Composing with a rangefinder

[lars_bergquist]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Yes, you must make the distinction between 'external parallax' in the plane of focus, which is compensated for in the M finder, and the image's 'internal parallax' (an expression I have lifted from photogrammetry) which is about the spatial relations beween different components of the subject.

 

A SLR finder has its specific advantages as long as it is 100%, and its distinct disadvantages. Same with a combined rangefinder like that of the M. Since the 1940's I have used about all the kinds of finders there are and my present choice is the M. But make no mistake about it, M and SLR do not stand just for different technical solutions to the same problem, they stand for entirely different ways of seeing, thinking, and making pictures.

 

With the M, I am mainly concerned with the balancing of the subject and its component parts (I cannot express that any clearer) and less with the edges of the image. I would like to draw the attention to Sean Reid's excellent discussion in Seeing the picture at his very interesting site Welcome to ReidReviews

which is a pay one, but worth every cent or penny or whatever.

 

The old man from the Kodachrome Age

[Paul J]

Personally I don't see the difference in results composing with the my M, which I've only had a couple months.

 

I see the frame lines, I see my composition. I also have the bonus of seeing outside the frame. I've found framing within these frame lines really quite accurate except for times when parallax becomes an issue but it's not that often. I don't find my self cropping anymore, intact I would say the opposite. And because I see so much more in the finder my shots are more considered. Also one of the major benefits is no viewfinder blackout at the most critical time. Anything else seems backwards to me now.

 

The only surprises I occasionally had is where the lens is blocking the finder. But in a short time I've got around this and it's not really a problem any more. I don't even really notice the lens anymore.

[jaapv]

It comes down to how you "see" a photograph. If you previsualize and then raise the camera to your eye to take a shot that is already there, a rangefinder is ideal. If you prefer to look through the camera at the image-showing screen and create your photograph that way, you are more of an SLR person.

[Paul J]

I would imagine most photographers pre visualise. I would even bet that those who say they don't, subconsciously are doing it but in a different pattern.

 

The act of it is not so straight forward though. I always know the shot I want but there is only so much you can predict in a moment. Sometimes it's there straight away, sometimes there are adjustments to be made, sometimes you need to wait and interpret what's happening. I've found when there is a need for adjustments that the M is very accurate.

[jaapv]

To a certain extent yes, but it is a matter of different emphasis.

[Jeff S]

The 'window' is arguably quicker than the 'screen' and suits some styles of photography more than others. Nevertheless, no matter which method is used, it needs practice and experience for the photographer to 'see' how the 3-dimensional scene will be translated into a 2-dimensional image. In fact, this problem has exercised artists through the ages.

 

Indeed. I like to recommend this book to help one compose in two dimensions. While it's about drawing, the relevance for photography is significant. The exercises pertaining to inverting the scene, for instance, will ring true with large format photographers.

 

My large format experience, and this book, proved useful in my early years using a RF.

 

Jeff

[frogfish]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Thank you everyone,

 

heiko

[BAASCH]

[...]

Take a look at an essay by quintessential "Leica" photographer Susan Meiselas, and you'll see the edges of the pictures are often "accidental." USA. NEW YORK. 1976-1979. Prince Street Girls

 

 

Fixed the link. It's a wonderful series, by the way. 

Edited April 30, 2018 by Mandemaker

[Jeff S]

Fixed the link. It's a wonderful series, by the way.

Six years later, but yes, a good series.

 

Jeff

[abrewer]

I don't pay any attention to the frame lines because I use the 35 and 28 lenses often enough that I know what is in and what is out from about five feet without them.

 

And I compose the shot as I walk up to it, sizing up the lines or shapes or people or angles that I want to emphasize before I stop to shoot . . . raise, focus, on occasion rotate to portrait, snap! and wind-on.

[pico]

One of my two personally known heroes is a retired 70 year-old National Graphic photographer who used film Leica Ms and had 20/20 vision. Gosh, life is so unfair! Thank goodness for the rare, dedicated, energetic. Those people exist for us.

 

The other is a left-eyed man with three Pulitzers and he is totally brand agnostic.

 

I sleep well knowing their lives were a success.

[Herr Barnack]

@Heiko,

 

When shooting with a 50mm up close to your subject, you have some room for error; with a 35mm lens, not so much and even less with a 28mm, as the frame lines are right up against the edges of the viewfinder to begin with.  You are correct that up close with a wide angle lens, the lines in the viewfinder are not exact.  That is the nature of a rangefinder camera so we have to find a way to address this. 

