RJBender
RFF Sponsoring Member
JMP said:
Good point. I also agree that the gallery on RFF should contain only images taken with rangefinder cameras.
R.J.
Come on,guys and gals !
- Thread starter jaapv
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 69
- Views 3K
Good point. I also agree that the gallery on RFF should contain only images taken with rangefinder cameras.
R.J.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
Brian Sweeney said:
I just looked it up.It was said by him to Mikkel Aaland, in fact, this remark by Ansel Adams started him out on his career as digital photographer and publicist.
Last edited:
FrankS
Registered User
Quote:
If I were beginning all over again I'd be shooting digital - Ansel Adams 1983
The cumulative effects of breathing fixer fumes over many decades is evident in this statement. 😉
Adams' whole claim to fame, the quantified contol over photographic processes (exposure, development, printing) would be for naught with digital. Adams would likely have remained annonymous in a digital photography age. Ironic.
If I were beginning all over again I'd be shooting digital - Ansel Adams 1983
The cumulative effects of breathing fixer fumes over many decades is evident in this statement. 😉
Adams' whole claim to fame, the quantified contol over photographic processes (exposure, development, printing) would be for naught with digital. Adams would likely have remained annonymous in a digital photography age. Ironic.
Last edited:
fgianni
Trainee Amateur
RJBender said:
Does the lens need to be RF coupled as well, or a picture taken with a CV 12mm and a Bessa L sould be rejected, while a picture taken with a CV 12mm and a Bessa R is acceptable, even if the rangefinder was not used in either?
And what about a picture taken with a CV 12mm and a Nikon F?
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
FrankS said:
Or he might have redefined the field.... Anyway, any such statement at that time can only be called visionary, whatever one thinks of digital photography.
pstevenin
Established
darkkavenger said:
I am not afraid to upload rubbish (reffering to RFF standards) but the best I can do. At least I grab some comments sustaining my very very low learning curve.
Many thanks all of you supporting my hopless case!
bmicklea
RF Newbie
Hi, my name is Brad and I'm one of the guilty. 😉
If I could only figure out how to get my prints into the computer - that slot in the front is about the right size but doesn't seem to do anything...
Kidding aside I'm hoping to upload several of my less craptacular photos once I get the dang scanner hooked up again.
Brad
If I could only figure out how to get my prints into the computer - that slot in the front is about the right size but doesn't seem to do anything...
Kidding aside I'm hoping to upload several of my less craptacular photos once I get the dang scanner hooked up again.
Brad
There's always going to be borderline situations and I think an inclusive approach is reasonable. But we can probably all agree that any time you're viewing and focusing on a ground-glass screen or LCD then that's not rangefinder photography.fgianni said:
I've promoted the inclusion of any "direct view" cameras before, even if they don't actually have a rangefinder mechanism, because the manner of working and framing the scene is essentially the same as when there is an RF present. This then includes the Bessa-L and current Alpa and numerous old folding cameras. Getting closer to the edge, the SC 12mm requires mirror lockup and an external viewfinder, transforming the Nikon into a direct view camera. There are other fuzzier situations but I don't want to get too picky here! 🙂
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
Granted-but then there is the EVF which is close to arangefinder,but electronic.. borderline. Let's hope the RD1 will be joined by the Zeiss and Leica offerings soon and make the division more clear.
fgianni
Trainee Amateur
If we agree on:
"Any camera where composition occurs trough a direct view viewfinder?"
That would include the likes of Ricoh GR, minolta TC-1, Contax T3 (and this could be acceptable), but it would also include a load of compact digicams that happen to have an optical viewfinder as well as the LCD screen.
Maybe
"Any camera where composition occurs exclusively trough a direct view viewfinder"
Is good enough?
"Any camera where composition occurs trough a direct view viewfinder?"
That would include the likes of Ricoh GR, minolta TC-1, Contax T3 (and this could be acceptable), but it would also include a load of compact digicams that happen to have an optical viewfinder as well as the LCD screen.
Maybe
"Any camera where composition occurs exclusively trough a direct view viewfinder"
Is good enough?
