Rangefinder style?

Recently the phrase "rangefinder style" has been bandied about both

serioulsy and otherwise. Does anyone have a fitting definition? I've

seen lots of images that could have been identically produced with

both RFs and SLRs. For example, I once naively thought S. Salgado

exclusively used RFs, and then found out that in fact he also uses

SLRs. Thus, the phrase rangfinder style remains elusive if not bogus.

If Robert Capa is to be believed, how about 'slightly out of focus"?

bogus sounds harsh but accurate to me.

 

:-)))

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.

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.

Seems to me that it means an unobtrusive style of taking photos, even if it means using an SLR.

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.

oh my god...not again...

Rangefinder style? ...the thought which comes to mind is street photography. I think it is just one of those throw away expressions.<div></div>

It means absolutely nothing. Get over it.

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>

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.

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.

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.

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."

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.

In the end, I believe the rangefinder style is one of careful deliberation, economy and creativity. There is a certain romance about it.

<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.

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

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!

<Center>

Another troll...

<br><br>

<img src="http://www.rapala.com/images/original_rapala.gif">

</center>

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.

Looks like a muskie rig, Jorge. Catch any lately, or just snag your finger?

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.

Ah, but be honest, Jim. What would you do without us? :-)