B&W by far. That style of picture begs to be B&W, if you ask me. Joe

Mr. Bresson's words and works are the major reason why this 'Finder' followed the Rangefinder Way. Mr. Bresson is the Master that taught and inspired most all of the other masters in this kind of work. He's one of the greatest forces in the history of photographic art. He's the Master of capturing the decisive moment. Are any of you other admirers Rangefinder shooters? Joe

John Szarkowski said in his book "Looking at Photographs": "Most photograhs deal with meanings that seem intrinsic to their subject matter, or that are at least firmly attached to it by association or tradition. Many meanings are attached to mountains, for example, having to do not only with geography but with innocence, aspiration, regret, gods and prophets, independance, and loneliness. Most pictures of mountains touch on such generic inherited meanings, but if they are good pictures they also have a specific and unique meaning, which has to do with the particular experience of an individual artist at a particular place and time. Other pictures do not concern themselves with known meanings, but begin with the substance of specific experience: existential fact. Those who made such pictures may hope that generic meanings will accrue to them in time, but this is not a prior condition for making them. The pictues are made to clarify an experience that was for unknown reasons compelling in itself." *This book has been very important to me, I might add. It can teach your eye much. I highly recommend it. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I guess that I myself stay away from making pictures of sunsets as subjects - but in fact would tend to turn away from a sunset, because of the beautiful light that it can illuminate a scene with. I might suggest that next time you're standing with a camera in your hand, and looking at a beautiful sunset, that you don't forget to turn around - there is where your picture may be! One photographic subject that will make me turn away in repulsion, is kittens in baskets of yarn balls. Egads. Joe

John Szarkowski said in his book "Looking at Photographs":

"Most photograhs deal with meanings that seem intrinsic to their subject matter, or that are at least firmly attached to it by association or tradition. Many meanings are attached to mountains, for example, having to do not only with geography but with innocence, aspiration, regret, gods and prophets, independance, and loneliness. Most pictures of mountains touch on such generic inherited meanings, but if they are good pictures they also have a specific and unique meaning, which has to do with the particular experience of an individual artist at a particular place and time.

Other pictures do not concern themselves with known meanings, but begin with the substance of specific experience: existential fact. Those who made such pictures may hope that generic meanings will accrue to them in time, but this is not a prior condition for making them. The pictues are made to clarify an experience that was for unknown reasons compelling in itself."

*This book has been very important to me, I might add. It can teach your eye much. I highly recommend it.

I guess that I myself stay away from making pictures of sunsets as subjects - but in fact would tend to turn away from a sunset, because of the beautiful light that it can illuminate a scene with. I might suggest that next time you're standing with a camera in your hand, and looking at a beautiful sunset, that you don't forget to turn around - there is where your picture may be!  
 
One photographic subject that will make me turn away in repulsion, is kittens in baskets of yarn balls. Egads.  
 
Joe

If there's one reason that I'm glad this conversation came up, it's that I was lead to logiloglu's astounding gallery. I haven't visited this forum very often for the last year or so, and I didn't know about this artist. Image after image, it is some of the most beautiful artwork I've seen on Renderosity, and that I've seen anywhere - Abslolutely superb. I'll gladly visit Renderosity more often, and spend much time opening and studying these. I only wish that I could see the actual prints in front of me. Your work is very inspiring to me, logiloglu. Thank you for making them available here. I'm sorry to hear that I - and a thousand others - have not been allowed to see even the one (was that the only one of your works that has been destroyed from the database?), but I will certainly gain much from careful study of those of your compositions that I am allowed to view. Wishing you all the best, Joe - Milwaukee, Wisconsin USA

B&W, definately. That is a beautiful form, Lalani. Ahh.. Hey, Sabretalon - did you mean "deprived" or "Depraved"? I may confess to myself being depraved, but I would never admit to DEPRIVED (ahh... even if it were the case, I mean)! Joe

Some reasons that come to my mind for the bias toward high-key could be that low-key doesn't tend to reproduce well on a regular, non-calibrated computer monitor; it doesn't print as well on cheaper digital printers; and it doesn't scan as well on cheaper scanners (negatives OR prints).

If it really is a low-key kind of scene in the first place - as opposed to a subject or scene that has a more 'normal' range of tones or values, and is PhotoShop'ed-down to low-key - then it won't TAKE well on cheaper (or older) digital cameras ('posterization', 'dark noise', etc.).

From what I've seen, digital has not been so freindly toward low key imaging.

FILM can do a beautiful job with low-key, but there is still some special tecnique involved. working 'down on the toe' of a film's transfer curve can be tricky buisness - the whole look can change in just half-stop increments of exposure.

I'm not all that experienced with it yet myself, but I have some understanding from my own exposures, and learning from my printer, Fred Fischer, and from a more technical 'book' understanding from study.. When you work down near the toe, contrast changes continuously with small, incremental exposure/density changes (this smooth, constant rate-of-change of contrast, and its appearance on the transfer curve is WHY they call it 'the toe'). because of this, with print film there's a big difference between shooting it low key (so-to-say) in the first place, and doing it mainly in the darkroom - and for those film-shooters not serious enough about their printing work (yes, I mean to sound finger-wagging harsh when I say this!) to take their work to a GOOD CUSTOM LAB (or, of course, have their own darkroom), then you don't get that option. ..But many DO prefer to 'do it in the camera' anyway - it is definatly a different look (but you'll run into trouble at you're handy-dandy mini-lab with that too when they so kindy 'correct your exposure' for you).

Transparencies can render exraordinary low-key images, but exposure is really tricky with that.

