CopperB
M3 Noob
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
Here are few from my last roll of TriX. Critique,particularly about composition, would be really helpful
uhligfd
Well-known
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.
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.
aizan
Veteran
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
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
Well-known
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?
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?
W
wlewisiii
Guest
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
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
Veteran
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 ...
Color can be such a distraction from good composition. Interesting light - and shadows - can reveal composition even among the most ordinary things ...
ferider
Veteran
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.
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.
Last edited:
pvdhaar
Peter
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..
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
Marcelo
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.
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
Skeptic
Wow!! Real critique going on here!
Wow!! Real critique going on here!
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
Wow!! Real critique going on here!
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
user237428934
User deletion pending
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.
user237428934
User deletion pending
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.
Luna
Well-known
Don't worry about composition with an RF. Just point it in the direction of your subject, no matter what focal length you are shooting. Focus, but don't worry if you mess this up either, and shoot. Now call it art and you are good.
CopperB
M3 Noob
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.
CopperB
M3 Noob
Aizan, here are some B&W taken with my D90
I've got to get to work. Thanks for all the feedback. I'll continue my responses this evening.
Last edited:
Mister E
Well-known
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
Veteran
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.
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
Veteran
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
Member
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.
One more thought is that SLRs tend to have larger viewfinder than rangefinders and that may help too.
Mister E
Well-known
You're using the wrong cameras if this is true.