..is it Heresy?

Can anyone post a great image that was done using a camera with EVF? …whenever I've tried such a camera, I felt I was unable to think of the outcome… It was like there was a stupid filter that was blocking my mind to visualise the outcome….
Is it me? Does any one find that such a camera has helped him to treat lighting better and thus to improve his photography?

OTOH in studio, all still life I do is using tethered LV on to a computer monitor, the OVF of the camera is used for framing only… It makes all the difference… I started thinking of this paradox, till I realised that composition, lighting and direction was done by using direct vision to visualise the outcome …LV was only used as an instrument to set some parameters that otherwise would need more testing… just like using a polaroid back on the film days…

I would appreciate a conversation on the matter, especially from people that have a different opinion.

Yes, it is you, Theo. It might also be a few others but that doesn't make it a problem, such as it is. Surely, any viewfinder might take a bit of getting used to. Rangefinder, waste level, EVF, DSRL, whatever. My Old Man would never drink beer out of a can or stubbie. Always a tall bottle. He'd die of thirst rather than rethink the situation.
Mind you, it was about the only thing he never altered throughout his life, and mine. His favourite response to someone who grumbled about not being able to cope with something different was:"up until now!" It was his way of politely saying: 'get over it'.

As for your request for 'good' images, I really wish you would get over that.
Here's three images that were taken using a Nikon 1V2. I use it a lot. Until recently, when someone mentioned it, (probably you) I never even gave the viewfinder another thought.
You will have to judge for yourself as to their 'goodness'. Don't share your judgement with me. Lets remain friends.

But sadly we cannot tell for certain through what facility this was composed - EVF or rear monitor screen.

Perhaps perceptive examination of the full-resolution image will reveal that:

http://www.sony.net/Products/di/common/images/products/o4j5/actualphotos/set1/photo_sample2.jpg

It would of course have been nice to have for comparison three shots of the same subject, one composed through the EVF, one with the rear monitor screen, and one shot from the hip while directly observing the scene.

D

Doug Kerr said:

Sony a7R​

But sadly we cannot tell for certain through what facility this was composed - EVF or rear monitor screen.

Perhaps perceptive examination of the full-resolution image will reveal that:

http://www.sony.net/Products/di/common/images/products/o4j5/actualphotos/set1/photo_sample2.jpg

It would of course have been nice to have for comparison three shots of the same subject, one composed through the EVF, one with the rear monitor screen, and one shot from the hip while directly observing the scene.

D

Click to expand...

How the hell is that going to happen? Or are you being funny, Doug?

Hi, Tom,

Tom dinning said:

How the hell is that going to happen? Or are you being funny, Doug?

Click to expand...

I don't think all here would think it funny.

Best regards,

Doug

I believe her expression says, "Jeezus, could you not afford an SLR?"

Best regards,

Doug

Tom dinning said:

Yes, it is you, Theo. It might also be a few others but that doesn't make it a problem, such as it is. Surely, any viewfinder might take a bit of getting used to. Rangefinder, waste level, EVF, DSRL, whatever. My Old Man would never drink beer out of a can or stubbie. Always a tall bottle. He'd die of thirst rather than rethink the situation.
Mind you, it was about the only thing he never altered throughout his life, and mine. His favourite response to someone who grumbled about not being able to cope with something different was:"up until now!" It was his way of politely saying: 'get over it'.

As for your request for 'good' images, I really wish you would get over that.
Here's three images that were taken using a Nikon 1V2. I use it a lot. Until recently, when someone mentioned it, (probably you) I never even gave the viewfinder another thought.
You will have to judge for yourself as to their 'goodness'. Don't share your judgement with me. Lets remain friends.

Click to expand...

Hi, Doug
1. I never said a "good" image… I said a "great" image… that means an image that "is important for peoples hurt and mind" like "real art" does.
2. I never referred to "get used", I said "it obstructs visualisation" …because visualisation is the ability of an artist to pre-see the outcome while he uses his vision as input to the mind information and he knows that the outcome will be different to the "reality" that the eye visions.

Hence, all the above is irrelevant to my saying….

Hi, Theodoros,

Theodoros Fotometria said:

Hi, Doug
1. I never said a "good" image… I said a "great" image… that means an image that "is important for peoples hurt and mind" like "real art" does.
2. I never referred to "get used", I said "it obstructs visualisation" …because visualisation is the ability of an artist to pre-see the outcome while he uses his vision as input to the mind information and he knows that the outcome will be different to the "reality" that the eye visions.

Hence, all the above is irrelevant to my saying….

Click to expand...

Why do you quote a dissertation by Tom and then address to me your complaints about it?

