Rangefinder Photography: Out of the Shadows and Into the Sunlight

[Alex Shishin]

N. died in 1900 at age 56 and mentally incapacitated. He could have possibly have lived long enough to have used an early Leica.


Here is another thought: What if Jack London had lived long enough to own a Leica? London was a rangefinder. He used folding cameras.

London was only 40 when he died in 1916.

Academic? More like creative flight of fancy. Academia isn't that fancy-free.

 

[FrankS]

N. died in 1900 at age 56 and mentally incapacitated.

There's but a fuzzy fine line between genius and insanity.

 

[alliv]

A lot was said already that resonate fully with my feelings. It is comforting to know that I am not alone on the way.
I will be 48 soon and I write software for living, photography is my hobby.
Recently I bought Contax G1 and very glad I did.
I had and still have film and digital P&S and (D)SLR. I am not an artist and would not call myself creative, I like
technical side of things. I am interested not so much in the final image but of how it was done and why.
Technology makes wonders (when it works). But sometimes it does, whatever it does, on its own will without our
knowledge or consent, imposing on us its rules and forcing us to obey. Instead of masters we are becoming slaves.
Yes, with digital wonders we still decide when to pull the trigger but the result is often out of our control.
More precisely - we think we have control when in fact we have just an illusion of control.
Today's digital cameras are designed for snaps and we are allowed to shoot as much of them as we want,
hundreds, thousands of pictures.. but they all come out the same. Less or more pretty, but
it is the same picture all over again. Try to make something different, unique,- and you are in the deep trouble.
Technology gets on your way and fights you to make its pretty snap (or nothing) by all means.
Of course you can shoot RAW but then you have to spend hours with obscure, slow software (manipulating 64MB image
is heavy, plus PS layers etc..) full of cryptic options, million parameters, features that can take lifetime to master.. And all this
is just to make YOUR vision prevail. It is a bitter fight and most people just settle for the standard out of the box
pretty snaps. Reminds me of Pete Seager song - little boxes full of ticky-tacky and they all come out the same 🙂

 

[bmicklea]

Couldn't the same arguement be made by a painter against photography?

 

[alliv]

Yes, I think you have valid point here. But I am not gifted to be a painter so probably taking pictures with RF is as close as I can get to the image-making.. Anyway, I enjoy the process of taking pictures - magic to record light on film. Digital just dont do it for me.

 

[yossarian]

Hey, gang, how long has it been since you saw writing of this caliber in a periodical?
HAVE you ever seen anything such as this?

Alex, this is what I cherish about this site--people you'd never have a chance to meet sharing knowledge and observations so illuminating that I'm humbled and enlightened all at once.

I'm old enough to have seen the changes of which you speak, and having been in photo retail from 1976 through 2003 I saw some of it from the inside. Even so, your account clarifies the period for me and presents it in a more coherent fashion than my own memory can.

This is an example of not only superb writing, but of acute observation, distilling decades of change into a couple of pages.

Remarkable.

Thank you,

Fred Morrison
(yossarian)

 

[Trius]

I am happy I noticed this thread being bumped onto the new posts lists for me, as I didn't read Alex's posts initially.

Wow, Alex, that was wonderful, and captures the essence of various truths, IMO. It is really hard for me to convey to others how the feel and image-capture process of a certain camera makes me feel. It IS about the image, but, as you have noted, the tool-aided process can enhance the possibility of that image being realized.

So, I feel it with an Olympus SP, and also with an OM and a good prime. Others connect with other models, and that's great.

Part of the glory of life's journey is the journey itself.

Trius

 

[ch1]

Geez...and the only reason why I got me a RF camera was to try somthing different together with my SLR and DSLR gear!

Now I find I'm part of a "movement"!

Not sure about that but BTW: there is something I have yet to comprehend:

Why would anyone want to have an AF rangefinder? I'll grant you the digital stuff if that's your wont. After all, digital or film are just the "medium" (although I prefer film for RF work to "keep it in period").

But isn't the "talent of focusing" part of the RF "art"? Am I missing something?

If all one aspires to is to possess an AF digital RF I would humbly suggest that you "focus" on one of the (increasing) many P&S cameras - some of which are now almost as thin as a dime.....

 

[DougK]

First let me say that I really enjoyed your writing Alex, well thought out and well said. I'm glad to see it got a bump to the front page.

Every time I lust after newer, better gear, I just remind myself that my best and most sought-after photos (by my friends anyway) were taken with my simplest (and my favorite) camera: a humble Olympus Trip 35. No bells, no whistles, just scale focus, compose, and shoot. It feels like no other camera in my hand.

 

[GeneW]

Wow, Alex this is excellent! I don't know how I missed this when it was first posted.

Gene

 

[Skinny McGee]

Why are my pants on fire?

 

[Bertram2]

In the end I cannot even tell the curious and uninitiated why they should join us.

Rangefinder photography is not for everyone. But if you choose to joint us few, us luck few, the chances are that you’ll have fun and just possibly create photographs of startling beauty that will amaze you.

Alex,
I would not say it wasn't interesting to read your contribution but for me there remans one decisive question at the end :
Shall this all tell the "uninitiated" that using a rangerfinder is inspiring per se and gives each ofthem a chance to improve their artistic competence ?
If so I'd keep this as a startling promise. A promise which you could not explain if you were asked, as you admit.
A bit too religious, wouldn't you agree?
Like chosing the right goddess guarantees the final enlightnig experience ?
Hmm, isn't that the stoneold hope of those photogs who are too lazy to learn their lessons, one after the other, year for year ?
My experience is that a RF can't make a blind one see, and those who can see chose their brush depending on the task. Their inspiration is inside of them and it isn't triggered by a stupid gadget either.

As Claxton said: The most annoying thing in photography for him is the stupid camera between him and the object of desire.

Sounds as it would be him who belongs to the initiated !?

Bertram

 

[splitimageview]

a nice read like this needs a bump every couple of years 🙂

 

[serg-k3]

Yes, it's interesting, stretched through the heart of the story-philosophy. Useful advice and a guide who have taken the path of range finder.
Thank you.

 

[Red Robin]

New, not always better for some.

New, not always better for some.

Thanks Alex, Reading your post certainly struck a cord with me. Thank you.

 

[semilog]

Bump.

Just stumbled across this great thread. Worth revisiting for sure.

 

[ColSebastianMoran]

The starter is a remarkable piece of writing. Thanks! And, thanks to semilog for the "bump."

 

[The Standard Deviant]

How did this only have a handful of replies when it was written?

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

Didn't know the thread even existed (excellent search function and musical forum chairs notwithstanding). That's a blast from the past.

Very nice read indeed. I remember having read that elsewhere in the forum.

 

[boomguy57]

Very good read, thanks for posting.