mindcircus
Member
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?
Challenge of composition with an RF
- Thread starter CopperB
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 54
- Views 6K
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
Wil O.
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.
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
An Undesirable
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.
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
Established
Aizan, here are some B&W taken with my D90
I've always loved that photo by Lutz Dille. That's the window of Bulger Gallery.
Sparrow
Veteran
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.
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.
ferider
Veteran
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.
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.
Last edited:
OurManInTangier
An Undesirable
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😱
CopperB
M3 Noob
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.
CopperB
M3 Noob
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
Veteran
Oh man, a hard-to-see patch is deadly to seizing the moment. You end up looking instead of seeing ...
aizan
Veteran
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. 🙁
Finder
Veteran
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.
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
Skeptic
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
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
An Undesirable
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.
W
wlewisiii
Guest
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
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
Sparrow
Veteran
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
Last edited:
Leigh Youdale
Well-known
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?
CopperB
M3 Noob
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.
CopperB
M3 Noob
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
Well-known
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.
Similar threads
