gns
Well-known
Myth Myth Myth. I can't see what happens in a 100th of a second vs. the 100th of a second before or after. Even if I could, what's the point? I can't go back and do it over... If it's that fleeting.
Is this a submyth of the more general myth called previsualization?
Cheers,
Gary
Is this a submyth of the more general myth called previsualization?
Cheers,
Gary
Finder
Veteran
Ok. Bad words, good intentions. Now to the subject at hand:
I do find a great advantage to seeing when the shutter fires. For example, I have been able to spot a subject blinking during the exposure, which I have missed in an SLR. When I started, I used SLRs. I never really thought about the mirror blackout. Now after using rangefinders for so long, I find the mirror blackout jarring. I also notice a great temporal discontinuity. I am not sure the timing of the shutter sound is natural or intuitive. There could be a learning curve.
I do find a great advantage to seeing when the shutter fires. For example, I have been able to spot a subject blinking during the exposure, which I have missed in an SLR. When I started, I used SLRs. I never really thought about the mirror blackout. Now after using rangefinders for so long, I find the mirror blackout jarring. I also notice a great temporal discontinuity. I am not sure the timing of the shutter sound is natural or intuitive. There could be a learning curve.
jlw
Rangefinder camera pedant
I can quantify this pretty easily by citing a special case: studio photography of moving subjects using electronic flash.
When using flash, there is only one instant that counts: the moment when the flash goes off. That moment is generally 1/1000 of a second or even less.
If your subject is doing the thing you wanted during that 1/1000 of a second, your picture is a success. If s/he isn't, you need to try again.
That 1/1000 duration may sound short, but with a little practice you can learn to see a lot: whether all the heads fired, whether the model's arms and legs are in the right positions, whether s/he is in the right spot in the frame, etc.
That is... you can see those things if you can see at all. With an SLR camera, I can't -- I am absolutely stone blind during that critical 1/1000 second. I have no idea whatsoever what the subject was doing at the critical instant when the flashes fired. (Often when using an SLR for studio action photography, I'll ask other people to act as spotters.) I have quantifiably better results when shooting this type of photo with a rangefinder camera.
Of course, if you're using a digital camera you can do a quick review to see if you got the shot you wanted. But this type of after-the-fact feedback doesn't help me "groove" my timing in the same way as the real-time feedback I get when shooting with an RF camera. Being able to watch a moving subject as I feel the shutter click helps me dial myself into the subject's natural rhythm, improving my chance of catching the peak of action.
This may not work for everyone, but for me it's proven beyond speculation. I often shoot action situations with both an SLR (for long lenses) and an RF (for shorter ones) and I've learned by experience that I always get a significantly higher yield of good peak-action shots with the RF camera -- despite the SLR's theoretical advantages of autofocus, motor advance, etc.
When using flash, there is only one instant that counts: the moment when the flash goes off. That moment is generally 1/1000 of a second or even less.
If your subject is doing the thing you wanted during that 1/1000 of a second, your picture is a success. If s/he isn't, you need to try again.
That 1/1000 duration may sound short, but with a little practice you can learn to see a lot: whether all the heads fired, whether the model's arms and legs are in the right positions, whether s/he is in the right spot in the frame, etc.
That is... you can see those things if you can see at all. With an SLR camera, I can't -- I am absolutely stone blind during that critical 1/1000 second. I have no idea whatsoever what the subject was doing at the critical instant when the flashes fired. (Often when using an SLR for studio action photography, I'll ask other people to act as spotters.) I have quantifiably better results when shooting this type of photo with a rangefinder camera.
Of course, if you're using a digital camera you can do a quick review to see if you got the shot you wanted. But this type of after-the-fact feedback doesn't help me "groove" my timing in the same way as the real-time feedback I get when shooting with an RF camera. Being able to watch a moving subject as I feel the shutter click helps me dial myself into the subject's natural rhythm, improving my chance of catching the peak of action.
