RFF Featured Photos

[Sonnar Brian]

> The limit for my Kiev with 85mm is 4 feet.
> I'm working on closer.

G'Man: you mean YOU do not have a close-up device for your Kiev? I'll have to post a picture of the "Speed-o-Copy" which combines an extension tube and flip-out ground glass viewer for the Contax. Focus on the ground-glass, flip it out, and flip the camera in. It maintains the back-focus.

I think I'll go out and take close ups of butterflies with the crescent moon filling the background with my 25cm F4 Nikkor mounted on the S2. Sounds like a perfect RF picture.

 

[richard_l]

Who would use a fully manual camera nowadays? My point is that a RF can be used for many subjects if the photographer wants to invest the time and practice to use it in that way. I've even macros shot with LF over the last 12 months 🙂

I would use an SLR myself but that doesn't mean others might not want to try with a RF 😉

I use an SLR for the occasional macro and telephoto. Fully manual (Nikon FM2n), by the way. 🙂 Really good SLR equipment (film, manual focus) is so cheap nowadays that there's no reason not to use one if it's a better tool for the job than a rangefinder. Of course if someone wants to do things the hard way just for the sport of it, the rangefinder is okay, I guess.

My avatar is not a macro, by the way. It's just a crop. I took it to silence critics who were saying that the 90mm Tele-Elmarit is no for good close-ups. The OOF stuff turned out so buttery smooth that it bacame one of my favorites. I don't do much macro, but I sure like roses.

Richard

 

[GermanB]

my final thought on this is a quote from HCB... "sharpness is a bourgeois concept"

and so is defining what a rangefinder photo is supposed to be

well said, (RF) photography is the photographer's expression regardless of the viewer's interpretation ...

 

[hoot]

Sorry, but I'm gonna be the odd man out here... all of these arguments are quite valid, and it's true that this isn't the street photography forum, but I would hate this wonderful site to turn into another pnet or psig... the featured photos there are visually spectacular, but (to me) do not stand the test of time; do not tell a story the way a good black and white street photo does. It's true that rangefinders are versatile (so are point-'n-shoots, SLRs, TLRs and view cameras, all in the right hands of course), but as somebody said above, each camera is optimized for a certain job, and the 35mm RF's strength is street photography and old-school photojournalism. I don't mean to ostracize those members who don't partake in these genres; neither do I profess to be anything but a rookie in them. Yet I definitely think it would be more appropriate for the featured photo to be strongly biased towards this type of photography, even if only to set ourselves apart from the plethora of other photography sites that populate the 'net. Call it the snob factor, if you will. Anyone who uses a Leica will know what I mean. 🙂

 

[back alley]

'Every now and then RFF will pick a photograph which represents an artistic and creative view captured on film by a rangefinder camera.'

this is an all encompassing view, not street, landcape or nude...

the featured photo was never intended to represent all things rf, just a view...

joe

 

[JoeFriday]

when do we get to the nudes?

 

[VinceC]

>>I would hate this wonderful site to turn into another pnet or psig...<<

It strikes me that what sets this site apart from the others is honesty. And that includes the photo selection. Exceptions abound, but those pursuing rangefinder photography seem concerned with getting a fairly honest depiction of some slice of the world currently in front of their eyes. That's true even if they're just testing the latest lens to see how it measures up to the others in their collections. Other sites tend to place the impact of the image above its inherent truth. I've stopped even clicking on the pnet pix-of-the-week, because whenever I see a real stunner, it's accompanied by an explanation of how much effort went into digitally crafting it and piecing it together in PhotoShop. I have nothing against that sort of artistry and often admire it in magazine ads. But I think this site tends to favor the more classic approaches. And Backalley's words even express that: "an artistic and creative view captured on film by a rangefinder camera." I would quibble with film -- the Espon RD-1 technically wouldn't qualify -- but otherwise the idea of captureing rather than creating an image has always been the essence of honest photography. For me, at least.

 

[Kin Lau]

One of the RFF pic-of-the-whatever (not really weekly is it?) was a RD-1 shot by RML.

 

[richard_l]

.....each camera is optimized for a certain job, and the 35mm RF's strength is street photography and old-school photojournalism......I definitely think it would be more appropriate for the featured photo to be strongly biased towards this type of photography, even if only to set ourselves apart from the plethora of other photography sites that populate the 'net. Call it the snob factor, if you will. Anyone who uses a Leica will know what I mean. 🙂

That's just your opinion. The Barnack camera was designed as a general purpose 35mm pocket camera, as are its successors the Leica Ms (except that they have gotten bigger and, arguably, better). You are viewing rangefinders with a great deal of hindsight. Just because the SLR has won general acceptance as a very versatile camera, this is no reason for the rangefinder to retreat into a single highly specialized niche. It is by no means "optimized" for any particular genre. It is, by reason of its viewing/focussing system, limited in its ability to handle a wide range of focal lengths. That's all. It's fine to have an opinion as to the best use for a rangefinder, but please lets refrain from exaggerating to the point of falsification.

