Quickest easiest way to focus a rangefinder?

[charlesphoto99]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Been watching videos of Winogrand, Cohen, etc working, and I think part of the issue is that their in your face style was before photography became instant for the entire world to see via people's phones, and therefore not seen as something that is potentially 'weaponized' against them. Photographers themselves were much more lionized in the culture then, in large part because it was much more difficult for most casual users to move beyond the mere snapshot. Now, I'll bet very few can name a contemporary photographer that holds the same clout as Bresson etc, in large part because digital and phones have made making decent, good photographs as easy as it can possibly be, and watered down the medium. 

[jaeger]

Interestingly, I don't use any of these methods to focus rangefinder. 

[hepcat]

12 minutes ago, charlesphoto99 said:

I would say there was a lot more in play than just focus technique to delineate said movements in photography. That's pretty simplified. And perhaps those exact terms are newer, but I'm pretty sure photographers have been discussing the look of the background (whether sharp and in focus, or not) since the beginning. 

Winogrand is the absolute master, imo. I'm sure you must absolutely detest Bruce Gilden then, lol. Winogrand's 'valueless' photographs are in major collections around the world, and are considered a valuable and important insight into sixties and seventies street culture. Yes, he made thousands of useless exposures - that's how real photographers work. I'm currently doing a project towards a possible book and/or show, and it comprises about fifty images out of fifty thousand plus I've shot over the last few years. By constantly editing down to the very best, and then saying, I can go out and do even better, is how the cream rises to the top, so to speak. 

Funny that you don't care for his technique or style, yet encourage others to use that same technique and style. Because it's the situations that Winogrand etc put themselves in that call for the technique of zone focusing the most - not needed when photographing landscapes, the new car or boat, the hotel lobby, or the ever suffering wife across the dinner table being the test subject for her husband's expensive new toys. Maybe the cat or dog...

 

 

You misunderstand my use of the term "technique and style."  I'm referring to the way he focuses and manipulates his camera, not the output on his negatives.  Obviously using zone focus worked for both he and Bresson.  Actually, if you've ever used a Barnack body, you'll find that it's much preferable than trying to use the squinty rangefinder and then framing after switching eye viewing windows. 

I agree that from an archeological/documentary standpoint their photos are significant.  As are Eggleston's and Robert Frank's.  But the way they made photographs were much less obtrusive or offensive than either Winogrand or Gilden.  And no, I don't care for Gilden either... and frankly it amazes me that neither of them were beaten up more often than they were/are on the street.  Both held an obnoxious view that their activities were more important than the dignity of those they photographed.  Not that they don't each have some really good work; they do... but their bodies of work tell a story of a huge ego confronting people in such a way as to provoke an uncomfortable or surprised response.  I find egos like that to be insufferable. 

[hepcat]

47 minutes ago, charlesphoto99 said:

Been watching videos of Winogrand, Cohen, etc working, and I think part of the issue is that their in your face style was before photography became instant for the entire world to see via people's phones, and therefore not seen as something that is potentially 'weaponized' against them. Photographers themselves were much more lionized in the culture then, in large part because it was much more difficult for most casual users to move beyond the mere snapshot. Now, I'll bet very few can name a contemporary photographer that holds the same clout as Bresson etc, in large part because digital and phones have made making decent, good photographs as easy as it can possibly be, and watered down the medium. 

I am from that era.  I agree with you, and that was part of my earlier points;  it pays to look at technique in an historical perspective to understand the "why".   "How" is important, but only in the context of "why."   And to your second point,  markets for really good photography have shrunk as the volume of photographs made has grown exponentially.  And most of that volume is really mediocre at best.  At worst, it's a waste of electrons.    "Spray and Pray" has become a valid MO for "photographers, yet the volume of work they produce is overwhelming particularly as they just do data dumps to public media without any self-editing.  I see photographers doing THOUSANDS of digital images at a wedding now, when the story can be told in about a hundred well-timed, well-selected images without overwhelming the viewer.   I confess that times are changing, and very often  I'm not convinced it's for the better.  The new Sony camera (whatever model it is) is being touted as having a "global shutter" capable of 120 frames per second.  I can hardly wait to see what $300 "wedding photographers" will offer now having that kind of frame rate available. 