Doug

Theodoros,

All cameras have some unique combination of features that allow one to use it for one's purpose, just manage or give up in frustration. Michael Reichman of Luminous-Landscape.com, has disliked cameras simply because he couldn't adjust it wearing gloves in the winter! OTOH, I've used a camera with less low light sensitivity underexposing at below desirable ISO and then correcting in Photoshop, (on advice for Bart Van Der Wolf, (to minimize noise), simply because I could shoot in a classical music performance with zero shutter sound using the GXR with the 50mm module. It worked for the size of images needed for the weekly newsletter to faculty, staff and donors of the music school.

So when you object for any reason to the LCD viewer of a compact camera, simply choose one with an optical viewfinder and quit worrying. Each of us has to select the best available camera practical for their needs within their budget and sanity constraints.

I've seen a surgeon throw a scalpel across the room as it had a resident blood on it, potentially contaminating the patients operation site! If you do that with a camera that pisses you off to the nth, then so be it.

Asher

Doug Kerr said:

Hi, Theodoros,



Why do you quote a dissertation by Tom and then address to me your complaints about it?

Doug

Click to expand...

It was a mistake… I was to quote your first input (as is obvious)… Sorry… "sh*t happens"… It still applies though.

Asher Kelman said:

Theodoros,

All cameras have some unique combination of features that allow one to use it for one's purpose, just manage or give up in frustration. Michael Reichman of Luminous-Landscape.com, has disliked cameras simply because he couldn't adjust it wearing gloves! OTOH, I've used a camera with less low light sensitivity underexposing at below desirable ISO and then correcting in Photoshop, (on advice for Bart Van Der Wolf, (to minimize noise), simply because I could shoot in a classical music performance with zero shutter sound using the GXR with the 50mm module. It worked for the size of images needed for the weekly newsletter to faculty, staff and donors of the music school.

So when you object for any reason to the LCD viewer of a compact camera, simply choose one with an optical viewfinder and quit worrying. Each of us has to select the best available camera practical for their needs within their budget and sanity constraints.

I've seen a surgeon throw a scalpel across the room as it had a resident blood on it, potentially contaminating the patients operation site! If you do that with a camera that pisses you off to the nth, then so be it.

Asher

Click to expand...

Asher, I am not telling one what to use, nor I discuss ergonomics here like your example with M.R… I simply find that EVFs (IMO) are creating a "communication error" between my eye and mind and want to discuss that with others to find out if the same or different applies to them…

For instance… I wonder how one can judge the lighting in his photography (take advantage of shadow graduations) when using an EVF? Judging from Doug's pictures above, he doesn't….

Theodoros,

I am interested in being sure I understand your premise in the matter of EVFs and "visualization" on which you seek discussion.

Is it your point that reduced "faithfulness" of presenting, in the viewfinder, the portion of the scene that is to be captured diminishes the photographer's ability to:

• Arrange the lighting for the effect he wants in the print.

• Perhaps choose exposure settings that will lead to the effect he wants in the print (you speak of parameters but I'm not sure exactly what you mean)..

Then does this follow: Since the practical reality today is that available EVF's give "less faithful" presentation of the scene than, for example, typical SLR viewfinders, they less well support the photographer's attainment of the effect he wants in the print.

Thanks.

Doug

In a "studio" situation, I most often use flash illumination. If I have modeling light capability, I would make the first adjustments by direct observation of the scene.

But for final adjustment:

• I have no choice but to rely on what the camera sensor chain sees (in test shots). (There is no such thing as direct or indirect optical observation of flash illumination results.)

• I would want to rely on what the camera sensor chain sees (in test shots), since of course that will be one point in the chain leading to the final delivered image, whatever its form and medium.

My preference is to do that by way of a serious video monitor, or perhaps by tethered operation with a computer with a competent display.

My next choice is to use the camera's monitor screen. (If there is some sort of ambient light problem, I use a hood on it.)

I would not likely use the EVF if the camera had one.

Now, at the other end of the spectrum of situations, in a landscape shot I generally do not take the time to wait for the light that might be optimum, so the lighting is preordained.

I generally base exposure on metering, often chimping the histogram on a test shot to refine that.

As to composition, I like to do that in the eyepiece finder (whatever its technology).

Problems in that regard I have with the EVF camera I am currently using include:

• Small image dimensions can make it difficult to arrange for proper framing, and for timing the shot (just when is the chipmunk smiling).

• Poor "DR" can make it difficult to see detail in the shadows, but that is rarely a factor in composition. It might be a factor in timing the shot (as discussed just above).

Best regards,

Doug

Theodorus,

an EVF is a tool like anything else on a camera. Using it or not depends on your personal preferences. And concerning great photos - you will see these some time from great photographers. The EVF is relatively 'young', so there is quite some advance to catch up compared to all the great photos taken with DSLR and classic viewfinder cameras.

