Nachkebia
Well-known
8 : I love to see whats happening around while composing, too bad I can not do the same thing with 28mm 🙁
What is Rangefinder Photography to You?
- Thread starter raid
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 47
- Views 3K
VinceC
Veteran
I learned photography on manual SLRs. I switched to RFs as a sort of statement against the constant upgrades of SLRs (which began long before the switch to digital). I like using classic rangefinder cameras because they are fairly small and excellent optics can be made much smaller than on an SLR (I remain unconvinced that RF optics are inherently better than SLR optics ... I've used too many good SLR lenses).
One of the things I like most is that professional RFs are a mature, finite system. They are immune from rapid evolution of features, so that the skills I developed three decades ago remain relevant in my day-to-day photography, and there is very little technology between me the people I'm photographing. There won't be longer, faster lenses. There won't be too many meaningful superwide lenses. There won't be some newer faster zoom or autofocus or Matrix predictive metering. Instead, it's just the photographer, a few lenses and a really fairly small range of shutter speeds and f-stops. Once you get a professional-level RF system and set of good lenses, I think this so-called Gear-Aquisition-Syndrome fades to the background. For example, with my Nikon system, I already have the best lenses and best bodies available. There's nothing I lust. I just go out and use the equipment to take photographs.
For me, the majority of technology improvements over the past quarter-century are aimed at creating devices that mimick human skills.
I will eventually become a digital RF user. I don't think the film is that important and is rather a growing hassle these days. There's nothing inherently film related to rangefinder image capture, and I'm very much in the quest of freezing important moments involving people than in some kind of character of a specific film.
What kind of film did Cartier-Bresson use? Or Eisenstaedt?
One of the things I like most is that professional RFs are a mature, finite system. They are immune from rapid evolution of features, so that the skills I developed three decades ago remain relevant in my day-to-day photography, and there is very little technology between me the people I'm photographing. There won't be longer, faster lenses. There won't be too many meaningful superwide lenses. There won't be some newer faster zoom or autofocus or Matrix predictive metering. Instead, it's just the photographer, a few lenses and a really fairly small range of shutter speeds and f-stops. Once you get a professional-level RF system and set of good lenses, I think this so-called Gear-Aquisition-Syndrome fades to the background. For example, with my Nikon system, I already have the best lenses and best bodies available. There's nothing I lust. I just go out and use the equipment to take photographs.
For me, the majority of technology improvements over the past quarter-century are aimed at creating devices that mimick human skills.
I will eventually become a digital RF user. I don't think the film is that important and is rather a growing hassle these days. There's nothing inherently film related to rangefinder image capture, and I'm very much in the quest of freezing important moments involving people than in some kind of character of a specific film.
What kind of film did Cartier-Bresson use? Or Eisenstaedt?
Nachkebia
Well-known
I don`t understand the pro digital propaganda at all.... 🙂
Documentalism is a different subject, Cartier-Bresson was not a documentalist..
Documentalism is a different subject, Cartier-Bresson was not a documentalist..
--s
Well-known
Of course I perfectly understand your argument, Mr Ywenz.
Still I have the impression to be the head of the process, something very important for me. Any automatic camera would change the situation, giving me the feeling of being the mere servant of a complicated electronic device, even if I don´t even have to choose aperture, time and focus any more.
And I tried the Nikon FM-2, of course, but never became acquainted to. The Leica´s so much more a friendly camera, more than a tool.
Control of the process, that´s important. I also do my own darkroom work, nobody else could make my pictures for me.
What do you mean by "NG" photographers?
Still I have the impression to be the head of the process, something very important for me. Any automatic camera would change the situation, giving me the feeling of being the mere servant of a complicated electronic device, even if I don´t even have to choose aperture, time and focus any more.
And I tried the Nikon FM-2, of course, but never became acquainted to. The Leica´s so much more a friendly camera, more than a tool.
Control of the process, that´s important. I also do my own darkroom work, nobody else could make my pictures for me.
What do you mean by "NG" photographers?
ywenz
Veteran
I never use auto mode on my DSLR. It's either aperture priority or full manual. All the control elements are there so I still don't get the argument of not being in control with a modern SLR.
NG = national geographic. More pricesely, the photographic styles of Mr. David Allen Harvey (during his Leica days)
NG = national geographic. More pricesely, the photographic styles of Mr. David Allen Harvey (during his Leica days)
--s
Well-known
"I don't think the film is that important and is rather a growing hassle these days. There's nothing inherently film related to rangefinder image capture"
Here I think different, Mr VinceC. Looking at the results of digital B/W imitation just makes me laugh. There is no way to create that certain, slightly grainy look, that smooth melting of the tones, with digital equipment. May be "they" succeed in the future, but even then it will be only a surrogate as long as one does his own darkroom work.