This may not work for everyone, but for me it's proven beyond speculation. I often shoot action situations with both an SLR (for long lenses) and an RF (for shorter ones) and I've learned by experience that I always get a significantly higher yield of good peak-action shots with the RF camera -- despite the SLR's theoretical advantages of autofocus, motor advance, etc.
Last edited:
Tuolumne
Veteran
jlw,
I won't quote your whole post because it is long, but you make some good points, and also reaffirm what Rueben said about "feeling" the release of the shutter to sync what is happening in the view finder. In most of your post you reference studio shooting conditions, which is a very controlled environment. I find shooting in the "wild" to be a very different thing, where I am overwhelmed by the various sensory inputs. Do you think it's any different shooting outside the studio environment when your concentartion is challenged by so many different things?
/T
I won't quote your whole post because it is long, but you make some good points, and also reaffirm what Rueben said about "feeling" the release of the shutter to sync what is happening in the view finder. In most of your post you reference studio shooting conditions, which is a very controlled environment. I find shooting in the "wild" to be a very different thing, where I am overwhelmed by the various sensory inputs. Do you think it's any different shooting outside the studio environment when your concentartion is challenged by so many different things?
/T
bsdunek
Old Guy with a Corgi
Does anyone remember the early SLR's that didn't have an instant return mirror? My old Retina Reflex S was that way - the mirror didn't drop down until you advanced the film. At first it was disconcerting, after using a viewfinder camera (previous was a Voigtlander Baby Bessa), but I got used to it. Learned to keep the other eye open.
Now I use all kinds of cameras and I know precisely (not exactly!) what I got. Just takes practic.
Now I use all kinds of cameras and I know precisely (not exactly!) what I got. Just takes practic.
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
1: i SEE exactly what happened at the moment of exposure
2: i can TELL exactly what happened at the moment of exposure
1 not necessarily equals 2.
Unless you close your eyes, you ALWAYS SEE what happened.
If you can't recall what happened in that exact moment, it's because you got disctracted, or because nothing interesting happened, or who knows what.
2: i can TELL exactly what happened at the moment of exposure
1 not necessarily equals 2.
Unless you close your eyes, you ALWAYS SEE what happened.
If you can't recall what happened in that exact moment, it's because you got disctracted, or because nothing interesting happened, or who knows what.
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
I agree with Pherdinand.
I've expressed my aversion to absolutes in the past. Absolutes are so absolutely false, and that is the Irrevocable Truth. Always.
I think the "myth" came about from poor eloquence: instead of saying "I see exactly what happened at the moment of exposure", what was originally said was something like "I see the scene exactly at the moment of exposure". Notice how "exactly" is qualifying/modifying "moment of exposure", not "scene".
Two different things. No es lo mismo "Huele a traste" que "atras te huele"
I've expressed my aversion to absolutes in the past. Absolutes are so absolutely false, and that is the Irrevocable Truth. Always.
I think the "myth" came about from poor eloquence: instead of saying "I see exactly what happened at the moment of exposure", what was originally said was something like "I see the scene exactly at the moment of exposure". Notice how "exactly" is qualifying/modifying "moment of exposure", not "scene".
Two different things. No es lo mismo "Huele a traste" que "atras te huele"
Tuolumne
Veteran
This is really a pretty simple, staple idea of rangefinder lore. Do we have to deconstruct what "see" means in order to talk about it?
/T
/T
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
no need to exaggerate, /T. No need to deconstruct anything.
It is indeed simple. You look through the damn viewfinder and you see what is within that damn viewfinder. Continuously.
You blink and you miss it.
Easy as 2x2.
It is indeed simple. You look through the damn viewfinder and you see what is within that damn viewfinder. Continuously.
You blink and you miss it.
Easy as 2x2.
jlw
Rangefinder camera pedant
Tuolumne said:
To some extent, yes... although I'd say that one thing that separates really successful photographers from the less-successful is the ability to concentrate under difficult conditions. I know that I usually get better pictures when I'm well-rested and feel "sharp" than when I'm tired or distracted.