FrankS
Registered User
When dealing with the grey areas, how about using the idea: cameras that are closer in spirit to RF than to SLR cameras. This would include the Rollei 35's, G!/2 and Hexar AF.
Uncle Bill
Well-known
- Local time
- 4:49 AM
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2005
- Messages
- 1,077
As much as I want to post to my Gallery, I am one busy person with school and work. My personal photoblog has not been updated for a while, I posted that I was out of commision with a school assignment until the 19th of December. Since the migration I would have to scan twice because of file size restrictions.
Bill
Bill
fgianni
Trainee Amateur
FrankS said:
But then is the Canon Poweshot A95 closer to a RF or to an SLR? It has a compact P&S digicam which happens to have an optical viewfinder, so for that reason it can't be considered closer to an SLR.
My RF thinking would also involve how the camera is used, not necessarily what it's capable of... For instance, when I use my Canon PowerShot G3's LCD for a closeup for a "camera and coffee" type shot, then it's not an RF, but when I use just the direct viewfinder for composition, then I feel that output should be "RFF qualified". Same idea for a sheet-film press camera: Use its viewfinder, it qualifies; use the ground glass and it doesn't. This is really borderline stuff!
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
Brian Sweeney said:
It is what Aaland says in the preface to his (rather basic) book "Shooting Digital". There he calls it "shortly after 1981" The exact year of1983 came from another source, but I unfortunately can't recall which...
Gid
Well-known
This and That
This and That
I like this forum. I visited here often before I signed up and I visit most days. I have recently posted some images and received some comments for which I am very grateful, but I accept that with the current volume of images getting comments will probably be a rare thing. I occassionally look at the daily images and other's galleries when time permits, but don't usually comment because of time pressure and the fact that I don't feel technically competent to do so - I've only been a rangefinder fan since the acquisition of the RD-1 in March this year.
There have been a couple of posts recently about members' contribution. I contribute when I think I have something valid to say, but otherwise leave it to the more experienced - nothing to do with a willingness to participate, more to do with not wanting to look like a plonker (UK term). I guess there are many like me who want and are willing to contribute, but who err on the side of caution. Also, there is a clique - by accident rather than design I think - and that could put people off - you feel like you would be intruding on someone's private conversation. So, don't beat us up, we'll all get there eventually.
Sadly, in the last couple of months I have noticed that some of the posts have been more cutting. Admittedly, some of these have been levelled at newcomers whose initial posts have been to advertise a sale, but not soley these. I hope that this is just a blip and not a trend because we would be losing so much. As far as posting items for sale in a first post is concerned - we don't have any rules, so you can't blame the poster if they don't grasp the etiquette (takes a while to begin to understand this).
Finally, Ansel Adams would have shot digital and been just as revered as he is now. Digital only changes the development process. The input (composition, exposure etc) and output (print) are exactly the same. If you like the chemical process (I have some good friends who love it) then all the best to you. Personally, I spend enough time in the dark without adding to it.
Apologies for the ramble 😉
Yours unoffensively (I hope),
Gid (new and learing)
This and That
I like this forum. I visited here often before I signed up and I visit most days. I have recently posted some images and received some comments for which I am very grateful, but I accept that with the current volume of images getting comments will probably be a rare thing. I occassionally look at the daily images and other's galleries when time permits, but don't usually comment because of time pressure and the fact that I don't feel technically competent to do so - I've only been a rangefinder fan since the acquisition of the RD-1 in March this year.
There have been a couple of posts recently about members' contribution. I contribute when I think I have something valid to say, but otherwise leave it to the more experienced - nothing to do with a willingness to participate, more to do with not wanting to look like a plonker (UK term). I guess there are many like me who want and are willing to contribute, but who err on the side of caution. Also, there is a clique - by accident rather than design I think - and that could put people off - you feel like you would be intruding on someone's private conversation. So, don't beat us up, we'll all get there eventually.