 

I have found that allowing a bit of breathing space between your subject and the framing lines in the viewfinder helps.  If you allow a bit of a buffer zone around your subject and the frame lines - say, 10-12% or so - you will not be inadvertently cutting off part of your subject. 

 

You will need to experiment to find the optimum amount of breathing space for a given lens, as it is not precisely quantifiable and individual taste in composition will vary form person to person.  Give this method a try and see how it works out.

 

 

 

Here are some links that may provide some useful information:

 

 

And:   https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/165415-viewfinder-accuracy/

Edited May 16, 2018 by Herr Barnack

[catacore]

Well, looking for the "framing using the rangefinder" topic I have landed here, so here I am resurreting an 11 (or 5) years old thread.

After spending just 3 months with my M240, I have to admit that the rangefinder might not be for me. I was in for the "rangefinder experience", then got my frustrations while discovering its limitations.

But when I read here suggestions like "frame loosely, then crop in post-processing", I just feel something is plain wrong. Like ' use this "made in Germany" precision instrument to get aproximate pictures'. And, besides framing, there is also error in "aligning" objects/subjects depth-wise into the frame. Not to mention (camera specific/no rangefinder related) exposure errors, white balance errors, camera freezing. Oh my....looks like I have not done my homeworks before plunging into this system....

Still can't comprehend such sayings like: the M-system is the shortest way from "seeing" a picture to "capturing" it. When one has to compensate for this and aproximate for that...

Even more funny is that, with a rangefinder, "one can sees what's around the frame (a.k.a. outside the framelines)" - but still can't be sure what exactly will capture on the sensor, because the framelines give just a framing approximation.

Ok, sorry for my blah-blah, this was just me expressing my frustrations, hope nobody got hurt in the process 😆 

 

[newtoleica]

41 minutes ago, catacore said:

Well, looking for the "framing using the rangefinder" topic I have landed here, so here I am resurreting an 11 (or 5) years old thread.

After spending just 3 months with my M240, I have to admit that the rangefinder might not be for me. I was in for the "rangefinder experience", then got my frustrations while discovering its limitations.

But when I read here suggestions like "frame loosely, then crop in post-processing", I just feel something is plain wrong. Like ' use this "made in Germany" precision instrument to get aproximate pictures'. And, besides framing, there is also error in "aligning" objects/subjects depth-wise into the frame. Not to mention (camera specific/no rangefinder related) exposure errors, white balance errors, camera freezing. Oh my....looks like I have not done my homeworks before plunging into this system....

Still can't comprehend such sayings like: the M-system is the shortest way from "seeing" a picture to "capturing" it. When one has to compensate for this and aproximate for that...

Even more funny is that, with a rangefinder, "one can sees what's around the frame (a.k.a. outside the framelines)" - but still can't be sure what exactly will capture on the sensor, because the framelines give just a framing approximation.

Ok, sorry for my blah-blah, this was just me expressing my frustrations, hope nobody got hurt in the process 😆 

 

You sound frustrated indeed..... I won't try and dissuade you as you've had 3 months with it. It either suits you or it doesn't. I do street photography and almost all my images are 'approximate' I even shoot the 24 guessing what's outside the viewfinder so it's not an issue for me LOL.... As for exposure errors, white balance errors, camera freezing.. take what you read with a pinch of salt, and yes apart from the M11 the exposure system is a centre spot / centre weighted hybrid. Many people have been shooting that type of metering for 50+ years and it's instinctive how to use it properly. The M tends to appeal to those who like a certain pace and control with their photography. 

[Jeff S]

2 hours ago, catacore said:

Well, looking for the "framing using the rangefinder" topic I have landed here, so here I am resurreting an 11 (or 5) years old thread.

After spending just 3 months with my M240, I have to admit that the rangefinder might not be for me. I was in for the "rangefinder experience", then got my frustrations while discovering its limitations.

But when I read here suggestions like "frame loosely, then crop in post-processing", I just feel something is plain wrong. Like ' use this "made in Germany" precision instrument to get aproximate pictures'. And, besides framing, there is also error in "aligning" objects/subjects depth-wise into the frame. Not to mention (camera specific/no rangefinder related) exposure errors, white balance errors, camera freezing. Oh my....looks like I have not done my homeworks before plunging into this system....

