thought is that SLRs tend to have larger viewfinder than rangefinders and that may help too.
Mister E
06-09-2010, 05:00
One more thought is that SLRs tend to have larger viewfinder than rangefinders and that may help too.
You're using the wrong cameras if this is true.
mindcircus
06-09-2010, 05:08
You're using the wrong cameras if this is true.
Probably, but it's true for my Retina, FEDs and Zorkis while it's not true for my Canonet.
SLRs always have 1:1 viewfinder, while rangefinders may have smaller ratio. Isn't it?
wilonstott
06-09-2010, 05:50
Patti,
What kind of lens are you using on your dslr? Normal or zoom. From looking at the photos, I would say its a zoom with a short telephoto--maybe 24mm-85mm, or thereabouts.
If this is the case, I suspect the problem you are having with rf composition comes from the distance at which you are most comfortable shooting your subject. On the dslr photos that you think are compositionally strongest, check the focal length (taking crop factor into account of course) and see if your photos with good composition have a common range of focal lengths. I would bet that the good ones are taken at a longer focal length than the lens on your rf.
I remember reading that Robert Capa once said something to this effect: if your photos aren't good, then you weren't close enough. Sounds too simple, but I find that many times--more times than not--it's the truth.
I mainly use a 35mm lens, and still find myself getting closer and closer to subjects I shoot. Sometimes with people, I have to breach personal space quite severely. Some people have a hard time doing this. Even with the 50mm, I try to get fairly close. When I use a 21mm, I have to chew gum so my breath doesn't smell bad--literally that close.
Thus, thats the good and bad thing about telephoto zooms--you don't have to get as close, but you don't get comfortable shooting close to the subject.
Now I realize HCB wasn't always in people's faces, and many of his images are magnificent. However, looking through his portfolio, you will notice a fair amount of visual interaction with his subjects---hence, he was close enough for co-recognition.
I'm not sure if this will help, but small revelations, like "get closer" have helped me immensely, and I feel that my compositions have gotten stronger as a result.
cheers.
OurManInTangier
06-09-2010, 06:37
Hi Patti,
Firstly, I suggest you relax. Looking at the DSLR images you have no issues with your photography itself. You simply need to get used to a very different format and become comfortable with it, this simply takes time and practice. Also, from those DSLR images, it would seem that RF cameras will benefit you in the longer term for the various reasons that have already been mentioned in a number of posts above.
I came to RF cameras after finding my work (D)SLR's way to bulky, conspicous and troublesome for the kind of images I was looking for. Having been brought up with SLR's I struggled with the lack of precise composition available. All too often trying to compose in the same precise manner that I had become used to over the years and all too often finding areas of the image missing...thus resulting in an unbalanced image or with an important element half missing.
As has been said before in relation to the Elliott Erwitt quote, RF cameras are best used, IMO, in a far looser fashion. Make the most of the short throw lens focusing, zone focus for the kind of distance you tend to shoot at and then either shoot or fine tune the focus very quickly. Concentrate on timing the shutter release to the moment you want and compose far more loosely than you may normally. This will, with time, make the camera feel far more intuitive, quick to use and eventually accurate in terms of composition. You will also benefit from looking closely at your negs and the compositional mistakes so that you know how to combat the daft mistakes you'll make. I still have to mentally remind myself to shoot slightly higher as what I see in the viewfinder is a few cm higher than the lens itself - though of course the effect of this kind of parallex error will appear to vary depending on the lens you use.
Perhaps you have thought about posting your images in the RFF gallery. There are some good photographers posting there and an extremely friendly, helpful and insightful group they are too.
Hope you get there in the end
Cheers
PS - I'm still waiting for my ultimate camera which would essentially be a Leica with framelines but no parallex error allowing me to compose pretty much 'bang on' whilst being able to use the benefit of the space around the framelines...oh well.