Here I think different, Mr VinceC. Looking at the results of digital B/W imitation just makes me laugh. There is no way to create that certain, slightly grainy look, that smooth melting of the tones, with digital equipment. May be "they" succeed in the future, but even then it will be only a surrogate as long as one does his own darkroom work.
Nachkebia
Well-known
IiiiiiinDeeeD!
--s
Well-known
It´s very easy nowadays to turn any discussion in any given photo phorum into the old analogue- digital row. This was not my intention, sorry for it, I just slipped!
Mr Ywenz, so you´re simply no "real" RF shooter. Does it make sense to argue here? I don´t think so, as we are talking of personal likes/dislikes, nothing else. Just stick to what suits you, I stick to mine.
cheers
GB
Mr Ywenz, so you´re simply no "real" RF shooter. Does it make sense to argue here? I don´t think so, as we are talking of personal likes/dislikes, nothing else. Just stick to what suits you, I stick to mine.
cheers
GB
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
Oh, no!, don't tell me your account's been hijacked by That Who Shan't Be Named 😱FrankS said:
VinceC
Veteran
>> Looking at the results of digital B/W imitation just makes me laugh.<<
Yeah. But that's a film vs. digital discussion, not a rangefinder versus other formats discussion. Classic SLR cameras are just as capable of shooting film as any film-based RF camera.
Yeah. But that's a film vs. digital discussion, not a rangefinder versus other formats discussion. Classic SLR cameras are just as capable of shooting film as any film-based RF camera.
Nachkebia
Well-known
VinceC said:
Why did you bring digital to the topic? there are alot DSLR`s too....
VinceC
Veteran
>>Why did you bring digital to the topic?<<
Because I was responding to Raid's origiinal questions, which started this thread:
"Why do you do rangefinder photography?"
"Do you also do digital photography at the same level?"
"Can you see yourself using a camera like the M8 [if you could get one] ?"
Because I was responding to Raid's origiinal questions, which started this thread:
"Why do you do rangefinder photography?"
"Do you also do digital photography at the same level?"
"Can you see yourself using a camera like the M8 [if you could get one] ?"
oftheherd
Veteran
dkirchge said:
Peter Klein said:
For me it is indeed more like dkirchge said. I can and do enjoy using different tools. Rangefinders are a tool for photography. I didn't originally get into rangefinders because they looked inherently better for some reason. I wanted a MF camera and a person I knew sold me on a Super Press 23. When I got it, it was a rangefinder and that was OK.
What Peter said has merit for me too. But in SLRs I never progressed beyond aperture preferred. I chose the aperture and let the shutter fall where it would, or chose the aperture to get the speed I wanted. It was nice having control over the process, incuding putting the focus just where I wanted it.
I have nothing against progress and auto-everything. I use it in my P&S digital and don't think about it unless I know I need to switch to manual for some reason, then I do. Rangerfinders are just one part of the photographic process that is available to me. I can and do use TLRs, folders, SLRs and rangefinders. When all I had was SLRs I learned to do everything I needed to use them. I could use fast lenses, focus in very low light, lock up the mirror with my Yashica TL Super (with a tripod) or not (the Fujica ST 901 had extra dampening for the mirror.
Hope I don't hurt anyone's sensitivities. I recognize what everyone says they like about RF. Some things may indeed be easier. But I haven't nor do I intend to abandon other types of photography to only do RF.
Why do I stay here? Well, I just like the folk who are here; their demeanor and commitment to photography. For all the talk about RF (and why not, it is the RF forum), photography still reigns here. I like that. And although I have been involved in photography for a while, I still manage to learn from folks here and/or get new insights. What's not to like.
Cheers.
Last edited:
--s
Well-known
Vince, I admit that the M8 is the first digital camera I could imagine to have. But since I don´t shoot color there´s just no need for me.....
As far as color is concerned, I agree, I also would choose the d- way.
As far as color is concerned, I agree, I also would choose the d- way.
back alley
IMAGES
i shoot rangefinders for the same reason i drive a car with a stick.
VinceC
Veteran
>>i shoot rangefinders for the same reason i drive a car with a stick.<<
That really sums it up!
That really sums it up!
anselwannab
Well-known
To me it is the ability to take an unsurpassed photography set up in my coat pocket, any where I want to go, with a minimum of interference between me and the image.
dmr
Registered Abuser
VinceC said:
Oh, no no no no no.
Film makes all the difference in the world.
Changing film can change the entire personality of the camera.
Fuji Superia 400, W/A 200, Kodachrome 64, all so different! Each behaves a different way, but each is inherently useful.
This is really my primary deterrent from going digital. I'm stuck with the same "film" for the life of the camera.
Uh, real film? I think I'm very sure of this. 🙂 Adams and Weegee too. 🙂
jan normandale
Film is the other way
Why? Because I can buy them cheaper than almost any other style of camera. Especially the fixed lens ones.
flashover
John K
back alley said:
you never learned to drive an automatic.........right Joe
