icuneko Posted November 22, 2004 Share Posted November 22, 2004 Recently the phrase "rangefinder style" has been bandied about bothserioulsy and otherwise. Does anyone have a fitting definition? I'veseen lots of images that could have been identically produced withboth RFs and SLRs. For example, I once naively thought S. Salgadoexclusively used RFs, and then found out that in fact he also usesSLRs. Thus, the phrase rangfinder style remains elusive if not bogus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul t Posted November 22, 2004 Share Posted November 22, 2004 If Robert Capa is to be believed, how about 'slightly out of focus"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
h._p. Posted November 22, 2004 Share Posted November 22, 2004 bogus sounds harsh but accurate to me. :-))) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob F. Posted November 22, 2004 Share Posted November 22, 2004 I'd say it must refer to the "decisive moment" or "snapshot" photo for which rangefinder cameras are well suited; without implying that such a photo can only be taken with a rangefinder camera. At the same time, I think it ought not to be used to suggest that we can't do more studied photos with a rangefinder camera. There are many well composed Leica M scenic shots in Brian Bower's books, as there are in Walther Benser's book "Color Magic" that could hardly have been done better with an SLR. So I think that when used in the best way, "rangefinder style" does not mean that one is limited by the type of camera is use. Rather, it means to me that the direct vision of the Leica viewfinder puts us in direct contact with the subject. The connection with the subject becomes more intimate and the exact moment to click the shutter is easier to determine. One might also say that the direct viewfinder leads to a reality-based photo, while the SLR is conducive to abstraction. That strikes me as a valid way of pointing out the difference, as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abufletcher Posted November 22, 2004 Share Posted November 22, 2004 I have no idea what "rangefinder style" might be but the photos that are routinely impressive and that are routinely more common here on the Leica Forum than on other photo.net forums are the ones that are somehow less "literal" even if done in a hard "documentarian" style. Travis' images certainly come to mind. And Brad's. One shoots with an M and the other with a digicam. Both share a consistent vision of something beyond a literal depiction of the world as is -- yet somehow both happen to capture the very essense of the world as it is (on opposite ends of the globe). My 2 yen's worth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike_elek Posted November 22, 2004 Share Posted November 22, 2004 Seems to me that it means an unobtrusive style of taking photos, even if it means using an SLR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill_marshall1 Posted November 22, 2004 Share Posted November 22, 2004 All of the above. Leave your zoom lenses home. Leave your flash home. Rely on fast primes for low-light shooting. Lean toward wide angles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m_. Posted November 22, 2004 Share Posted November 22, 2004 oh my god...not again... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allen Herbert Posted November 22, 2004 Share Posted November 22, 2004 Rangefinder style? ...the thought which comes to mind is street photography. I think it is just one of those throw away expressions.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
________1 Posted November 22, 2004 Share Posted November 22, 2004 It means absolutely nothing. Get over it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spearhead Posted November 22, 2004 Share Posted November 22, 2004 I agree, it means nothing. I can use a dSLR with a very noticeable zoom lens and a 35mm rangefinder camera and take the same photos, except that the zoom is a lot more flexible.<p> <center><img src="http://www.spirer.com/images/chinamkt.jpg"><br><i>Life is Hard, Copyright 2004 Jeff Spirer</i></center> Music and Portraits Blog: Life in Portugal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry Thomas Posted November 22, 2004 Share Posted November 22, 2004 It's another pointless emphasis on the tool rather than the result. If a camera is just a box with a hole in it - an slr lets you see what you'll capture, and a rangefinder lets you see in a slightly different way what you'll capture... when you look at the print/slide/web pic, how can you tell whether it was slr/rf/cropped mf etc etc? I'm a crap photographer whatever type I use. Others are great whatever type <i>they</i> use. Next. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olivier_reichenbach Posted November 22, 2004 Share Posted November 22, 2004 Rangefinder style means out of focus black and white tilted snapshots of unsuspecting people made with a 35 mm lens, preferably in the street, but bars are acceptable. Anything else is just a photography. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lex_jenkins Posted November 22, 2004 Share Posted November 22, 2004 When my grandmother was diagnosed with cancer around this time last year I decided to document what would likely be her final months. She, like most members of my family, was already accustomed to me constantly carrying cameras and photographing them. Between the cameras I already owned - Nikon F3HP, FM2N, Olympus OM-1, Canonet GIII QL17, Olympus XA3 - only the Canonet was truly suitable for most of the project. It's a small, very quiet (the leaf shutter is quieter than any Leica focal plane shutter) rangefinder with a decent finder that was improved slightly by a long overdue cleaning. I wish I could have used the OM-1 but, frankly, it emits an indelicate clank compared with any Leica I've handled. Hospital rooms serve as acoustic echo chambers and I didn't want to draw more attention to myself than necessary. At home, toward the end, I occasionally used the OM-1. All along I wished I had a Leica just for something that was not only discrete but optically competent. I just couldn't afford it at the time. Lacking a camera that was both competent and discrete I sometimes passed up taking photos that I wish I'd tried to capture. Is that the difference between the "rangefinder style" and ... whatever? My Canonet really isn't that good, especially wide open where I was usually shooting. It had a pretty bad filter ring dent when I bought it, usually a sure sign of decentered optical elements. I've seen very sharp photos from other Canonets so I know they're capable of better