Still can't comprehend such sayings like: the M-system is the shortest way from "seeing" a picture to "capturing" it. When one has to compensate for this and aproximate for that...

Even more funny is that, with a rangefinder, "one can sees what's around the frame (a.k.a. outside the framelines)" - but still can't be sure what exactly will capture on the sensor, because the framelines give just a framing approximation.

Ok, sorry for my blah-blah, this was just me expressing my frustrations, hope nobody got hurt in the process 😆 

 

Some bond with the RF experience; some don’t.  Simple as that.  I did, immediately, over 35 years ago. But one person’s poison is another’s joy.  It‘s just a camera; many choices.

Jeff

[250swb]

12 hours ago, catacore said:

Well, looking for the "framing using the rangefinder" topic I have landed here, so here I am resurreting an 11 (or 5) years old thread.

After spending just 3 months with my M240, I have to admit that the rangefinder might not be for me. I was in for the "rangefinder experience", then got my frustrations while discovering its limitations.

But when I read here suggestions like "frame loosely, then crop in post-processing", I just feel something is plain wrong. Like ' use this "made in Germany" precision instrument to get aproximate pictures'. And, besides framing, there is also error in "aligning" objects/subjects depth-wise into the frame. Not to mention (camera specific/no rangefinder related) exposure errors, white balance errors, camera freezing. Oh my....looks like I have not done my homeworks before plunging into this system....

Still can't comprehend such sayings like: the M-system is the shortest way from "seeing" a picture to "capturing" it. When one has to compensate for this and aproximate for that...

Even more funny is that, with a rangefinder, "one can sees what's around the frame (a.k.a. outside the framelines)" - but still can't be sure what exactly will capture on the sensor, because the framelines give just a framing approximation.

Ok, sorry for my blah-blah, this was just me expressing my frustrations, hope nobody got hurt in the process 😆 

 

There is a degree of emotional intelligence required to use a Leica rangefinder camera, and understanding that what you give up on the one hand you gain on the other. It's not a case of having everything in one camera by any means, but then the reason there are different types of camera is because there are different types of photographers using their cameras in different situations. So it's kind of absurd to whine about the accuracy of the M240's viewfinder as if you should be able to closely frame and photograph a fast bird in flight with any sense of modern sophistication, but then miss the point that a tunnel vision DSLR only allows you to see what's in the frame and not what's coming into frame with fast moving street scenes. So each type of camera can record fast moving action but you need to know your subject and accept you trade a bit of accuracy for having a bit more 'outside knowledge' of what's going on around you.

But if the edges of the frame are so important to the power of your images maybe a rangefinder is the wrong choice, and the point you make is true in practice, most of the great photographs made with rangefinder cameras have the main point of interest somewhere comfortably within the frame and not arranged around the edge, but I'm scratching my head and thinking this is possibly also true for SLR's and DSLR's as well. But you could try an EVF for your M240, that model of EVF isn't great but you do get the tunnel experience, or try a Nikon instead.

[pgk]

14 hours ago, catacore said:

But when I read here suggestions like "frame loosely, then crop in post-processing", I just feel something is plain wrong.

With much use and experience there is no need to approximate like this. I find that I frame quite accurately these days (caveat: I bought my first Leica M over 40 years ago and before that I had used my father's IIIB). But no, RF photography is not for everyone, so at some point you have to decide whether the experience of using a rangefinder is positive for your photography or not. It will most likely depend on both yourself and the type of photography you undertake. Tricky decision.

[catacore]

17 hours ago, newtoleica said:

You sound frustrated indeed..... I won't try and dissuade you as you've had 3 months with it. It either suits you or it doesn't. I do street photography and almost all my images are 'approximate' I even shoot the 24 guessing what's outside the viewfinder so it's not an issue for me LOL.... As for exposure errors, white balance errors, camera freezing.. take what you read with a pinch of salt, and yes apart from the M11 the exposure system is a centre spot / centre weighted hybrid. Many people have been shooting that type of metering for 50+ years and it's instinctive how to use it properly. The M tends to appeal to those who like a certain pace and control with their photography. 