In the realm of B&W silver prints - well I hope everyone knows that the B&W fine-art photogs can be downright OBSCESSIVE about the qualities of their shadow detail. Now if you ask me, the ultimate in a subtle, intoxicating low-key experience is a good silver print made from the right negative (usually medium or large format, unfortunately for me) of the right subject in the right light, at the right moment; and when the print is VIEWED in good light. Oh baby.

Have you ever been experienced? (All of you fellow Black and White shooters please don't forget to reply.......
Anybody there?)

Joe
Milwaukee, Wisconsin USA

Whoah. I had been away from here for quite a while, and just came back to visit very recently. This forum was very important to my early development in photography, and helped provide 'inertia' for all this time that I've been away, but studying every day. This IS an extraordinary community you guys have here. Kind'a freaks me out. Seeya soon, Joe 'Finder'

I'll be happy to tell you something that I consider a major difference: - Viewfinder BLACKOUT. The main practical, operational issue that turned my attention to direct-view cameras - with their seperate optical systems or framing and focusing, as Michelle mentioned - is that I just could not get used to the SLR's almost unavoidable viefinder blackout (Canon makes an SLR with a special fixed mirror that puts part of the light to the viewing screen, and the rest to the film at the same time). Especially because I love photographing people I suppose, it's unnerving to me to never actually be able to see the framed scene in the viewfinder at the precise instant that the picture is actually made. Although now it's almost more of a psycological or metaphysical kind of thing to me, one practical example of this disadvantage is "How do you know if they BLINKED?! Now of course, a digital can also get you out of that jam, but there are some other factors that keep me with my Tri'X B&W film. Another thing that's somewhat related to this is that with a direct-view camera (most RF cameras are) you're looking straight through glass optics; the image is not projected onto a screen, as with an SLR or TLR or view camera. Now to be sure, those later three DO show you an image that is MORE like the negative that you're composing, if you can manually stop the lens down while you're viewing for 'depth of field preview'. Evaluating your composition on ground glass through a stopped-down lens VERY much 'translates' the scene into how the picture will look (minus exposure- and film- related factors). Regardless of DoF preview, the major thing that this does is convert the 3D scene into TWO DIMENSIONS - your eye doesn't change focus as you 'look around' in the finder, just like the final print will be. With a direct-view camera your eye is still 'focusing through the scene', so everything is 'in-focus' as far as you eye is concerned, because your eye 'focuses on what you look at' - at any rate, it looks 'natural'. This is rather the opposite from what happens in an SLR viewfinder; if you're viewing with the lens wide open - the default for most SLRs - and yet planning to shoot at a smaller aperture, you're seeing much-REDUCED DoF, and if the exposure calls for you to stop-down for is below f/4 or f/5.6 or so for preview, the view gets very dim. Not only can you often 'see more' in the sense of 'viewfinder DoF', but this natually brings us to another way that you see more when composing with an RF camera: A practical SLR or digital can only show you a MAXIMUM of 100% of the framed scene; most classic (direct-view) RF cameras show you MORE than the scene that will be framed - usually MUCH more with focal lengths greater than 35mm - and then has a 'brightline' frame floating there in your view (that's what the big, 'whited-out' window is that you always see on'em - to gather light to illuminate the 'bright lines'). You have more of a sense of 'framing within the scene', as compared to the SLR that more-like 'puts you in the world of the picture'. Again, the SLR way not a bad thing - and IS 'more accuratly translating' the scene for you. The classic style of fangefinder camera - Leica, Canon, Contax, Nikon for instance - make you compose differently; it makes you SEE differently, and even THINK about photography differently. I'm tellin' ya. There are several other appreciable differences in the rangefinder way. I'll stop now. Wishing you all the best, Joe

Cosina-Voigtlander Bessa R2 rangefinder body CV Nokton 50/1.5 CV Ultron 35/1.7 Gossen LunaPro Nikon DG-2 eyepiece magnifier Locking cable release Dark red, med. green, med. yellow, 4X-ND filters Microfiber cloth and dust brush Sunpak 544 flash setup with 5ft. Coily sync cable, extra AA-pack and StoFen dome diffuser (separate bag) Med/heavy tripod with pan head Joe

I'm bummed that I haven't had the time to be so involved in the forum lately. I miss hanging out with you guys every day. I chose "Finder" because I Like nice, quiet viewfinder cameras. I first considered "Viewfinder", but figured that it would just get shortened anyway. I want to have a Leica or Cosina (Voitlander) someday - Maybe a Contax or Konica. I have a Yashica Electro35 now, but I was looking for ultimate lens sharpness, so I got an old Minolta SLR. There was still something wrong with enlargements, so recently I sold it, and got an old M42-mount body. Next I'll try an old Carl Zeiss Lens! Joe

You saw that too, Punky? ...I think it was in about 1981, but I can't exactly remember. Now that I think about it, I don't remember 1980 too well either. Joe

Now I like the second one the best. Also, now I know that I don't want to crop the framing, either. I love all the stuff that's surrounding them: the jars of jerky at upper left, the booze bottles on the shelf, the glowing bottles in the illuminated coolers; the stacks of shining glasses, the decorative beer tapper handles at upper right, the cash register - then in the forground is the mixed drink, and ashtrays on the bar top. ..And I love how the girl is hiding behind her big brother a bit. I think that there is extraordinary balance in this picture, especially considering that the sheer number of objects that were photographed could tend toward a cluttered appearence. My eye follows a comfortable, easy path - but keeps bringing me back to the people. I'm not kidding when I say that as I've spent hours studying this picture over just the last few days, I have gone through a turning point in my whole understanding of photography, and I can begin to see the direction that my work is taking. Thanks all, Joe