[charlesphoto99]

You nail the problem on the head, and one that I always bring up first with younger photographers (I'm 59): editing. At one time, since it was labor intensive to make a good darkroom print, one would carefully choose a handful, if that, from their proof sheets of 36. Now, with digital and the immediate gratification of pressing send to social media, that has been thrown out the window. I don't think there's anything wrong with taking a lot of frames - as long as one is also willing to edit, and be ruthless about it. 

[hepcat]

1 minute ago, charlesphoto99 said:

You nail the problem on the head, and one that I always bring up first with younger photographers (I'm 59): editing. At one time, since it was labor intensive to make a good darkroom print, one would carefully choose a handful, if that, from their proof sheets of 36. Now, with digital and the immediate gratification of pressing send to social media, that has been thrown out the window. I don't think there's anything wrong with taking a lot of frames - as long as one is also willing to edit, and be ruthless about it. 

And therein lies the issue; ruthless editing has become a thing of the past.   With film, you shoot as many images as you need to get the image you want, but you knew what that image should look like, and you chose THAT image to include in the job.  Today, folks fire off exposures hoping to get something instead of knowing exactly what they were looking to capture.   In the old days, I used to describe 6fps motor drive cameras as being able to miss the peak of the action 36 times in six seconds.  We're seeing a LOT more of that... absolutely antithetical to HCB releasing the shutter at "the decisive moment" and getting the shot; the difference between being Bob Jackson or Jack Beers.

[charlesphoto99]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I will say I'm often guilty of overshooting in this digital age, though I have never used a drive mode other than Single (nor anything other than manual exposure). Even if I'm going to shoot a lot in a short amount of time, I want to choose exactly which moments I'm 'spraying' and the exposure as close to how I want the image to look after the fact. The one thing I do advise is not shooting enough and constantly waiting - one reason you see these heavies take so much in order to only get a few keepers, is that it keeps them warmed up and in the zone (like an athlete). But that doesn't mean one has to hoist it all on the world to see. Just pick one or two. 

Probably the luckiest zone focus shot I ever got was this one with an M9 and 18mm. I was shooting with my Monochrom and a longer lens, saw out of the corner of my eye Mike was about to jump, and quickly grabbed the M9 and swooped the camera underneath me and pointed it up. No focusing or viewfinder framing possible. But I also shoot a lot without using the viewfinder, one of the things I love about the M. Since the frames are inaccurate as it is (though from training I typically know where the actual border lies with which lens) one doesn't feel the need to rely on the actual viewfinder in the same way I do with an SLR. 

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!

[charlesphoto99]

Thinking about how I work, I guess in a sense I use zone focusing a lot, I just don't think of it as that. I consider it more pre-focusing, because I often don't use the finder, and prefer wider apertures. Here's an example from 1999, M6 with a 28mm, train to Sapa, Vietnam. I pretty much set the focus while sitting up, then set the camera down on the ledge and then adjusted the focus by the difference of the triangle (if  recall it was pretty much as close as it could), and then waited for him to forget about the camera. No way could I have gotten the shot actually looking through the viewfinder. You often just have to do some basic geometry with your head. I'm often not looking through the viewfinder, but always aware as to where the lens is focused, and constantly peeking at the patch. And follow focusing with small movements of the lens. After awhile, esp if working with only a few lenses, it becomes second nature. Muscle memory. It's lots of quick little movements, almost like watching my son play his video games. 

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!

