Photography Discussion Thread

Exactly what I was referring to, books by photographers showing their techniques and tips rather than books on how to take photos. Both Dan Winters book and Greg Heislers book are just that, collections of images that get their point across. Although, it should be noted that almost half the images in Winters book aren't taken by him but chosen for their merit in communicating his point. Those two books are about the photographers and their journey, their lighting, their subject driven choices than how to shoot the same Image.

The Negative is a great book, no doubt, but I agree, everything else gets lost in today's instant results digital era.

-X
 
Robert Frank - The Americans
Andreas Gursky
William Eggleston
Stephen Shore
Short list of inspirations for me.
 
Composition, I realize many of us know the basics like rule of thirds, luminance balance, diagonals and curves, leading lines etc but I find myself currently having to focus more on one compositional element that pertains to all images and cameras, the frame lines.

Now with a standard SLR your viewfinder covers anywhere from 90% to full coverage of the image frame. This is easy enough because what you see is what you get. Now with rangefinders you have guide marks in the viewfinder that denote what your field of view of your lens is, because you don't look through the lens when shooting. So you are able to see around your image and anticipate objects moving into the frame or just how much you're cutting off with the frame.

I find these cameras to be the toughest to compose with. I have all this extra information to think about and it proves to be a slower, more thoughtful process. Anyone here also use rangefinders or if not what is your thought process for shooting and composing in camera?

I know some people "overshoot" leaving large margins around a scene to allow cropping later, others "shoot from the hip" which relies on focus and angle. I try to do as much work in camera now, I don't have photo shop (well, I do have CS2) and really try to maximize image quality by not altering a captured image or cropping a ton.


Thoughts?


-Xander
 
I pretty much reverse it. The SLR is a tool for careful composition. The rangefinder is a tool for quick reactions - preset scaled focus (when in full daylight), grab and go. I tend to compose very quickly, and very roughly with a rangefinder.
 
Liam, do you think that is a reaction to your profession? I know you use your rangefinder for personal shooting and I can imaging making a change from the pressure of client shots which might require editorial space and other compositional necessities can be a big factor. For me, when shooting the slr in the field I tend to be quick, focus-> compose-> capture. With the RF I find myself double checking the out of frame area to see if I might be missing something.

-X
 
Aye - that certainly could be the case. I also shoot rangefinders with both eyes open, so that leads to pretty quick scanning of the scene (e.g. not just through the viewfinder).
 
Also, does your Sony have an EVF or optical?

I have never used a camera with an EVF, so I don't know if those have guide lines like a traditional RF or if they act like an SLR and display the FOV of the lens.


-Xander
 
When using the Sony, it's a bit more like an SLR, it does have an EVF, and does't show anything "outside the framelines." I can set the mag to be pretty close to 1:1 though, so I can still have both eyes open.
 
Hello Daniel!

Great idea for a thread - here's a little snap of two of my (too many) cameras. Funny how much has changed if you wanted to get out 250 frames of a tele zoom combo then and now... ;)

original.jpg


And some.of my remaining Sigma gear:

original.jpg


Best regards,
Alex
 
Last edited:
Now that's a camera! Digital had changed things a lot. :D

Alex, I'm liking the sig photos. :)

I'm taking knife pics today, let's hope for good lighting!
 
Hello Daniel!

Still enjoying my Backpacker! :)

Well, hauling around a setup like that all day at least helped build some muscle... ;)

original.jpg


Loking forward to the images! I sometimes feel that I have become too dependant on controlled lighting, since I usually find myself shooting with at least three external strobes.

Best regards,
Alex
 
Wow, I haven't seen a F2 with bulk magazine back in a while! Still an amazing camera and a hell of a bargain in today's prices. What adapter did you use for the Nikon 1 to F mount? I've been thinking about getting an adapter.

And by dependant on controlled lighting, you really mean liberated from the shadows of natural lighting :D


-X
 
Hello!

Farchyld - the external hood isn't even slit on yet... ;) It's one of the bulkier lenses for sure (one of my dearest, a quite rare Ais 200-400/4.0 for that matter).

Fast, it's one of my trusty old F3Ps, still one of my favourites after so many years of use (I bought this one right after it came out). I use the original Nikon FT1 adapter, since it is the only one that works flawlessly with chipped lenses (like my 500/4.0 P). This is a nice bonus for me!

While I also spent a lot of time with the F4s, the F3 is the closest to perfect camera for me (that's how used I got to it). Here's one of my F4s bodies that survivded:

original.jpg


And here's another look at the F3P:

original.jpg


I initially got into the Nikon 1 lineup when the V1 was reduced in price, because I wanted to use it's benefits for my spare-time macro shooting (the small sensor really helps max out DOF compared to APS-C and Fullframe bodies, while still offering support for my legacy glass). I ended up with 4 V1 (2 are "permanently" adapted to tele lenses) - it's a fun camera to use and I really like it a lot!

Here's one of my whit V1s with a couple of lenses (the old Ais zoom has the FT1 attached):

original.jpg


Best regards,
Alex
 
Last edited:
Nice, was just thinking about one the other day, spotted it on craigslist. I like my F100 though, not much it can't do compared to the F3 or F4.

I may have to get the FT1 adapter, I'd like to try some other glass on the 1 J1. What's the crop factor for them?


-X
 
Hello!

Fast14riot - the F100 is a great camera as well (and I spent about as much time with an F5 as well, before going digital); I guess I am a sucker for manual film advance (and the rudimentary operation without batteries). :D

The Nikon 1 system (CX format) sports a crop factor of 2,7 (the only thing close is Olympus at 2,0), making it less appealing for the WA lover, but even more so for the tele and macro addicts. I like using my old AFs 300/4.0 with the FT1 (with - capped but still ok -AF) on one of my V1s! Because of the high pixel density of the sensor, using good glass is not a bad idea. Using my old set of Multiphot lenses on the V1 is also quite another experience!

Best regards,
Alex
 
OK, I need to look more into gear! I checked out a lot in TX but need to educate myself more. I'm glad I got a Nikon so I can keep upgrading.
 
Upgrade is a slippery slope my friend. I only consider it for my concentrated efforts if my gear doesn't do what I want it to do easily enough. Don't get caught chasing megapixels, they won't improve your picture. I buy different older cameras because I like them and use them. I am looking to upgrade some lenses currently because I am not getting the quality I want and the apertures I want to use.

If the pictures suck, it's not the cameras fault. Kinda like blaming the stove for a terrible dinner. I'm not saying your images suck, just making an analogy. Consider what Ansel Adams used in the first half of the last century, and his images are still supreme works of art!

If I were you I would be investing In lighting gear. You already have all the camera you need.


-Xander
 
Just ordered some wireless flash triggers and a couple more umbrellas. My neighbors are going to think I'm strange, in the house, in the dark with umbrellas and strange flashes of light plus loud music.

-Xander
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top