Burlap Jacket
06-09-2010, 06:46
Aizan, here are some B&W taken with my D90
http://copperbee.smugmug.com/Street-Scenes/Street-Photography/empty/882933919_vHPcM-M.jpg
I've always loved that photo by Lutz Dille (http://www.bulgergallery.com/dynamic/fr_artist.asp?ArtistID=23). That's the window of Bulger Gallery (http://www.bulgergallery.com/).
What, Simon (our man in tangiers) said, RF's excel when catching the moment, snapshots if you like but not in a pejorative way taking little slices of life at just the right instant.
The composition is often secondary to the subject, an RF is for speed and ease of use, if you want precise framing and considered composition I'm not sure it is the best tool.
With all due respect, Stewart, that is an RFF stereo-type, aligned with wrong statements like "HCB never cropped, and neither do I", and, in my opinion bad advice.
If the frame-lines are conservative and cropping is not religiously forbidden, using an RF is no excuse for sloppy or lousy composition. In fact, if you consider HCB as a role model, his work is largely about composition, IMO. Fast, but careful composition. I assume he became fast because he perfected a skill that started out slower and more consciously.
Roland.
OurManInTangier
06-09-2010, 08:26
If the frame-lines are conservative and cropping is not religiously forbidden, using an RF is no excuse for sloppy or lousy composition. In fact, if you consider HCB as a role model, his work is largely about composition, IMO. Fast, but careful composition...
Roland.
I would completely agree with this sentiment. Regardless of what camera is used composition is a key factor in the success or otherwise of any image. Ensuring that you shoot 'loosely' or as Roland says with "frame-lines [that] are conservative" then you should be able to compose both accurately, quickly and effectively...also not tying yourself to the 'no cropping' mantra will allow yourself to fine tune what was, hopefully, the image you envisaged when you made the concious/subconcious decision to make the photograph.
It may also be worth noting that SLR's, whilst not suffering from the parallex issues of RFs, suffer in many cases from having only 90% or less of the overall image viewable in the finder - admittedly a smaller problem, in my eyes at least, but still one of the inevitable issues found when using cameras.
PS - I lied about my ultimate camera earlier, it would actually be an SD card plugged into a slot in my neck allowing immediate storage of images taken using just my eyes. Thankfully digital is the answer here otherwise I'd be loading TRiX into my ears:eek:
I can think of one reason that you may find it easier to compose with your DSLR. If you have zoom lens on it, you have the option of "cropping" the image before shooting it. It takes time to get used to a fixed focal length lens. At least this happened to me...
One more thought is that SLRs tend to have larger viewfinder than rangefinders and that may help too.
Actually, I tend to use primes more than zooms although I've had my 35-70 on the D90 recently (#1 used this lens). I usually have my 30 1.4 or 85 1.4 on the dslr. Certainly the instant feedback re composition from a dslr is a huge bonus.
It's not the RF that's standing in the way of composition. It's the subject matter, or rather the lack of it. Working with an RF is the same as with any other camera. You have to have something that really, really interests you and then make the best possible image of it. What doesn't work is thinking along the lines of 'here I have this camera and now I need to take a great picture with it, so I'll walk around and shoot some random stuff'..
If you find it hard to come up with what really interests you, or if that's a topic you've already exhausted, then there's of course an alternative; take a roll of film, and take pictures of friends and family doing their favorite job/hobby/sport whatever, and then compare that to what you've shot so far.. The shots will have a purpose, and will appear better composed because of it..
I think you've hit it on the nose. That and by the time I get something focused, the moment has passed. I seem to have a lot of trouble getting comfortable and fast focusing the M3. The faded patch doesn't help any. I miss a lot of "moments".
paulfish4570
06-09-2010, 08:51
Oh man, a hard-to-see patch is deadly to seizing the moment. You end up looking instead of seeing ...
Oh man, a hard-to-see patch is deadly to seizing the moment. You end up looking instead of seeing ...
i dunno. the rangefinder is not required for lots of shots in bright light, but a dim rangefinder patch is never better than a bright rangefinder patch.
a faded m3 rangefinder patch is an expensive fix. it might be time to look for a replacement. :(
Camera type does influence the way you work. Rangefinders are not easy for some--everything in focus in the viewfinder, working with frame lines, etc. Either rangefinders at this moment are not for your or you have not found how you shoot with a rangefinder. One thing is sure, your photographs show you are very unsure of this camera compared to your SLR work--your RF pictures are timid as if you are thinking about something else (like controlling the camera).