[hepcat]

21 minutes ago, charlesphoto99 said:

Thinking about how I work, I guess in a sense I use zone focusing a lot, I just don't think of it as that. I consider it more pre-focusing, because I often don't use the finder, and prefer wider apertures. Here's an example from 1999, M6 with a 28mm, train to Sapa, Vietnam. I pretty much set the focus while sitting up, then set the camera down on the ledge and then adjusted the focus by the difference of the triangle (if  recall it was pretty much as close as it could), and then waited for him to forget about the camera. No way could I have gotten the shot actually looking through the viewfinder. You often just have to do some basic geometry with your head. I'm often not looking through the viewfinder, but always aware as to where the lens is focused, and constantly peeking at the patch. And follow focusing with small movements of the lens. After awhile, esp if working with only a few lenses, it becomes second nature. Muscle memory. It's lots of quick little movements, almost like watching my son play his video games. 

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!

A great photo.  And I really like the one you did with your M9 above.  "Pre-focusing" IS "zone focusing," with the knowledge of what your DOF is going to be as a result of your selected f/stop,  and then waiting for the photo to present itself.   Interesting thing about rangefinder cameras... the viewfinders are only an estimate of what you're going to get anyway, so it's a matter of learning your camera's and lens' attributes.   And you have that down... in spades.   And BOTH of these photos prove that, with proper preparation and knowledge you absolutely don't need to constantly play with that rangefinder patch to make superb photos.  Well done!

[LocalHero1953]

The times I deliberately go out to 'do' photography are twofold: walking around the streets with a project in mind, but not with specific shots in mind, and stage/performance photography. In both cases I have realised that I need to start shooting as soon as possible (almost anything, perhaps at random), to get warmed up as someone above put it, and to start energising the eye to see what eventually becomes the clear thematic outcome of the shooting session. Waiting to see the best opportunity before pressing the button is a recipe for getting nothing of value. Once I get warmed up and in the zone, I just see more things, and I know exactly what I'm looking for.

Edited November 10, 2023 by LocalHero1953

[Sandokan]

Suffering from presbyopia with -7 at one end (the furthest I can see clearly is about 15cm) and +1.75 at the other, yes I have spectacles and I get my eyes checked every year, as even if the myopia is now relatively stable (it went from -6 to -7) over 5 years without me realizing (and selling a Nocti lens because if was unfocusable for me), currently my problem is the astigmatism is now changing. 

of my two current varifocal spectacles, one adjusts for infinity and reading a book whilst the other adjusts for reading a computer screen on the desk and a laptop screen set at high resolution in front of me. So today, seeing the eyepatch is not a problem with the infinity adjusted specs. I believe that the optics for the rangefinder patch are set to infinity with a +0.5 diopter. 

One of the pieces of advice I got at the start was "always set the lens to infinity and then you know which way to turn the lens", so this is what I have been doing. But it can be a long throw to get it in focus and then I end up hunting. 

Then another recent piece of advice was "set the lens to the estimated distance and then you will only need a small adjustment to get it in focus". 

Edited November 10, 2023 by Sandokan

[pgk]

On 11/9/2023 at 10:48 PM, Sandokan said:

What tips do you have that I could use to focus faster and more accurately?

It depends on what you are trying to achieve and the subject matter. As a tip I have found that presetting the camera to a known and potentially useful distance for the task at hand is a good starting point especially if the focus direction of the lens has become almost automatic with familiarity. Equally presetting at hyperlocal settings are an extension of this taking the likely to be used aperture into account. Tips for actually using the rangefinder to achieve precise focus are trickier because doing so quickly will depend on subject and your visual acuity. I do find that moving the lens back and forth around the point of focus can be helpful but it can be difficult to do so quickly especially on some subjects.

As has been already said, it is important to be able to accurately focus your eye into the viewfinder, so you need to use whatever aids are needed to help do so (correction lenses, spectacles) too.

[Jeff S]

1 hour ago, Sandokan said:

I believe that the optics for the rangefinder patch are set to infinity with a +0.5 diopter. 

 

There is a minus .5 diopter built in. But I don’t worry about the math part; choosing instead to experiment with trial diopters (with well corrected glasses on) to see what works best for me.
 

Eye conditions vary greatly, as do comfort levels and preferences regarding different viewing practices and adjustments.  Good luck sorting out yours.

Jeff
 

 

Edited November 10, 2023 by Jeff S

[DadDadDaddyo]

Thank goodness someone mentioned continuously variable-focus eyeglass lenses!

