First M8 for critique

[MartinL]

. . . and to try out this venue (I'm a bit confused about the posting/commenting rules)
Takes some discipline not to just start out with my own critique!

 

[iridium7777]

unless you meant to focus on the phone, i think you completely missed it. i think you tried to focus on the man and have the desk stuff behind him out of focus?

then again, i shouldn't talk, my first roll from my m6 last week produced maybe 3 decent pictures.

. . . and to try out this venue (I'm a bit confused about the posting/commenting rules)
Takes some discipline not to just start out with my own critique!

 

[shadowfox]

Martin, I am curious as to why you choose this image for a Critique session.

Usually, the critiqued image is the one that you like so much OR one that you *want* to like so much, but there's something bothering you that you just can't put your fingers on.

 

[MartinL]

Both critiques above are valid and usesful for helping me figure out the correct question, which leads to a partial "solution." This is a shot that would have been much better on all counts if I had taken it with my DSLR--not because of the inherent camera differences, but because of my approach. I may be too obsessed with RF framing issues.

I like shots that create some movement or tension among multiple points of interest. I wanted the man (my 96 yr old father) and the desk clutter to vie for attention. Solution? With my DSLR I probably would have stepped back several feet or even gone across the room. I would have zoomed in and/or cropped. Although this might be printed, it's unlikely that I'd require the full 10mp resolution, and I have few scruples regarding crops that enhance.

By moving back I could have deepened the DOF and possibly enabled an angle that gave me better control over the backlight effects.

Thanks for listening
Martin

 

[iridium7777]

martin, i can understand your aggrevation somewhat, coming from dslr myself.

here's a tip (bare in my i'm only into my second week of rf shooting)... concentrate on the frame first. obviously it was a slow situation so you're not a in a hurry that you would "miss" the shot and something that you can do without af.

position yourself so things are in the frame as you would envision them. once you're in the frame, stop down your aperture, focus on the edge of your fathers nose (overlay the two images until his nose is perfectly clear... sorry if this is too idiot to write out), or even on the ear, and adjust the shutter speed so you're in the correct exposure and take a picture.

there were too many times on my first roll where i would concentrate on the focusing and only later realize that i completely forgot to "think" in the "frame".

now i frame first, position myself accordingly and then focus.

i have no clue what to do with moving objects as i've been spoiled by af with my nikons, but then again i'm going for something completely different with the rf.

hope this helps, and please pardon if some of it is too rudamentary, i don't mean to insult you.

Both critiques above are valid and usesful for helping me figure out the correct question, which leads to a partial "solution." This is a shot that would have been much better on all counts if I had taken it with my DSLR--not because of the inherent camera differences, but because of my approach. I may be too obsessed with RF framing issues.

I like shots that create some movement or tension among multiple points of interest. I wanted the man (my 96 yr old father) and the desk clutter to vie for attention. Solution? With my DSLR I probably would have stepped back several feet or even gone across the room. I would have zoomed in and/or cropped. Although this might be printed, it's unlikely that I'd require the full 10mp resolution, and I have few scruples regarding crops that enhance.

By moving back I could have deepened the DOF and possibly enabled an angle that gave me better control over the backlight effects.

Thanks for listening
Martin

 

[MartinL]

martin, i can understand your aggrevation somewhat, coming from dslr myself.

here's a tip (bare in my i'm only into my second week of rf shooting)... concentrate on the frame first. obviously it was a slow situation so you're not a in a hurry that you would "miss" the shot and something that you can do without af.

position yourself so things are in the frame as you would envision them. once you're in the frame, stop down your aperture, focus on the edge of your fathers nose (overlay the two images until his nose is perfectly clear... sorry if this is too idiot to write out), or even on the ear, and adjust the shutter speed so you're in the correct exposure and take a picture.

there were too many times on my first roll where i would concentrate on the focusing and only later realize that i completely forgot to "think" in the "frame".

now i frame first, position myself accordingly and then focus.

i have no clue what to do with moving objects as i've been spoiled by af with my nikons, but then again i'm going for something completely different with the rf.

hope this helps, and please pardon if some of it is too rudamentary, i don't mean to insult you.