But your post suggests to me that there's another factor that may play a role. As several have said, it isn't all that easy to see exactly what's going on at the exact moment of exposure; visual distractions may intrude.
BUT... although we don't usually think about it, a camera is something we use by touch as well as by sight. The kind of camera I usually use has a focal-plane shutter, and I definitely can feel it when this shutter fires, both through the part of my face that's pressed against the camera and in my fingers.
Since the shutter in an RF camera is simple, with no reflex mirror or autodiaphragm to add extra motions, I can be pretty sure that the moment I "feel the click" is the moment of exposure. Since I can see through the camera's finder at the same time I feel the click, it's easy for my brain to correlate these two different stimuli and give me the reassuring "got it!" sensation that many of us associate with using an RF camera.
In other words, the fact that the brain can receive this information on two channels -- the visual channel and the tactile channel -- helps reduce the impact of the distractions that might overwhelm purely visual perception.
I grant you that this whole line of reasoning is speculative. It would be an interesting experiment -- at least interesting to RFF geeks such as myself! -- to devise some kind of camera that offered NO tactile feedback at all, then see what effect this had on a photographer's ability to catch peak action.
Based on my own experience, I suspect the effect might be more considerable than we'd think. For example, compact digicams are notoriously crummy for action shots, a problem generally attributed to shutter lag -- but maybe their almost complete lack of tactile feedback also plays a role. After all, shutter lag didn't stop sports photographers of the '30s from getting great action shots with their Graflex 'Big Berthas'!
Based on my own experience, I suspect the effect might be more considerable than we'd think. For example, compact digicams are notoriously crummy for action shots, a problem generally attributed to shutter lag -- but maybe their almost complete lack of tactile feedback also plays a role. After all, shutter lag didn't stop sports photographers of the '30s from getting great action shots with their Graflex 'Big Berthas'!
Getting back to your original question about the value of continuous viewing, I'd concede that the vast majority of the time it makes little difference. After all, with most subjects there isn't one specific, make-or-break "right" moment to take the picture; there's a band of time during which any given instant will yield as good a picture as another. In that type of situation, seeing slightly before and slightly after the picture is just as good as seeing during the picture -- nothing will have changed significantly during the blackout interval.
It's only in special cases that the ability to view continuously makes a difference. In those cases, though, it can make a big difference.
JoeV
Thin Air, Bright Sun
Timing Vs. Composition
Timing Vs. Composition
My only personal rangefinder camera experience is with my Zorki IV and Retina IIIC, so I can't speak exactly to the experience of using a Leica.
However, with my two rangefinders the amount of scene that's outside the framelines is minimal, not enough to really give useful clues enabling one to aniticipate the motion of objects prior to them entering the scene. And I don't believe my Zorki has visible framelines, anyway. So I would call it a 'wash' as compared with an SLR.
As for lack of mirror blackout with a RF camera, this I have found to be a useful advantage of RF cameras over SLR's; RF wins this point.
For close-up scenes, I have experienced problems with composition not being spot-on with my RF cameres, due to parallax error. Advantage: SLR. And on this point I would add that all my previous point-n-shoot cameras have this problem, too; as does the optical viewfinder of my Sony digital point-n-shoot. This is one area where digital point and shoots could be very good street cameras; my Sony's optical viewfinder zooms with the taking lens, so in theory it could be a great composition tool, especially when you turn off the viewfinder (and also saves on battery life); but, alas, the optical finder doesn't align either horizontally or vertically with the taking lens.
Composition is important enough for me, especially when wanting to be able to print full-frame, that the SLR ends up offering an advantage that, under certain circumstances, may best the other advantages of my rangefinders.
For my experience, it all comes down to the question of what's more important: timing or composition?
~Joe
Timing Vs. Composition
My only personal rangefinder camera experience is with my Zorki IV and Retina IIIC, so I can't speak exactly to the experience of using a Leica.
