Pophoto Posted December 31, 2009 Author Share #41 Posted December 31, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) Make sure your rangefinder windows are clean. I'm not kidding! I often find when I'm strugglng a bit with the focus a quick wipe of all the windows makes a big difference. Oh no, I'm a very clean person...really, I am! Seriously though, this isn't my problem, but thanks for the heads up! Should I start a thread: M9: How hygiene affects your focus. My problem is say I am at a fruit stall and I want to focus on a bunch of grapes, the image feels small and confusing. So what do I do, I might focus on the oranges next to the grapes which are larger. I know this issue may seem trivial, and maybe given time, it'll no longer be my issue. Are any of you relating to this? I might even be focusing on a plate of spaghetti pasta, just as an example. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted December 31, 2009 Posted December 31, 2009 Hi Pophoto, Take a look here How to be stealth with your M9?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Pophoto Posted December 31, 2009 Author Share #42 Posted December 31, 2009 Oliver has the right idea. Evidently no one on this thread is familiar with the street shooter's motto: "f/8 and be there." I don't care how fast you are at focusing with a rangefinder, there are shots -- sometimes the best ones -- where you simply don't have time to focus. That's when zone focus saves you. Thanks Russ and Oliver. I am grasping more of this idea or mentality of shooting. It also seems best suited to shooting wides, how about normals say a 50, same idea or more fussing. However, having said that, the images seems larger and hence quicker for me to focus, and less of a problem for me here. On the 90, I ran into trouble earlier on thinking it was the lens and not me (typical ), especially when i didn't note the shutter speed, say 1/15 or lower, even 1/30 can be a struggle if I'm not composed in breathing! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bo_Lorentzen Posted December 31, 2009 Share #43 Posted December 31, 2009 Those grapes - forget the edges for a moment and instead focus gently until the center image "clears" all those little edges are hard to figure out, but the double image kind of clears when its right. Spaghetti, the real issue is false positives, that one piece matches with another. focus on the edge of the plate instead. . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pophoto Posted December 31, 2009 Author Share #44 Posted December 31, 2009 @Bo, nice to hear from you again. You know that's what I do, I'm just wondering if there was something you guys did differently The other thing is a very very slight axis shift in image, I don't know if this makes any sense to you, say a complete vertical edge of the carpet now has 3-5 degree shift, what does this mean? Largly, I can still focus, it's just an observation, and why does this happen? I know I know, too many questions... but hey, you guys know the answers! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RSL Posted December 31, 2009 Share #45 Posted December 31, 2009 Thanks Russ and Oliver. I am grasping more of this idea or mentality of shooting. It also seems best suited to shooting wides, how about normals say a 50, same idea or more fussing. However, having said that, the images seems larger and hence quicker for me to focus, and less of a problem for me here. On the 90, I ran into trouble earlier on thinking it was the lens and not me (typical ), especially when i didn't note the shutter speed, say 1/15 or lower, even 1/30 can be a struggle if I'm not composed in breathing! The vast majority of Cartier-Bresson's work was done with a 50mm lens, though in the U.S. he sometimes switched to a 35. As Oliver pointed out, zone focus works best with a short lens, and as Jaap explained, the smaller the hole the greater the depth of field, so f/8 on a short lens is going to give you more depth than the same aperture on a long lens. If you study HCB's work you'll notice that there were plenty of times when he missed the ideal Oliver mentioned, where your subject is exactly in focus and everything else is a bit out. But, at least as far as I'm concerned, the subject matter and composition more than made up for that problem. As someone else pointed out, practice, practice, practice. I'd add to that, look, and look, and look, and learn the situations where zone focus is the right approach. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bo_Lorentzen Posted December 31, 2009 Share #46 Posted December 31, 2009 There probably is not a axis shift. BUT it seems like it, the thing is, the only time there is not shift in the rangefinder image, is if you are square on a straight line. Look at a line on a piece of paper laying flat, you will see that the line in the rangefinder looks like two which crosses at the point of focus. the more you stand up the paper with the line, the more you will reduce the axis rotation effect. at some point it will dissapear, until the paper is leaned further forward to invert the effect. In practical use there is almost never a straight line perfectly parallel to the filmplane.. so it will always seem like there is some axis rotation. . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