Sadly, in the last couple of months I have noticed that some of the posts have been more cutting. Admittedly, some of these have been levelled at newcomers whose initial posts have been to advertise a sale, but not soley these. I hope that this is just a blip and not a trend because we would be losing so much. As far as posting items for sale in a first post is concerned - we don't have any rules, so you can't blame the poster if they don't grasp the etiquette (takes a while to begin to understand this).
Finally, Ansel Adams would have shot digital and been just as revered as he is now. Digital only changes the development process. The input (composition, exposure etc) and output (print) are exactly the same. If you like the chemical process (I have some good friends who love it) then all the best to you. Personally, I spend enough time in the dark without adding to it.
Apologies for the ramble 😉
Yours unoffensively (I hope),
Gid (new and learing)
Kim Coxon
Moderator
Hi,
Just as an aside, do we really need a set of rules about what cameras are eligable to use to post images? I may be wrong but there doesn't seem to be a problem at the moment and I think that there is a lot of merit in the saying "if it ain't broke....." One of the very nice things about this forum is that there seems to be very little need for rules and it is largely self regulating. Go to some boards and there are all sorts of dire warnings about flaming and other heinious crimes. OK, there is the occasional upset but this seems to be sorted fairly quickly either on it's own or with a little help. (Many thanks Jorge and Joe). Something that Gid said in the last post struck a chord, there is an "unofficial" ettiquette here without the need for extensive rules. Nearly all the images in the gallery seem to be RF. Does it matter if a couple are digicam or SLR etc. Personally, I don't think so. A member may have only had that camera with him or it may show an important technique that is equally valid to RF. It seems to be workinf at the moment so why change anything?
Kim
Just as an aside, do we really need a set of rules about what cameras are eligable to use to post images? I may be wrong but there doesn't seem to be a problem at the moment and I think that there is a lot of merit in the saying "if it ain't broke....." One of the very nice things about this forum is that there seems to be very little need for rules and it is largely self regulating. Go to some boards and there are all sorts of dire warnings about flaming and other heinious crimes. OK, there is the occasional upset but this seems to be sorted fairly quickly either on it's own or with a little help. (Many thanks Jorge and Joe). Something that Gid said in the last post struck a chord, there is an "unofficial" ettiquette here without the need for extensive rules. Nearly all the images in the gallery seem to be RF. Does it matter if a couple are digicam or SLR etc. Personally, I don't think so. A member may have only had that camera with him or it may show an important technique that is equally valid to RF. It seems to be workinf at the moment so why change anything?
Kim
zuikologist
.........................
Kim - I agree, the unofficial approach seems to keep RF members more relaxed and not too wary of breaking rules. It seems most people get the flow of the forum fairly quickly.
Gid - don't worry about feeling like a plonker or intruding on other conversations - treat it like a pub conversation where you can drop in and out (at least that's what I do). Most of us are much less experienced than some RFF members and I have still to post any photos (though my birthday present last week was a Nikon scanner - lucky me 🙂 Now i have no excuse!) I find that the longer established RFF members are very welcoming and happy to share information and ideas.
Gid - don't worry about feeling like a plonker or intruding on other conversations - treat it like a pub conversation where you can drop in and out (at least that's what I do). Most of us are much less experienced than some RFF members and I have still to post any photos (though my birthday present last week was a Nikon scanner - lucky me 🙂 Now i have no excuse!) I find that the longer established RFF members are very welcoming and happy to share information and ideas.
darkkavenger
Massimiliano Mortillaro
Ah so you guys decided me to upload some more pics here... 🙂 I've just added 5 of them, and of these, 4 (the borderless ones) I have never posted them anywhere else 🙂 Having fun with my cameras 😉
RJBender
RFF Sponsoring Member
Kim Coxon said:
Does anyone know how much space RFF has on the server for the gallery?
If you sponsored this site and started seeing too many images from SLRs in the gallery, you might not be pleased enough to continue your support. Too many images from SLRs could be 1 for one sponsor or 1000 for another. If you have a rangefinder camera only rule, it doesn't become a problem. 😀
If you like your images from your SLR, fine. Does it help promote photography with rangefinder cameras if you post those images here? 😕
R.J.