I don't see any reason to fight over something I consider as personal preference - like it or not.
The only thing I can say for me - this is something I got used to and there are advantages and disadvantages everybody has to define for himself. I like the live histogram I use quite frequently and it helps to get the exposure where I want to have it.

Disclaimer: I do not have any great photos, but I certainly did not feel hindered by the EVF for these four - you might like it or not.

This is an old one taken in 2004. Does anyone remember the HP Photosmart 850? This was my first contact with EVF until two years ago...



The following ones are taken with the E-M5.



It is just a tool - not a religion...

Best regards,
Michael

Hi, Theodoros,

Theodoros Fotometria said:

It was a mistake… I was to quote your first input (as is obvious)

Click to expand...

Not obvious at all. You specifically comment on language in Tom's dissertation.

Doug

Doug Kerr said:

Theodoros,

I am interested in being sure I understand your premise in the matter of EVFs and "visualization" on which you seek discussion.

Is it your point that reduced "faithfulness" of presenting, in the viewfinder, the portion of the scene that is to be captured diminishes the photographer's ability to:

• Arrange the lighting for the effect he wants in the print.

• Perhaps choose exposure settings that will lead to the effect he wants in the print (you speak of parameters but I'm not sure exactly what you mean)..

Then does this follow: Since the practical reality today is that available EVF's give "less faithful" presentation of the scene than, for example, typical SLR viewfinders, they less well support the photographer's attainment of the effect he wants in the print.

Thanks.

Doug

Click to expand...

Hi Doug, I'll try to quote both your previous enquires the better I can… Let me post another post of mine that was done on a different thread...

"1. "I don't paint anymore what I can create as a photograph" …Man Ray.
2. "A great photographer is made by the ability to vision the final photograph before he will ever shoot it" …H.C.Bresson.

I Also suggest the book: "An Ansel Adams guide: Basic Techniques of photography" Chapter:5 Visualisation: The art of seeing a photograph.

All of them suggest the same thing…"

Honestly Doug, I feel (please don't take this as an insult, it's just a conclusion that often happens between different people) we speak a "different language" when we refer on "visualisation"… I agree with the fellers above...

You see Doug, visualisation is not a process related to photographers, it's a process related to all arts (painters that have pref-vision of the final painting, authors that pre-see the lighting, the character expression, the atmosphere they will "throw" in their novels …etc) and it includes: 1. Pre-vision of the print, 2. "Automatic" reaction on the exposure parameters and equipment use to achieve the photograph, 3. Pre-vision of the process of development and even pre-choice of the printing process and even the kind of material that will be used to achieve the print… From this point of view, I do care on technical aspects which I often discuss in this forum (Sensor characteristics-capabilities, processing profiles and techniques ..etc.), but it's only in relation of how this may help for better photography by expanding the possible lighting control/achievement on a photograph… Honestly, people who think of more sharpness than is enough, or more resolution as important factors for good photography, …only make me sad for their idea of what "PHOTO"-"GRAPHY" really is…

Now, as far as EVFs are concerned, 1. Idon't see how they are related to photography since there is interference in-between "real vision" and visualisation and thus it interferes in the process, 2. I don't see how the huge DR compression it has will help visualising a "PHOTO"-"GRAPH"… especially with the better "photo"-"graphs" which are related to demanding lighting...

Visualization does not need a viewfinder, electronic or not. If you are visualizing while using an optical VF, you are not visualizing at all.

Michael Nagel said:

Theodorus,

an EVF is a tool like anything else on a camera. Using it or not depends on your personal preferences. And concerning great photos - you will see these some time from great photographers. The EVF is relatively 'young', so there is quite some advance to catch up compared to all the great photos taken with DSLR and classic viewfinder cameras.

I don't see any reason to fight over something I consider as personal preference - like it or not.
The only thing I can say for me - this is something I got used to and there are advantages and disadvantages everybody has to define for himself. I like the live histogram I use quite frequently and it helps to get the exposure where I want to have it.

Disclaimer: I do not have any great photos, but I certainly did not feel hindered by the EVF for these four - you might like it or not.

This is an old one taken in 2004. Does anyone remember the HP Photosmart 850? This was my first contact with EVF until two years ago...


It is just a tool - not a religion...

Best regards,
Michael

Click to expand...

OTOH Michael, why I have the feeling that I would never be able to shoot these by using a camera with EVF?

Theodoros Fotometria said:

OTOH Michael, why I have the feeling that I would never be able to shoot these by using a camera with EVF?

Click to expand...