When I get a new camera, I just shoot with it for a while to figure out how it works and wants to work--it is very much like a marriage. I have no anticipation of good photographs and neither do I try to make them. But rather I just shoot to see how the camera sees and how I see with the camera. The process takes longer with some cameras than others. Sometimes it ends in divorce.
Jamie Pillers
06-09-2010, 09:08
Patti,
A Contax G1 or G2 would solve this. With one of these you get fast autofocus or manually set hyperfocal distance for fast moving street photos. And the nice thing about that system is that there is a VERY limited number of lenses to choose from, and they are all GREAT Zeiss optics!
Jamie
OurManInTangier
06-09-2010, 09:23
Patti,
A Contax G1 or G2 would solve this. With one of these you get fast autofocus or manually set hyperfocal distance for fast moving street photos. And the nice thing about that system is that there is a VERY limited number of lenses to choose from, and they are all GREAT Zeiss optics!
Jamie
Good point, my first ever RF was a G1 and the one lens, 45mm f2 Planar, was outstanding. It may be a good alternative if you can try one out for a while first.
wlewisiii
06-09-2010, 09:28
Hyperfocal prefocusing solves a whole lot of issues. When I get somewhere, I meter the basic light and preset my shutter speed, f stop & prefocus accordingly. I generally go into manual "aperture priority" and only adjust the shutter speed as the light changes unless the change is pretty drastic. If so, I remeter and carry on.
Critical focusing is important sometimes. But using that 50/2 'cron (or in my case, Summitar :) ) as an expensive zone-focus/point-and-shot can be very liberating sometimes too.
William
With all due respect, Stewart, that is an RFF stereo-type, aligned with wrong statements like "HCB never cropped, and neither do I", and, in my opinion bad advice.
If the frame-lines are conservative and cropping is not religiously forbidden, using an RF is no excuse for sloppy or lousy composition. In fact, if you consider HCB as a role model, his work is largely about composition, IMO. Fast, but careful composition. I assume he became fast because he perfected a skill that started out slower and more consciously.
Roland.
Roland, I'm not a cropping fundamentalist, nor did I suggest it was excuse for sloppy or lousy composition, in fact I stated "not in a pejorative way"
What I was trying to say was the speed of an RF allows one to get split-second timing fairly easily, but requires a more intuitive approach to composition and that requires some knowledge but really has to be practised at speed, otherwise the moment and the photo is gone.
PS, I've seen the famous HCB scrapbook from 1945, was it, and he had cropped almost every photo in it
PPS Patti; is this of any interest? The Dark Art of Composition (http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=82619)
Leigh Youdale
06-09-2010, 15:07
Probably, but it's true for my Retina, FEDs and Zorkis while it's not true for my Canonet.
SLRs always have 1:1 viewfinder, while rangefinders may have smaller ratio. Isn't it?
C'mon! Retina, Fed, Zorki? Like all about 50 - 60 years old? As if that proves anything? They ALL have miniscule viewfinders and comparing them to a modern DSLR is farcical. I had two Leica IIIf's and sold them simply because the tiny viewfinders were an obstruction to getting the shot. The only solution was to fit a decent accessory viewfinder and there were better options around than that.
The OP has a Leica M3 which is reputed to have one of the best RF viewfinders around even compared to current Leica models.
I think there are two issues. The framing and focal length have been highlighted by a couple of contributors but I also think that the M3, being meterless, is probably making the job harder compared to the DSLR which no doubt has metering, and probably auto-somthing metering as well. The DSLR shots are great, well exposed and I concur that it's probably more about getting used to the camera - and getting the exposure right.
What was the old adage - meter first for the shadows then increase by two stops?
Patti, how are you metering for the M3?