No insult taken. My current understanding of this failed shot, though, is that I simply attempted something (a too-deep DOF) that my camera was not capable of accomplishing from where I stood, with the available light, and at 320 ISO. In other words, it's not a matter (in this case) of choosing between a sharply focused nose or stapler, but wanting both, and not having the experience to "read" the the limits of the camera and lens.

A general question I've wondered about is why so many posted RF photos, like mine, are so badly focused and/or muddy, and maybe with an illogical frame that the photographer perhaps thinks is artful. I'm guessing that it's partly the mis-read historical ethos that says the captured "moment" as originally framed must prevail over image processing that includes certain fundamental techniques such as cropping and exposure correction. (I'll post this as a separate question one day when I figure out how to ask it more politely)

I've advised others (in regards to SLR) that often the most important camera work is done with one's feet. It has taken this thread to figure out that I was, at the very least, standing in the wrong spot.

 

[mac_wt]

Sorry if this is too obvious or sounds insulting, but I think it needs being said: if you want everything in focus, you don't need an M8 or a DSLR; any cheap digital point and shoot with a small sensor will do.

When I choose my camera for the day, I know its strength and its weakness. If I carry my leica IIIc with a 50mm lens, I know it will not offer me the reach and compression of a telelens, nor the DOF at close range of a wide angle. That are the limits I'll have to work around. If I see a nice scene playing out on the streets a 100 meters away; too bad: it will not be a good photo from where I'm standing: I'll have to move closer. If I'm sitting on the bus and see a nice scene two seats in front of me; no way I'll get it all in focus: I'll have to choose my point of focus.

That is what I like about rangefinder photography: I have to do the thinking, choosing, walking,... My camera will not do it for me. The resulting photo with all its qualities and errors is mine, not my camera's.

 

[MartinL]

Sorry if this is too obvious or sounds insulting, but I think it needs being said: if you want everything in focus, you don't need an M8 or a DSLR; any cheap digital point and shoot with a small sensor will do.

When I choose my camera for the day, I know its strength and its weakness. If I carry my leica IIIc with a 50mm lens, I know it will not offer me the reach and compression of a telelens, nor the DOF at close range of a wide angle. That are the limits I'll have to work around. If I see a nice scene playing out on the streets a 100 meters away; too bad: it will not be a good photo from where I'm standing: I'll have to move closer. If I'm sitting on the bus and see a nice scene two seats in front of me; no way I'll get it all in focus: I'll have to choose my point of focus.

That is what I like about rangefinder photography: I have to do the thinking, choosing, walking,... My camera will not do it for me. The resulting photo with all its qualities and errors is mine, not my camera's.

How could I be insulted by your writing essentially what I said myself in my post just above? Yes, these replies (two expressing concern for sounding insulting) have had a simplistic tone----something that I see as inevitable when trying to explain a step-by-step process for something that becomes obvious once said.

What may not seem so obvious to others (like myself) who are experienced photogs but new to RF is how much there is to learn about the limits inherent in RF shooting----learning that is necessary to exploit the unique advantages. I'd take exception, though, if you are implying that technologies such as autofocus, zoom lenses, even the many exposure automations, etc., necessarily take over from the shooter his photographic responsibility.

An interesting analogy occurs to me (another topic to explore further in some future thread) as I look around my home. I have a number of interesting pieces of authentic craftsman era furniture. The qualities of their basic, well-proportioned design, enduring construction, detail, feel, etc., appeal to me far beyond their insturmental value. I have a Gustov Stickley chair that I could likely trade in to purchase several LazyBoy loungers that by many criteria are more comfortable and therefore "better" chairs.
Martin

 

[kbg32]

MArtin, one learns by taking images, lots. This leads to making images, less, but of higher quality.

Just don't forget to have fun along the way!