theendlesshouse Posted December 31, 2009 Share #47 Posted December 31, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) Winogrand used to shrug his shoulders or rub the camera on his cheek, the shoulders...ok, but taking a photo and rubbing the camera on your face immediately afterwards, strange! Worked for him though! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlesphoto99 Posted December 31, 2009 Share #48 Posted December 31, 2009 Oh no, I'm a very clean person...really, I am! Seriously though, this isn't my problem, but thanks for the heads up! Should I start a thread: M9: How hygiene affects your focus. My problem is say I am at a fruit stall and I want to focus on a bunch of grapes, the image feels small and confusing. So what do I do, I might focus on the oranges next to the grapes which are larger. I know this issue may seem trivial, and maybe given time, it'll no longer be my issue. Are any of you relating to this? I might even be focusing on a plate of spaghetti pasta, just as an example. Well, thankfully those grapes won't be moving very fast, so you have plenty of time to find the right plane of focus. And for the record I wasn't commenting on yours or anyone else's hygiene. But the little window next to the M9 logo easily gets fingerprints on it and it will affect the clarity of the rf patch. Seriously though, I find the need for tack sharp focus to not be as much of an issue with the M9 as it was with the M8. Maybe it's because the files seem more film like to me, with extra dynamic range etc etc. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lars_bergquist Posted December 31, 2009 Share #49 Posted December 31, 2009 People who had a chance to actually see Henri Cartier-Bresson's contact sheets said that very few frames were both sharp and correctly exposed. But those that were, were HCB pictures, and there were enough of them to make him famous. This is not an endorsement of wild, random shooting. It is an endorsement of wild, intelligent shooting. The old man from the Age of the 3.5cm Elmar Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
frc Posted December 31, 2009 Share #50 Posted December 31, 2009 If officially Leica, they left something out. Same old point of focus again. Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/108029-how-to-be-stealth-with-your-m9/?do=findComment&comment=1169740'>More sharing options...
wattsy Posted December 31, 2009 Share #51 Posted December 31, 2009 said that very few frames were both sharp and correctly exposed. But those that were, were HCB pictures, and there were enough of them to make him famous. I suppose if an old chestnut gets repeated often enough, some people will believe it. Maybe if you had shot more film Lars, you could have been HCB? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted January 1, 2010 Share #52 Posted January 1, 2010 People who had a chance to actually see Henri Cartier-Bresson's contact sheets said that very few frames were both sharp and correctly exposed. But those that were, were HCB pictures, and there were enough of them to make him famous. This is not an endorsement of wild, random shooting. It is an endorsement of wild, intelligent shooting. The old man from the Age of the 3.5cm Elmar Robert Frank is another great one whose photos weren't always sharp, and some of his best ones, i.e., ones he chose to print or publish, weren't the sharpest or the best exposed. The expanded hardback book that accompanies his exhibit on The Americans, Looking In, includes all of his contact sheets from which he edited The Americans. Fascinating stuff. Yes, I'm afraid it is the photographer. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bo_Lorentzen Posted January 1, 2010 Share #53 Posted January 1, 2010 Oh yes, the big expanded book from the Americans exhibition is a very good read, I particularly enjoyed the contact sheet section. . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gpleica Posted January 2, 2010 Share #54 Posted January 2, 2010 Robert Frank is another great one whose photos weren't always sharp, and some of his best ones, i.e., ones he chose to print or publish, weren't the sharpest or the best exposed. The expanded hardback book that accompanies his exhibit on The Americans, Looking In, includes all of his contact sheets from which he edited The Americans. Fascinating stuff. Yes, I'm afraid it is the photographer. Jeff I, too, bought this book after seeing the exhibit three times and hearing Robert Frank at the Met (in an interview setting)...the exhibit was incredible, the best print of each photograph in existence, and a slew of workprints on one wall. In the exhibit, and in the book, the contact sheets are what interest me most as you really get a sense of how he shot and what he was after, what worked, what didn't, and even how he passed up some pretty incredible negatives for something else. He had a vision of what he was creating, this book, and he executed it well. If anyone would like a transcript (of sorts) of the interview, just help me figure out how to post a .doc or pdf on this forum. I took pretty good notes. To relate this to the topic, focusing, Robert said that in many situations he never brought the camera to his eye, that he took pictures from waste level because, he said it could be dangerous work back then, people were suspicious of communists, spies, foreigners...and people taking pictures were not such a common sight as it is now. The picture of the cowboys in the bar in Butte, MT is a good example of this technique. And the tilted, off kilter, out of focus, in motion, grainy quality of this shot is what makes it so interesting. If it had been tack sharp and taken from eye level, it would probably just look like a picture from a Time/Life photo essay on cowboys in the West....trivial. So as Jeff said, sharpness isn't everything. Geoffrey Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gpleica Posted January 2, 2010 Share #55 Posted January 2, 2010 I, too, bought this book after seeing the exhibit three times and hearing Robert Frank at the Met (in an interview setting)...the exhibit was incredible, the best print of each photograph in existence, and a slew of workprints on one wall. In the exhibit, and in the book, the contact sheets are what interest