Patti,
Are you also making the transition from colour to mono? The reason I ask is that it's always more of a challenge to create a 'good' image in B&W than it is in colour. Colour draws the eye and separates elements in the photo whereas in mono you have to rely much more on the interplay of shapes and tones. These usually need to be more significant than elements in a colour shot might be. For example, a colourful but fussy background in colour can look OK but in mono it just looks fussy.
I agree with a couple of the preceding comments too - the need to decide 'why' you're going to take the shot and what feeling you're trying to convey to the viewer, frame better and maybe even crop extraneous elements from the edges of an image. There's nothing sacred about the format or dimensions.
I find myself that framing a scene in a reflex viewfinder (either SLR or TLR) tends to isolate one's eye a little from the direct view and the act of composition somehow becomes a little more deliberate than when using the direct view in the frame of an RF. Just one of the differences.
I'm also a bit curious about the appearance of significant grain in the first and fourth shots but not the other two. That's another issue of course, but it looks like the middle two were taken with correct exposure in good light whereas the first and last were taken in poor light, probably underexposed and so you got 'flat' negatives - but the grain??? What speed did you rate the film at for these four exposures and what development did you give the film?
Leigh,
Thanks for your thoughts and questions. To the extent that I've only done digital B&W conversions until this camera, yes, I'm moving from shooting colour to shooting B&W from scratch. It's offered the opportunity to learn to evaluate photo ops in terms of contrast and variety of tones, not colour.
The first photo was actually overexposed, the last a bit under but in both cases, they were flat. I'd thought #4 would work because of the contrast between the birch bark and the surrounding scrub.
C'mon! Retina, Fed, Zorki? Like all about 50 - 60 years old? As if that proves anything? They ALL have miniscule viewfinders and comparing them to a modern DSLR is farcical. I had two Leica IIIf's and sold them simply because the tiny viewfinders were an obstruction to getting the shot. The only solution was to fit a decent accessory viewfinder and there were better options around than that.
The OP has a Leica M3 which is reputed to have one of the best RF viewfinders around even compared to current Leica models.
I think there are two issues. The framing and focal length have been highlighted by a couple of contributors but I also think that the M3, being meterless, is probably making the job harder compared to the DSLR which no doubt has metering, and probably auto-somthing metering as well. The DSLR shots are great, well exposed and I concur that it's probably more about getting used to the camera - and getting the exposure right.
What was the old adage - meter first for the shadows then increase by two stops?
Patti, how are you metering for the M3?
I'm using an old used Sekonic light meter which I can operate just fine from a mechanical standpoint but obviously don't know enough to use as effectively as I need, Leigh. With an incident meter I've assumed I can't meter for shadow specifically. I'm only familiar with metering in dslrs where I can choose spot, matrix, centre etc.
Leigh Youdale
06-09-2010, 15:16
Leigh,
Thanks for your thoughts and questions. To the extent that I've only done digital B&W conversions until this camera, yes, I'm moving from shooting colour to shooting B&W from scratch. It's offered the opportunity to learn to evaluate photo ops in terms of contrast and variety of tones, not colour.
The first photo was actually overexposed, the last a bit under but in both cases, they were flat. I'd thought #4 would work because of the contrast between the birch bark and the surrounding scrub.
Overexposure will do it! And I agree #4 looks like a good subject. Can you go back in different conditions and try again. Might be worth trying to nail that one. Bracket a few exposures. Again, how are you metering?
I just had another thought. If you are scanning B&W negative material make sure that anything like "DigitalIce" is turned off on the scanner. It messes with the grain structure in the digital image the scanner produces.
Hyperfocal prefocusing solves a whole lot of issues. When I get somewhere, I meter the basic light and preset my shutter speed, f stop & prefocus accordingly. I generally go into manual "aperture priority" and only adjust the shutter speed as the light changes unless the change is pretty drastic. If so, I remeter and carry on.
Critical focusing is important sometimes. But using that 50/2 'cron (or in my case, Summitar :) ) as an expensive zone-focus/point-and-shot can be very liberating sometimes too.
