Composing on the GG, or not

[michael_chmilar]

A friend and I were having a discussion recently, which led us to an observation about technique.

 

<p>

 

I have just finished my first year of using a 4x5 camera. In that time, I've found this forum to be very helpful for learning about equipment, technique, approaches, etc.

 

<p>

 

One thing that gets discussed a lot is dark cloths: which is best, lightest, darkest, best seal against light. From these discussions, I have to assume that some people spend a lot of time under the dark cloth, evaluating their image composition on the ground glass.

 

<p>

 

Thinking about this, I realized that I spend very little time looking at the ground glass. I mostly use it to check my framing, and for focussing. To check framing, I usually look at the corners and edges of the ground glass for reference points, and then look around the camera and find those reference points in the scene itself. I almost never spend any time evaluating the composition on the glass.

 

<p>

 

My friend and I were discussing this, and he pointed out that my last twenty years of 35mm photography were with Leica M rangefinder cameras, and not SLR's (my first four years of photography were with an SLR). He had recently changed from years of Nikon SLR's to a Mamiya 7 rangefinder, and found the transition difficult.

 

<p>

 

Our observation is that SLR users develop the habit of composing in their viewfinder. More importantly, they evaluate composition in the viewfinder. With a rangefinder camera, on the other hand, the viewfinder does not serve well for evaluating composition. With an SLR, you have a nice bright image with a black surround, but a rangefinder such as the Leica and Mamiya have frame lines, clutter, and additional image area around the frame. Thus a rangefinder user develops different habits for evaluating composition. The viewfinder is only useful for checking framing and focussing.

 

<p>

 

So, it may be that photographers who move from SLR cameras to large format tend to prefer a well-sealed dark cloth in order to create an environment similar to the SLR viewfinder. Photographers who come from a different background have different habits.

[adrian_tyler]

Good point, I learned with a 35mm rangefinder and made a recent move to

LF and spend very little time looking at the GG, I don't even have a

darkcloth, I just pull my jacket or shirt up over the thing, check the

corners, look at the focus, then smoke a cigarette or just pick my nose

or something and think if I really want the picture or not, I maybe pop

my head back under for a second or to just to remind me while I am

deciding, but all the decisions are made away from the thing. I even

put a 35mm viewfinder on top of the camera which is more or less like

the 135 lens I use to save time looking at the GG...

[gary_frost1]

I compose with a viewing card. Then I know where to put the tripod

and what focal length lens to use. I still like it nice and dark

to view the GG. Viewing upside down and backwards on the GG will

sometimes help me see composition issues/problems I didn't notice

with the viewing card. The image on the GG is magical and I will

sometimes just enjoy looking at it when I'm done with focus/adjust.

I've used both rangefinder and SLR, but prefer the viewing card.

It is 1:1, bright, no distortion, and allows full movements.

[jnorman2]

largely, i compose in my head as i stand and view a scene. of course

this is facilitated by years of being very familiar with my lenses.

but i also use a reflex viewfinder and i very carefully study the

composition with that. the problem of moving from small format

cameras to large is a real one - with small cameras, your eye tends

to pay most attention to whatever the primary subject of the photo

is, and you can easily overlook odd things sticking into the image

frame, or peripheral subjects or distractions. using the GG for

composition is a vast improvement over this, since the GG acts as

a "picture" that is abstracted in comparison to the much more "camera

view" of an SLR - it makes it much easier to see all the elements of

the image in a more balanced manner. this is the reason i take much

care using the reflex finder - though it is very fast and easy to use

compared to a dark cloth, it takes you away from being able to use

the GG as a picture, and puts you back into the SLR-type camera view.

[hyperfocal]

Groundglass ... composition and focusing? Ah, so that's why the back

of the camera is clear. And I thought the glass was just a marketing

gimmick! And to think of all the years I've wasted looking thru a

cardboard cutout, then eyeballing down the standards until I think I

got a decent composition ... I always knew reading this forum was

time well spent!

 

<p>

 

Hyper

[doug_paramore]

I agree with JNorman. For me, the greatest thing about LF is that it

allows you to compose the image and carefully. It eliminates a lot of

wasted shots. I enjoy just setting up the camera and studying the

ground glass, even if I don't expose a negative. The ground glass

lets me see if the picture will be worth making or not. Sometimes

moving the camera a few inches one way or another makes the

difference as to whether the picture is good or not. To me, this is

one of the beauties of LF.

 

<p>

 

Regards,

[steve_gangi2]

I set up with a general idea, but I still use the ground glass to get

the framing and composition I want. Move a little closer, turn it a

little this way or that way, use a little rise etc.