me most as you really get a sense of how he shot and what he was after, what worked, what didn't, and even how he passed up some pretty incredible negatives for something else. He had a vision of what he was creating, this book, and he executed it well. If anyone would like a transcript (of sorts) of the interview, just help me figure out how to post a .doc or pdf on this forum. I took pretty good notes. To relate this to the topic, focusing, Robert said that in many situations he never brought the camera to his eye, that he took pictures from waste level because, he said it could be dangerous work back then, people were suspicious of communists, spies, foreigners...and people taking pictures were not such a common sight as it is now. The picture of the cowboys in the bar in Butte, MT is a good example of this technique. And the tilted, off kilter, out of focus, in motion, grainy quality of this shot is what makes it so interesting. If it had been tack sharp and taken from eye level, it would probably just look like a picture from a Time/Life photo essay on cowboys in the West....trivial. So as Jeff said, sharpness isn't everything. Geoffrey I meant "waist" level, not "waste" level Geoffrey Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KM-25 Posted January 2, 2010 Share #56 Posted January 2, 2010 While I have grown to not mind other people spotting me or being that little bit obvious pointing a heavy N lens in my targets direction Did you just refer to people as "Targets"...?....wow. I guess I don't really do street photography then, I make candid photos of people and then give them a business card to let them know I took their picture. It does wonders for public relations and the perceptions of photographers in public places. I don't think there is such as thing as "stealth" anymore, at least in terms of holding a camera up to your face. As soon as you put that object up to your face, you are recognized as such, things are different in the world now, it is a statement of body language. It's the new language of "Devices" and their locations on our persona at any given time. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted January 2, 2010 Share #57 Posted January 2, 2010 I, too, bought this book after seeing the exhibit three times and hearing Robert Frank at the Met (in an interview setting)...the exhibit was incredible, the best print of each photograph in existence, and a slew of workprints on one wall. In the exhibit, and in the book, the contact sheets are what interest me most as you really get a sense of how he shot and what he was after, what worked, what didn't, and even how he passed up some pretty incredible negatives for something else. He had a vision of what he was creating, this book, and he executed it well. If anyone would like a transcript (of sorts) of the interview, just help me figure out how to post a .doc or pdf on this forum. I took pretty good notes. To relate this to the topic, focusing, Robert said that in many situations he never brought the camera to his eye, that he took pictures from waste level because, he said it could be dangerous work back then, people were suspicious of communists, spies, foreigners...and people taking pictures were not such a common sight as it is now. The picture of the cowboys in the bar in Butte, MT is a good example of this technique. And the tilted, off kilter, out of focus, in motion, grainy quality of this shot is what makes it so interesting. If it had been tack sharp and taken from eye level, it would probably just look like a picture from a Time/Life photo essay on cowboys in the West....trivial. So as Jeff said, sharpness isn't everything. Geoffrey I attended his interview with Sarah Greenough at the National Gallery Gallery of Art in DC, in conjunction with the exhibit. I haven't checked recently, but there may still be a link to the discussion on the Gallery website. Nice guy, besides a wonderful photographer. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KM-25 Posted January 2, 2010 Share #58 Posted January 2, 2010 Mindset is important. If you do not feel offensive, you won't look or act offensive, and people won't feel offended. In fact, they won't notice you much. This is my approach to candid people photography, if I feel out of sorts or not in my groove, I simply don't even try it as the great unspoken energy you put off has a bigger effect than many realize. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nhabedi Posted January 2, 2010 Share #59 Posted January 2, 2010 If anyone would like a transcript (of sorts) of the interview, just help me figure out how to post a .doc or pdf on this forum. I took pretty good notes. Yes, please, that would be very nice! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nhabedi Posted January 2, 2010 Share #60 Posted January 2, 2010 the contact sheets are what interest me most as you really get a sense of how he shot and what he was after, what worked, what didn't, and even how he passed up some pretty incredible negatives for something else Couldn't agree more. I started a thread about books with contact sheets recently, and this book definitely is the gold standard if you want to see how a famous photographer worked. It would be wonderful to have similar books from some other luminaries, but for this you probably have to wait until the photographer is either dead or very old. And I can totally understand if a photographer, no matter how famous and successful, doesn't want to show his/her contacts. You see all the errors, the wrong decisions. They'll probably fear that it might hurt their reputation. With Frank it certainly helped that he detached himself from "The Americans" pretty early and did a lot of very different things afterwards. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.