My own are made under the trade name Varilux (used to be Dupont, I believe, and now is owned by Essilor). Of the various types I've tried these are far and away the 'smoothest' in the way they dial in correction at different angles of head tilt - the exact opposite of so-called 'no line' bifocals which, despite having no visible line to give them away, nevertheless offer only and exactly two zones of correction. Useless. Varilux lenses works best for me. I specify them and will accept no substitute. 

With my Varilux lenses I simply use the part of the eyeglass lens that gives me the sharpest focus on the rangefinder patch. It's easy if you concentrate on distinguishing fine detail within the patch. I don't even think about it. The camera goes up, I put my eye to it, unconsciously and minutely shift the position if necessary, and I can see the rangefinder patch, and fine detail within it, easily.

These are seventy year-old eyes that have been peering through glasses since about age twelve, and rangefinders since about age thirteen. 

The other HUGE thing I did was to undergo cataract surgery, resulting in the replacement of both of my original lenses (in my eyeballs, that is). The astonishing thing was the one week during which I had the new lens in one eye, but still had the old one in the other eye...and I could compare! The new lens was brilliantly, amazingly, astonishingly, clear! The old one was like looking through a pane of dirty glass smeared with spicy brown mustard, or maybe old parchment; and I had become so accustomed to it I didn't even realize that's what I had been looking through until I could compare!

So, as a public service announcement, if your eye doctor broaches the subject with you of replacing your cataract-stained lenses, embrace the moment! It was the best thing I'd done for my vision in years, and it absolutely improved my ease of use with the rangefinder, especially when combined with Varilux lenses for my glasses, once my eyes were stabilized after the surgery 

But, yeah, zone focus saves time. And for sure, start from infinity and practice doing the focus in one move without hunting. 

[Michael Geschlecht]

Hello Ravi,

For many situations I find horizontal focusing (M3) is fine. Sometimes I focus vertically if that works better. For some scenes you have to try different ways.

In the 1930's, when other methods were not sufficient, it was popular for people to rotate their rangefinder camera 45 degrees clockwise, or counterclockwise, before focusing. And then to focus diagonally.  

You might try lots of ways & see which works best in what situation.

I find that when a subject appears to be in focus: I can "confirm" focus by "wiggling" the camera a little. If the 2 rangefinder images & their edges stay together WHILE the camera is "wiggling": The subject is in focus. If the 2 patch images & their edges move differentially: Things need "tightening up".

And, some rangefinder cameras focus better when focusing in 1 direction first & then "snugging up" the other way. While other cameras of the same model sometimes focus better by starting to focus in the other direction.

And "back & forth" focusing is not a problem with a range/viewfinder camera.

Because the "visual accommodation", which can be a problem for some people who are adjusting focus visually when using a single lens reflex camera: Is not what a person's eye is doing when aligning rangefinder patches.

Please have nothing but happy photos.

Best Regards,

Michael

Edited November 11, 2023 by Michael Geschlecht

[Bikie John]

12 hours ago, LocalHero1953 said:

The times I deliberately go out to 'do' photography are twofold: walking around the streets with a project in mind, but not with specific shots in mind, and stage/performance photography. In both cases I have realised that I need to start shooting as soon as possible (almost anything, perhaps at random), to get warmed up as someone above put it, and to start energising the eye to see what eventually becomes the clear thematic outcome of the shooting session. Waiting to see the best opportunity before pressing the button is a recipe for getting nothing of value. Once I get warmed up and in the zone, I just see more things, and I know exactly what I'm looking for.

A very interesting and enlightening comment, thank you. I think I am the same, but never quite realised it until you laid it out here - now with more awareness I should be able to work on it more constructively.

John

[Danner]

Like the guy in NY City seeking direction to Carnegie Hall, asked a stranger... "How do I get to Carnegie Hall?"  The reply: "Practice."

But, practice with both eyes open, and don't be overly critical for dead-on alignment.  Just twists the focus until it crisps-up, and expose.