[michael_a._smith6]

Most folks when out photographing see something that makes them stop

and say "Wow" and then set up the camera and make an exposure of that

which had caught their eye. The majority of the responses to Michael

Chmilar's question confirm this is so.

 

<p>

 

Now, consider that, by definition, you can only respond to something

that you already know on some level, whether that knowledge can be

articulated or not. If that is true (and I believe it is), then by

making photographs only of what caught your eye you are confirming what

you already know, rather than learning something that is entirely new.

As a consequence, little or no personal growth takes place. Over time,

the work becomes repetitive (not necessarily imitative) and stale.

 

<p>

 

To experience personal growth as an artist it is imperative to get

beyond responding only to what you know and respond to things that you

don't know. But how can you do that when it is only possible to respond

to things you already know? That's the paradox.

 

<p>

 

The answer is in creative use of a view camera. Use that which caught

your eye and caused you to set up this cumbersome equipment as the

starting, rather than the ending, place. Rather than deciding, more or

less, where you want the edges of the photograph to be before you look

on the ground glass, allow yourself the freedom of playfulness and move

the camera around--to each side, up and down, and even in a 360 degree

circle.

 

<p>

 

Here is what may happen: you begin with what you already know; then as

you move the camera you may find that what caught your eye is now only

half in the picture. You now have a new starting place. Move the camera

around again. And again and again. It is not unlikely that what you

finally end photographing will be nothing like that which caught your

eye, and in fact may be something that, were it not for looking on the

ground glass you never would have noticed. Sometimes it may even happen

that you can make no sense whatsoever of the subject that the camera is

focussed on, although it looks beautiful, and that even when you come

out from under the darkcloth it still makes no sense. But if it looks

good on the ground glass, make the exposure. You will later learn about

what you saw as a result of looking at your photograph. The next time

out what was previously unknown becomes known, because of the act of

your having made the photograph. Literally, you will begin to see more.

 

<p>

 

The painter, Alfred Leslie, once said, " There is a direct relationship

between what we see and the quality of life." In the context of the

article he wrote, "what we see" referred to how much we see. The

implication is that the more we see the richer our life will be. By not

limiting yourself to what you already know through the act of using a

view camera in this way, your photographs will not be repetitive and

personal growth will occur. e.e.cummings: "An artist, whose every agony

is to grow."

 

<p>

 

I hope in this brief summary of an extremely complex and often

intuitive process that I have made this at least somewhat clear. Some

things are better demonstrated than explained in words.

[dan_smith]

I think you may find major differences in how people photograph when

you find why they do so. In news work, whether 4x5 or 35mm (Yes, some

of us still shoot some news stuff with a 4x5 on occasion) you have to

tell the story & are often limited as to where you can be, especially

with sports & similar venues. This in part dictates how you can

photograph.

With commercial work you can at times be very creative & at other

times you are stuck with a widget the maker wants to look like every

other damn widget ever photographed. You are stuck. No matter what

you do it has to show THIS angle. So, you set it up and much of the

creativity is in perfection with your lighting.

 

<p>

 

Other times commercial work is more free & allows you creativity with

someone else paying the bills. A nice job when it comes.

 

<p>

 

Then you get to your own work and the sky is the limit. All have

similarities in how you may work & view the world within the bounds

of the ground glass. If you hurry you miss a lot. Hurrying is not the

same as working quickly & efficiently, not by a long shot. I think

one generally works better if they are able to give full attention to

the ground glass whether they have a preconceived idea or explore

under the darkcloth with the world shut out.

 

<p>

 

You see something and stop & interpret the world, not just capture

something on film. If all you want is a representation of what is

there you might as well buy postcards as that is what you will be

taking... and generally not very good ones either. If you want to

interpret what you see, put your vision into play, you will spend

whatever time is needed checking out the ground glass as you finesse

the image, fine tuning it til all is right & to not expose film would

be a crime against creativity.

 

<p>

 

The ground glass is where you see the image no matter how much pre-

visualization you may have done.

[adrian_tyler]

OK bolt down the hatches... I think that it is far more difficult to

get a spontanious and "liberated" picture with LF than with 35mm or MF,

the very act of placing the gizmo, the GG, the cost, the meditation all

lead towards cold, composed, retentive type work. For me GG is the

antisisis of this problem, as a new LF user I stuggle not to get drawn

into the "studying the whole thing too much", which means more

spntinaity, less GG.

[bruce_wehman]

I used to compose in my head until I started using a 120mm on an 8x10.