However, with my two rangefinders the amount of scene that's outside the framelines is minimal, not enough to really give useful clues enabling one to aniticipate the motion of objects prior to them entering the scene. And I don't believe my Zorki has visible framelines, anyway. So I would call it a 'wash' as compared with an SLR.
As for lack of mirror blackout with a RF camera, this I have found to be a useful advantage of RF cameras over SLR's; RF wins this point.
For close-up scenes, I have experienced problems with composition not being spot-on with my RF cameres, due to parallax error. Advantage: SLR. And on this point I would add that all my previous point-n-shoot cameras have this problem, too; as does the optical viewfinder of my Sony digital point-n-shoot. This is one area where digital point and shoots could be very good street cameras; my Sony's optical viewfinder zooms with the taking lens, so in theory it could be a great composition tool, especially when you turn off the viewfinder (and also saves on battery life); but, alas, the optical finder doesn't align either horizontally or vertically with the taking lens.
Composition is important enough for me, especially when wanting to be able to print full-frame, that the SLR ends up offering an advantage that, under certain circumstances, may best the other advantages of my rangefinders.
For my experience, it all comes down to the question of what's more important: timing or composition?
~Joe
jgeenen
Established
Yes - Compared to my Bronica SQ-A (the mirror stays up after release), the RF finder is an advantage.
No - Compared to my Contax RTS (I, II or III - doesn't care), the short "blackout" is no issue at all (and to me not even a comfort decrease).
Mirror up truely WAS an issue back in the 60s where SLR usually were slow. From my point of view a myth of ancient ages that survived and gets even more emphasized by internet.
No - Compared to my Contax RTS (I, II or III - doesn't care), the short "blackout" is no issue at all (and to me not even a comfort decrease).
Mirror up truely WAS an issue back in the 60s where SLR usually were slow. From my point of view a myth of ancient ages that survived and gets even more emphasized by internet.
David Goldfarb
Well-known
Tuolumne said:
Yes, because perception is a complicated phenomenon that isn't entirely understood. Our eyes may be exposed to sensory information that we don't register in our minds, and our minds may interpolate information that was never present to the senses.
RObert Budding
D'oh!
Dogman said:
Blame Heisenberg.
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
I thought you were deconstructing a "myth". You did use the word Myth in your subject to qualify the statement as a myth.Tuolumne said:
Eats shoots and leaves.
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
Pherdinand said:
Actually, easy as 1-2-3
2x2 is what my friend's Nissan Pathfinder has as a torque setting.But yes, you explained it simply. Easy as 3.14527...
mike goldberg
The Peaceful Pacific
I voted No, and I'll tell you why. Do I believe in, or practice pre-visualization?...
for sure. When I was a working PJ and carried Nikon SLR's, the M2 went with me, everywhere. I found that I could work with it, very swiftly.
Perception is an amazing and complex process. Often, I found that I really did not know what I had seen and captured on film, until the film was developed. Thus, I THINK I know exactly what I'm seeing at the instant I click the shutter; nay, not so ;-)
for sure. When I was a working PJ and carried Nikon SLR's, the M2 went with me, everywhere. I found that I could work with it, very swiftly.
Perception is an amazing and complex process. Often, I found that I really did not know what I had seen and captured on film, until the film was developed. Thus, I THINK I know exactly what I'm seeing at the instant I click the shutter; nay, not so ;-)
michaelging
Established
Actually , One of the things I like and hate of the Konica Hexar AF is when you are shooting in silent mode you have a hard time feeling and hearing as the shutter goes off, so you are not really sure as to when the exposure really took place.
photogdave
Shops local
In this instance I was referring specifically to someone else and trying to defend you. Looks like everything is working out okay now.Tuolumne said:
Last edited:
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
Wrong interpretation, Robert. But i don't blame you for that. It is very fashionable to wrongly interpret his idea and apply it to the macroscopic world.RObert Budding said:
We humans not knowing exactly what is happening are limited by our mental capabilities, not by h bar. At least this is the case for the ones that cannot pass through two holes in the same time and smile on the other side.