Well, I came to Leica because I have a slow pace when photographing, so I am in no hurry. And I do like to have control of my pictures, including framing, exposure, and so on. When using my M240 I always NEED to check the screen (chimping, as it is called), because I am never sure what I got. Sometimes I try to get a specific objects/subjects sequence depth-wise within my frame and, after 5-6-7 attempts I simply give up because there is always something that is not the way I framed it through the OVF (the way I intend it to be). I simply loose my patience after trying different side adjustments (trying to compensate for that parallax error) while still not getting what I want. I was hoping to simplify my photographic process and now I am simply amazed how one could called this simplification when one needs to employ so many "workarounds" to, eventually, get what he/she wants in the picture.

One of my goals, over the years, was to improve my framing, so I ended up "looking into the corners" of my composition to make sure I framed only what is needed for my picture, and now I found out that I need to frame loosely (as part of my simplified photographic process) - blimey!

As for the exposure errors, WB errors, camera freeze - I have experienced those wih my M240. I had to swap my 128GB SD card for a smaller size in order to get rid of the freezing issue. I took, sometimes, 2-3 pictures in a sequence of the same subject matter from the same position and I got 2 different tint/coloured pictures (WB wrong). Same for the exposure. Another annoying thing about exposure is that, while I always keep my ISO to Auto-ISO, I find many times my pictures being blown (overexposed), then while checking the exposure parameters I find the ISO being "stuck" at, say, ISO 2000. Still not sure why this happens, I suspect that must be the last ("Auto-")ISO used before me switching off the camera (say, for switching lenses). Otherwise I don't get why I have the ISO set to a value while it should be on "Auto".

The bottom line is that, for me, this is not "simplifying" the photographic process, but quite the oppozite. At least I am glad I did not go for the more expensive models, as I was tempted to...For now I will still use my M240 and try even harder to like it/get used to it, but I'll keep my A7c at hand while watching for its succesor.

Funny thing is that I was most concerned about me being able to manual focus using the rangefinder, but this part is the best part for me, I got used to use the focusing patch and I am very quick at nailing focus. Much better than expected, really.

I realize this camera type is not for everyone, my grippe with this system is that I can't understand how one could call this "the shortest way from intent to realization". Or "simplification of the photographic process". This is what I was hoping for, actually, when I got here coming from Sony mirrorless. Then m43 mirrorless before Sony. Then Nikon DSLR before m43.

[pop]

42 minutes ago, catacore said:

And I do like to have control of my pictures, including framing

The optical viewfinder only shows approximately what the lens of the camera sees.

The framelines for a given focal length do not change, but the field of view of the lens does. It's wider at infinity and narrower at close distances. The framelines may or may not fit the field of view, anyway, because the focal length of the lens may or may not be exactly as engraved on the barrel.

Objects may appear perfectly aligned in the view finder. In that case, they almost certainly will not be aligned in the image, because the optical axis of the finder does not coincide with that of the lens.

I think that there used to be photographers who managed to frame their shots with great accuracy, but not due to the precision of the camera but on account of long experience. For most photographers using that kind of camera that simply is not much of an issue.

If the way you take photographs requires that much precision, any camera where you do not frame through the lens is going to more a hindrance than a help. Large format cameras, single reflex cameras or mirrorless ones will be ok, twin reflex cameras or rangefinder cameras will not do.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[catacore]

Well, I don't want to sound like I am a "precision photographer" 😅, it's not about much or ultimate precision. Just as an example: I wanted to photograph a white blossom against a dark branch of the tree, where the branch was, say, 3x wider than the flower. After about 5-6 pictures (click-chimp-readjust my position, click-chimp-readjust again my position, etc.) I gave up.

Would I have thought to add something (blurred, of course) in the foreground (between me and the blossom) to "enhance" the image - I could just forget about this idea, as there is no way I could possible hope to align all those things together...

So, really, nothing sophisticated or very demanding, or very precise (like copying art, or such things) - just put one simple idea in practice. Ended up in frustration.

Nevertheless, I would stop here. It's not about if the system is or is not for me, I was trying to make a point about M-system not being simple and straightforward in my own experience.

So, for me, the very point this system claims to be is not. At least this observation (my own experience) might help other newcomers to the M-system to have the second though before commiting. (Yes, I do have the EVF, but I thought of using it only for my 25mm Zeiss Biogon - otherwise, what's the point of the Messsucher).

Edited March 27, 2023 by catacore