...especially close-up. Moving the camera a few inches laterally or

up and down produces a drastically different composition.

 

<p>

 

A W-A viewfinder to locate the exact spot for the camera before

setting up has made this process a lot easier.

[dhananjay_n]

I have tried just about every gizmo available to help with this. I'm

afraid the GG is what works for me and for a simple reason. Every

other gizmo (viewfinder, cutout card etc) - you look THROUGH them.

With the GG, you look AT IT. Which is exactly what you do with a

print - you look at it. So, looking at the GG is what provides the

most direct and spontaneous way to 'visualize' the print for me.

Different things may work for different people but this is what works

for me. And I don't think it is any less spontaneous than working

with any other things. Cold, warm, spontaneous etc are very much a

function of your intentions, not materials. You may choose materials

to assist your intentions, but materials don't direct intentions. You

could use viewfinders in very cold, analytic ways if you wanted to.

Cheers, DJ.

[michael_a._smith1]

Adrian,

 

<p>

 

N. Dhananjay said it so eloquently: Cold, warm, spontaneous etc are

very much a function of your intentions, not materials. You may

choose materials to assist your intentions, but materials

don't direct intentions. You could use viewfinders in very cold,

analytic ways if you wanted to.

 

<p>

 

I'll continue: Spontaneity is a function of who you are not your method

of working. Using the ground glass in a creative way leads to

discoveries that one can react to spontaneously (or not). Paula and I

find that the intensity of the process of using the ground glass as I

described above leads to fresh, spontaneous (intuitive, not cerebral)

discoveries. Maybe you are simply incapable of using the ground glass

that way. The process I described needn't be slow and meditative,

although it can be. It can literally happen in a few seconds if your

attention is fully focussed. From your description of how you work it

appears that your coming to LF from using a 35mm rangefinder has

hindered your ability to focus and concentrate your attention. When

under the darkcloth there are no distractions. Maybe that experience is

simply too intense for you. These comments are not made in the spirit

of being critical, but simply as an observation based on your writing

in this thread. They are made in the hope that they will be helpful to

you.

[adrian_tyler]

Thanks for your comments Michael, I am very unexperienced in LF, and

have really only been "obsessed" by photography for a few years, coming

at it from the graphic arts, (I am a graphic designer), so what I do

have that helps me is many, many years experience editing and art

directing the photographic work of others, I can tell at a glace which

photos work and which don't, how to combine to tell a story and even

make the best of really bad work.

 

<p>

 

This I try to do by instinct, simple looking and feeling, so the

intense experience which you talk about experienceig on the GG - the

moment that make me stop in my tracks - is the very experience I try

to remain open to outside of the GG, the rest should be simple,

technique is not my particular interest, if the picture is really there

then perhaps it doesn't matter too much if its all in focus or

whatever.

 

<p>

 

Anyway, I am perhaps a little unorthodox, but there is room for

everyone, no?.

 

<p>

 

Now let's think about spontenaity, expression through photography and

lets go to the bookshelf, pick 10 books of LF and 10 books of 35 or MF,

lets look at HCB, at Kerez, ok ok we can find real comlete work in LF

Talbot, Aget, but do the sums and we will see that LF does tend to

produce colder, less spontaneous art than smaller formats, obviously LF

has something else when you can get one ...

 

<p>

 

Thanks again for your comments I hope that my opinions change and

continue to change and evolve, but at the moment I want to look and

experience "intensity" "intuitivity" even without the camera, come back

another day, or just keep the picture in my nut for a while...

[adrian_tyler]

Michael

 

<p>

 

pictures are perhaps better than words (older ones I'm afraid)

 

<p>

 

http://www.duich.com/adriantylernet/site/index.html

[michael_chmilar]

My initial posting was an observation on how we each have different

ways of working when composing a photograph, based on our past

experiences and "habits". I think it led to an interesting discussion.

 

<p>

 

Michael A. Smith proposed an interesting exercise for exploring a

subject, and finding new, interesting, and unexpected photographs of

it. I know that Michael teaches workshops on this topic, and I read

his response with particular interest.

 

<p>

 

In Michael's description of the exercise, evaluation of the

composition on the ground glass appears to be essential to the

process. As one who admits to spending very little time eyeing the GG,

I have pondered this for a few days, and would like to raise this

question: Is examination of the ground glass image essential to this

exercise in finding unexpected images? It may be so, but I'm wondering

if anyone has other suggestions for attaining the same goal.