than mine. Ironically, now I can afford a Leica. It wouldn't have made my compositions any better, but most of the photos would have been sharper and contrastier. So I'm probably going to get that Leica now, even if it's the last 35mm camera I ever buy. I doubt I'll buy more than one or two lenses. I'll keep the Nikons only if I can generate enough paying jobs to necessitate having such a diverse selection of fast lenses, etc. To do that I'll need to be a better businessman, not a better photographer. Another factor is whether I have a rangefinder eye. I don't know whether I can manage that focus patch as quickly and precisely as SLRs. In the stores, trying for a few minutes at a time, I can tell it will occasionally be difficult. I can easily focus on, say, shelves containing boxes and bottles of photographic materials. But I couldn't make the finder agree on the contents of a glass case containing a jumble lenses, something I could easily have focused on using an SLR. Is *that* a factor in the "rangefinder" style? Whether you have the mojo, the guns, the riffs, to swing with a different kinda axe? Kinda like a Les Paul wailer vs. a Stratocaster master. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
icuneko Posted November 22, 2004 Author Share Posted November 22, 2004 I tend to agree with Barry that "rangefinder style" often connotes technique and equipment--not results or images. It can come off with a veneer of mystique which could be hype or pretentious affectation. I can live with "rangefinder technique(s)," but balk at "style." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wai_leong_lee Posted November 22, 2004 Share Posted November 22, 2004 I think rangefinder style derives from the nature of M equipment-- small, unobtrusive, near-silent, manual. It forces the photographer to think about everything-- exposure, focal length, focsuing, when to shoot, etc. So it creates a very deliberate act and style-- what focal length do I choose, do I zone focus, what combination of shutter speed and aperture, etc.-- all to be done before the camera is even raised to the eye. When the camera is at the eye, the M forces us to shoot sparingly but decisively, to get the decisive moment-- simply because unlike a DSLR, we can't machine-gun shoot 8 fps with a huge and fast memory card. The rangefinder also allows us to see outside the frame, which again helps seize the decisive moment. So the rangefinder style is different from the usual DSLR style, which is to use a maasive zoom lens (instead of choosing lenses based on perspective, DOF, etc.), take as many shots as the memory card allows, review each shot almost immediately after, discard the rejects and photoshop the rest. The rangefinder forces more discipine, more economy, more work, more thinking, but ultimately better shots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wai_leong_lee Posted November 22, 2004 Share Posted November 22, 2004 In the end, I believe the rangefinder style is one of careful deliberation, economy and creativity. There is a certain romance about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spearhead Posted November 22, 2004 Share Posted November 22, 2004 <i>The rangefinder forces more discipine, more economy, more work, more thinking, but ultimately better shots.</i><p> People have said this about medium format and large format for years, but I have seen no evidence that there is any truth to it. Music and Portraits Blog: Life in Portugal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
christopher_moss Posted November 22, 2004 Share Posted November 22, 2004 Rangefinder Style: a philosophy, not a camera system, consisting almost always of 'found' shots rather than posed. Curiously, if you take any twentieth century photographer, who has a book of black & white photographs still in print, and has been heard of by at least 60% of the membership of your local camera club, he or she has been guilty of the 'rangefinder style.' Seriously, isn't this like the definition of obscenity? Hard to put into words, but we know it when we see it? Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abufletcher Posted November 22, 2004 Share Posted November 22, 2004 I can tell you why I originally bought a Bessa R, and then an R2, and finally (yes I do think finally) an M6 and it wasn't so that I could take "careful deliberate" photos -- but rather just the opposite. I felt a RF would set me free by refusing to allow me to obsess about precise framing or depth of field. Nearly all of the at least marginally successful photos I've made with my RF's in the short time I've had them are the result of letting go and snapping much more instinctively. I try to think LESS when using a RF. I try to shoot FASTER. And heaven knows it's not about economy! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jorge Posted November 22, 2004 Share Posted November 22, 2004 <Center> Another troll... <br><br> <img src="http://www.rapala.com/images/original_rapala.gif"> </center> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul t Posted November 22, 2004 Share Posted November 22, 2004 For a time I worked on musicians and guitarists' magazines. Most of their advertising is based on the (false) premise that if you buy a 'better' guitar (with more sustain, better tone blah blah) you'll be a better musician. Of course, most musicians start off buying the guitar their hero uses. Then when they don't sound good they buy new pickups, or a different amp, and they get obsessed with the gear, rather than how you play it. <p> The moment I see people talking about 'decisive moments,' that tells me people want to buy rangefinders simply because that's what HCB used. But buying a Stratocaster won't turn you into the next Jimi Hendrix. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
icuneko Posted November 22, 2004 Author Share Posted November 22, 2004 Looks like a muskie rig, Jorge. Catch any lately, or just snag your finger? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim_mcbride Posted November 22, 2004 Share Posted November 22, 2004 I really have to admire the energy some of you people devote toward trying to dismantle the Leica Photography Forum. If the photo.net gods established a forum named "The Anything Goes Forum" where you could post anything you wanted to post, would you stop trying to do that here? This is one Leicaphile who says you are all a PITA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael s. Posted November 22, 2004 Share Posted November 22, 2004 Ah, but be honest, Jim. What would you do without us? :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now