Richard

 

[JoeFriday]

Hey🙂

Brett, be careful what you wish for. I believe that joe may have been referring to his often threatened "self portraits". 😱

I thought of that immediately after I submitted my last comment.. LOL

 

[jan normandale]

straight man extrordinaire

straight man extrordinaire

when do we get to the nudes?

Brett, you are every amateur humourist's dream come true. The answer to your question is obviously.......... ' no nudes is good nudes'

I couldn't help myself ;-)

 

[Kin Lau]

That's just your opinion. The Barnack camera was designed as a general purpose 35mm pocket camera, as are its successors the Leica Ms (except that they have gotten bigger and, arguably, better).
...snip...

Given that the largest number of RF users in the world would actually be in the FSU instead of the west, this is probably more true than many of us realize.

 

[cp_ste.croix]

Maybe it's my inexperience, but I can never tell what camera was used from just looking at a picture. Furthermore, a 'conventional' picture take with an rf is special to me exactly because it was taken with an rf, it shows that rf photography is versatile rather than merely being appropriate for one type of photography.

I think celebrating each others artistic and varried vision is a nice addition to this forum. I might have picked different photos from the archives to showcase, as I'm sure most others would have, but with the sheer volume of photos on this site, and the work it must take in going through them, I consider the featured photo more of a teaser into the gallery rather than a definitive answer to what is the best photography on this site. Of course, that is not meant in any way to malign the photos shown so far, but merely to point to the fact that tastes differ with the individual, the weather, the time of day, the month, the season, etc.

 

[FrankS]

I don't get my knickers in a knot over the featured photo selection and would encourage others also not to. Jorge is doing the selecting and the photos chosen are a reflection of his tastes. Everyone has different tastes. It's part of what makes the world an interesting place. There are more important issues to fret about. Relax.

 

[Toby]

when do we get to the nudes?

My only lesson on nude photography -if there's a beautiful naked women standing in front of you there's better things you can do than take her picture
(with her permission of course)

 

[FrankS]

It's not written anywhere that you can't do both. 🙂

 

[hoot]

The Barnack camera was designed as a general purpose 35mm pocket camera

First off, I apologize for the sloppy phrasing of my previous post. You are right to challenge it.

Now, without presuming to know what specific uses Oscar Barnack really had in mind when he designed his little camera, let's consider that the cameras existing up to that point did not make the following aspects of photography possible: ubiquity, inconspicuousness, ability to shoot handheld, ability to "hit and run". Even if Barnack himself did not necessarily use his Ur-Leica in all of these ways, many others soon did, for these were its great strengths vis à vis the large format view cameras popular at the time. Thus street photography became popular.

If I was asked to point to an archetypical rangefinder photograph, it would probably be more along the lines of the work of HCB, Robert Frank, Walker Evans, etc. - in other words, street/reportage photos. On the other hand, if I was asked to point to an archetypical view-camera photograph, it would probably be more along the lines of Ansel Adams, Edward Weston and Berenice Abbott - in other words, landscapes, portraits, still life and architecture. As your work proves, wonderful nature photographs *can* be taken with a rangefinder - but usually they are taken with other cameras. This is neither good nor bad, but merely an observation.

If people come to this site looking for information on - and perhaps an introduction to - rangefinder cameras, I think showing them mainly photos of still subjects would be a misrepresentation of the lion's share of photographs taken with rangefinders.

That's all I meant, and please don't take it personally.

 

[Toby]

If people come to this site looking for information on - and perhaps an introduction to - rangefinder cameras, I think showing them mainly photos of still subjects would be a misrepresentation of the lion's share of photographs taken with rangefinders.

I toally agree with this point of view but I think Jorge should select the picture *He* thinks is the best. I have my own strong views on what I use an RF camera for I am also evangelical when it comes to extorting these virtues to others. BUT I would hate it if any part of this site became pre-occupied with second guessing the opinons of others. I might not like a featured photo but I would absolutely defend the right of anyone to make their own independent choice in this regard

 

[back alley]

ok, folks, back into your corners and take a deep breath!
😉

i hope you all realize that this is an argument without end.
almost as bad as digital vs film.

my rf cameras take street photos cause i don't do landscapes.
you rf camera might do differently...

very simple.

now listen to frank and don't get your knickers in a knot.
this is solely jorge's take on what's good in a pic.

i sent him a swack of my choices and have not seen one.
i'm guessing that our tastes are different.
no big whoop.

joe

 

[hoot]

Sure, Jorge's the big cheese, and it's his right to choose any photo that he sees fit. I, for one, never set out to impose my views onto him or anyone else, even if my post(s) may have given a different impression (and if that's the case, I apologize). But let's not see the day when expressing one's honest opinion becomes a taboo, eh? 🙂