[tom_gage]

i use a linhoff viewer from the master technika, to help establish the

camera position...after that, looking at the ground glass is more about

sensing the visual energy of shape and line, than it is about any

concern with the bounderies of my first picture conception...if the

composition doesn't happen quickly, than i move the camera a bit and

start over...for me, looking at the world upside down at the ground

glass seems to be the most effective way of seeing the composition

behind the composition and sometimes takes me to a visual/compositional

place that's a total surprize...tg.

[ken_schroeder]

I came to 4x5 from a background in 35mm, both with rangefinder and slr cameras. (My standard kit was a Leica M3 with 50mm and a Nikon F with 85mm.) I think of the rangefinder camera as the camera of time and the slr as the camera of space. The Leica is very nimble; the slr is more precise. I agree with Michael A Smith on the growth potential of deliberate use of the groundglass. A violinist improves the tone of his playing, whether fast or slow, by long bow exercises to squeeze the very best tone from his instrument. Such careful slow work with the groundglass will do the same for a photographer. The benefits are not limited to shooting with large format. Since using view cameras 22 years ago I have noticed I pay much more attention to the edges and corners of my finder, be it the groundglass or rangefinder. There is a place for both in large format photography. In skilled hands the 4x5 press camera can be a very quick camera. Given the luxury of adequate time, my vote always goes with the groundglass.

[glenn_kroeger]

Michael:

 

I have the completely opposite view of 4x5. For me, the entire experience of 4x5 photography is concentrated on the groundglass view.

 

I actually use a lightweight 35mm SLR to choose my location, lens focal length and general framing. (I also use its matrix and spot meter). But then I go to the groundglass!

 

Two things distinctly separate this experience from the view THROUGH any camera. First, I am looking AT an image, not through some opening. I use both eyes, the same pair I will later use to view the final product. I see the relationship between the subject and periphery in the same way that observers will view the final image. Second, the inverted image abstracts the composition and form in a way that makes me concentrate on creating or building the image rather than capturing it. I also focus on the notion that the image is made, not of the physical objects in the frame, but the light from them as it strikes the groundglass. The subject may be interesting, but if the light doesn't paint it in an interesting way on the groundglass, the image won't work.

 

As others have noted, this doesn't work for everyone. For some it robs them of fluidity and spontaneity. I am not interested in taking pictures, but making them. I find that frequently, the abstract nature of the groundglass view changes my original conception of the image and leads to a very different composition than I first envisioned through the viewfinder. For me, that is spontaneity.

[glenn_kroeger]

Michael:

 

In your second post, I notice that you refer to "unexpected" images. I must confess that my goal is to achieve only expected images.

 

With 35mm and a motor drive, I achieve may unexpected images, some of them I love. But what I seek in LF is total expectation. I want no surprises when the chromes come back from the lab.

 

I think in some ways the best things that LF work has contributed to my photography are the images that I have not taken. Many times I will set up a shot, futz around for 30 minutes and not expose any film. If its not going to be good enough to drum scan, work up in PS, send to a LightJet, matt and hang on the wall, why shoot it in the first place.

[ole_tjugen]

I do about the same as Tom. Whenever I think there might be a picture around, I set down my tripod, put the camera on it, then walk (or crawl) around with a Linhof Viewfinder. When I decide on what and from where, I pick up camera & tripod and put it where I found the best picture. I choose the lens from the zoom stting on the VF. Finally, I check the GG to see if it still looks like a picture when it's upside down. If it does, I expose. If not, it's back to crawling...

[jennifer_waak]

I just took Michael and Paula's workshop two weekends ago, and it really changed a lot of things for me. One of the challenges I've faced up to now is that I tend to pre-visualize what I want to shoot, not really paying attention to whether the composition will actually "fit" on the neg and I can easily ignore the "clutter" around the photo. As such, I tend to be disappointed in what I end up with. The workshop taught us to compose entirely under the GG, using the entire GG. Paula went under the darkcloth with each of us, showing us how she composes. We were standing in the middle of an fairly uninteresting walking path, yet it was full of possibilities that I would have never seen had I been just standing there looking.

 

How well this works depends largely on what you like to shoot. Michael and Paula make a lot of abstract photos, and it works great for that. I tend to shoot a lot of buildings, but the idea is still valid. There will still be something that grabs you to force you to set up the camera, but spend time working under the darkcloth, checking out all compositional possibilities, tilt, pan. That is what Michael Smith means by "unexpected" photos. It's the light playing off the park bench right in front of you that you didn't initially see. Make sure the image works across the entire negative. If it doesn't, pack it up and move along.

 

 

-Jen