William
The hyperfocal prefocusing is a concept I haven't gotten a good handle on yet. Can you explain in detail your process, usual choice of aperture etc. My understanding is that you need a minimum of f/8 to have sufficient DoF.
Oh man, a hard-to-see patch is deadly to seizing the moment. You end up looking instead of seeing ...
So true, so very true.
Patti,
I like the first one. IMO, it can benefit from straighter lines (watch your perspective when you shoot) and a bit of cropping. Like the attachment, if you permit.
Nr. 2 and 3 would have been more impressive if you had gotten closer to what I assume you wanted to shoot.
Nr. 4 might look good in color, but looses a lot in B+W, due to lack of structure. There is another tree shot in your same smugmug gallery that I like much better.
My 2 cents,
Roland.
Thanks Roland. I'd straightened #1 or so I thought. I like your crop. #3 was too far away for my Nokton 40 1.4 and I was fumbling with the focus and missed the moment I wanted to capture. That's how it usually goes. I'm beginning to think I'll never get the hang of focusing quickly with MF regardless of camera type. It's frustrating.
Soon after I got my first M camera I took some pictures of a newspaper to see how accurate the framing is. I was surprised to find that it is very accurate, the newspaper was perfectly framed. The parallax correction really works.
So I don't think that the rangefinder system itself is to blame, it must be a subjective problem.
Thanks Roland. I'd straightened #1 or so I thought. I like your crop. #3 was too far away for my Nokton 40 1.4 and I was fumbling with the focus and missed the moment I wanted to capture. That's how it usually goes. I'm beginning to think I'll never get the hang of focusing quickly with MF regardless of camera type. It's frustrating.
Don't loose hope. Check in with Gabor / maddoc@RFF. He has some beautiful night+rain photos in his gallery and once explained that he shot them one-handed, under an umbrella, with a 40mm lens preset to 3m focus. I don't do street, but him, Simon (OurManInTangier), Ray (RayPA), TatianaShe, "photony texas", helenhill and others are really good at what they do - maybe they can give you tips, and you can technically emulate if you like some photos in their RFF galleries.
BTW, this one of yours stood really out for me:
http://copperbee.smugmug.com/Film/Leica-M3-1/012/839226036_E9hTj-O.jpg
... and I cann't even fully explain why. Really well composed for sure.
Best,
Roland.
hendriphile
06-09-2010, 21:46
"When I get a new camera, I just shoot with it for a while to figure out how it works and wants to work--it is very much like a marriage. I have no anticipation of good photographs and neither do I try to make them. But rather I just shoot to see how the camera sees and how I see with the camera."
Some great advice here, I couldn't help but quote the above. Going from DSLR to M3 is a bit like going from a lifetime of using automatic-shift cars to suddenly having to use a manual-shift. All you can do the first few times is drive around a big parking lot getting the feel of the thing and learning from your mistakes. (I won't carry the analogy further with the faded central patch)
You've made a sizeable investment in equipment which has its learning curve but then can provide great pleasure in its use & results. But it is a somewhat different approach than using a DSLR. I recommend you seek out a second-hand copy of Andrew Matheson's The Leica Rangefinder Way, there's a chapter entitled "The Leica Approach" which I think you'll find really helpful; 3 pages into it he explains using hyperfocal technique (though I don't think he uses that actual term).
Patti,
A Contax G1 or G2 would solve this. With one of these you get fast autofocus or manually set hyperfocal distance for fast moving street photos. And the nice thing about that system is that there is a VERY limited number of lenses to choose from, and they are all GREAT Zeiss optics!
Jamie
But Jamie, what would I do with that darling little Voightlander I just bought from you????:D
I've loaded a roll of Arista Premium and will try a roll using nothing but hyperfocal prefocusing and see how I do. I had my measuring tape out last night measuring distances to get a better handle on estimating distance.
[I]
You've made a sizeable investment in equipment which has its learning curve but then can provide great pleasure in its use & results. But it is a somewhat different approach than using a DSLR. I recommend you seek out a second-hand copy of Andrew Matheson's The Leica Rangefinder Way, there's a chapter entitled "The Leica Approach" which I think you'll find really helpful; 3 pages into it he explains using hyperfocal technique (though I don't think he uses that actual term).
Thanks Hendriphile. I'll hunt down a copy.
Don't loose hope. Check in with Gabor / maddoc@RFF. He has some beautiful night+rain photos in his gallery and once explained that he shot them one-handed, under an umbrella, with a 40mm lens preset to 3m focus. I don't do street, but him, Simon (OurManInTangier), Ray (RayPA), TatianaShe, "photony texas", helenhill and others are really good at what they do - maybe they can give you tips, and you can technically emulate if you like some photos in their RFF galleries.
... and I cann't even fully explain why. Really well composed for sure.
Best,
Roland.
Thanks ferider.
Juan Valdenebro
06-10-2010, 02:41
Hi Patti,
Maybe composition doesn't depend on the type of camera... And maybe it's the same with an SLR or a RF even if framing is more precise when you look through the lens. But the order you see in a great image doesn't depend that much on where its limits are, but on the relation between elements...
This is not my idea, but Cartier-Bresson's... He used to say that he didn't compose with the viewfinder, as many people do or try to do... He said he did that job with his eyes, and then he just took his camera up to crop the image quickly. You can see him talk about it when he was old, on one of the several parts videos available on youtube...
Cheers,
Juan
I thought about that a lot the last couple of days , because I noticed I see a lot of interesting "shots" but when i bring the viewfinder up to my eye I often get totally discouraged.
tom.w.bn
06-10-2010, 04:54
I thought about that a lot the last couple of days , because I noticed I see a lot of interesting "shots" but when i bring the viewfinder up to my eye I often get totally discouraged.
Sometimes a beautiful real life 3D scene is not interesting anymore when projected on a 2d plane. Sometimes I see this already when looking through the viewfinder. Sometimes I see it at home on the monitor that this does not work as a photo.
Overexposure will do it! And I agree #4 looks like a good subject. Can you go back in different conditions and try again. Might be worth trying to nail that one. Bracket a few exposures. Again, how are you metering?
I just had another thought. If you are scanning B&W negative material make sure that anything like "DigitalIce" is turned off on the scanner. It messes with the grain structure in the digital image the scanner produces.
Not much chance of returning - took it on a photo trip 3 hrs away. I just set the camera according to the incident reading from my Sekonic. I didn't adjust up or down from it.
I thought about that a lot the last couple of days , because I noticed I see a lot of interesting "shots" but when i bring the viewfinder up to my eye I often get totally discouraged.
I've always found that to be true, but I try not to be discouraged and take a punt at it anyway, I found one never knows
Sometimes a beautiful real life 3D scene is not interesting anymore when projected on a 2d plane. Sometimes I see this already when looking through the viewfinder. Sometimes I see it at home on the monitor that this does not work as a photo.
On the other side of that coin, I often get lucky and find something that works in 2d that I hadn't seen in real-life. Who was it that said he "found his photos in the back of the camera" ... a bit like that anyway
"When I get a new camera, I just shoot with it for a while to figure out how it works and wants to work--it is very much like a marriage. I have no anticipation of good photographs and neither do I try to make them. But rather I just shoot to see how the camera sees and how I see with the camera."
Some great advice here, I couldn't help but quote the above. Going from DSLR to M3 is a bit like going from a lifetime of using automatic-shift cars to suddenly having to use a manual-shift. All you can do the first few times is drive around a big parking lot getting the feel of the thing and learning from your mistakes. (I won't carry the analogy further with the faded central patch)
You've made a sizeable investment in equipment which has its learning curve but then can provide great pleasure in its use & results. But it is a somewhat different approach than using a DSLR. I recommend you seek out a second-hand copy of Andrew Matheson's The Leica Rangefinder Way, there's a chapter entitled "The Leica Approach" which I think you'll find really helpful; 3 pages into it he explains using hyperfocal technique (though I don't think he uses that actual term).
I picked up a copy for about $12 online and am reading through it. Thanks for the rec.
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.