Could it be that it is simply that you plainly refuse this tool and do not want to deal with its properties?
If you feel impeded by the viewfinder - look a the scene without and use it only for framing - what's the issue?

Still no great photos, but what the heck?



Best regards,
Michael

Cem_Usakligil said:

Visualization does not need a viewfinder, electronic or not. If you are visualizing while using an optical VF, you are not visualizing at all.

Click to expand...

Interesting… but isn't framing and "moment of pressing the shutter" part of it? …photography isn't only related with images that one has the time to direct all parameters and shoot the scene… Plenty of great shots have been made by "photographer instinct" to have "forced" the direction in a split of a second… ("why?" - the title that it was published) of R.Kappa is a good example… and I don't think that would have been ever shot by using an EVF…

Theodoros Fotometria said:

Interesting… but isn't framing and "moment of pressing the shutter" part of it? …photography isn't only related with images that one has the time to direct all parameters and shoot the scene… Plenty of great shots have been made by "photographer instinct" to have "forced" the direction in a split of a second… ("why?" - the title that it was published) of R.Kappa is a good example… and I don't think that would have been ever shot by using an EVF…

Click to expand...

This is not a visualized shot, it is a grab shot.

Theodoros Fotometria said:

Interesting… but isn't framing and "moment of pressing the shutter" part of it? …photography isn't only related with images that one has the time to direct all parameters and shoot the scene… Plenty of great shots have been made by "photographer instinct" to have "forced" the direction in a split of a second… ("why?" - the title that it was published) of R.Kappa is a good example… and I don't think that would have been ever shot by using an EVF…

Click to expand...

What Cem wrote and I do not see a difference between shutter lag - let it be mechanical (rangefinder, DSLR etc.) or electronical (EVF). The only difference is the willingness of the human behind to deal with it. I see it as a matter of taste, so I will not try to convince you to use it, but I see it far less emotional.



Best regards,
Michael

No it's not Cem… MO is that it's the instinct of the great photographer that has direct it… I can't see any other way of one to have turned the camera there out of all space and have it ready unless he "felt" this coming… I'm not saying this out of sense, but because I remember how I shot this…



or that…



not that I think of them as valuable as Kappa's… but they where not luck...

Theodoros Fotometria said:

Interesting… but isn't framing and "moment of pressing the shutter" part of it? …photography isn't only related with images that one has the time to direct all parameters and shoot the scene…

Click to expand...

And exactly that is the actual point of view for this picture you posted ... a staged photo with enough time to direct all the parameters and shoot the scene ...

Hi, Theodoros,

Theodoros Fotometria said:

Honestly Doug, I feel (please don't take this as an insult, it's just a conclusion that often happens between different people) we speak a "different language" when we refer on "visualisation". . .

Click to expand...

Not at all. I don't deal with "visualization" so there can be no disagreement.

… I agree with the fellers above...

Click to expand...

Good Choice. I feel the same about Alexander Graham Bell.

You see Doug, visualisation is not a process related to photographers, it's a process related to all arts (painters that have pref-vision of the final painting, authors that pre-see the lighting, the character expression, the atmosphere they will "throw" in their novels …etc) and it includes: 1. Pre-vision of the print, 2. "Automatic" reaction on the exposure parameters and equipment use to achieve the photograph, 3. Pre-vision of the process of development and even pre-choice of the printing process and even the kind of material that will be used to achieve the print… From this point of view, I do care on technical aspects which I often discuss in this forum (Sensor characteristics-capabilities, processing profiles and techniques ..etc.), but it's only in relation of how this may help for better photography by expanding the possible lighting control/achievement on a photograph… Honestly, people who think of more sharpness than is enough, or more resolution as important factors for good photography, …only make me sad for their idea of what "PHOTO"-"GRAPHY" really is…

Now, as far as EVFs are concerned, 1. Idon't see how they are related to photography since there is interference in-between "real vision" and visualisation and thus it interferes in the process, 2. I don't see how the huge DR compression it has will help visualising a "PHOTO"-"GRAPH"… especially with the better "photo"-"graphs" which are related to demanding lighting...

Click to expand...

Thanks.

Doug

Wow!
I go to bed and everyone stays up all night trying to figure out what's troubling Theo.
There's more than a language barrier here but we can start with that.
' Great' 'good'. Give us a break, Theo. words don't have definitions; they have common usage, superlatives included. This is a great conversation going on here but it's not a good one. Christine says my photos are great; I say they are good, OK, possible, but rarely great. I reserve that for other people's photos.
Visualization isn't reserved for the arts alone. I do a fair bit of that when I see a good looking woman walk past or an apple in a fruit market. Visualization is a rather strange phenomenon, seemingly unique to humans. We recognize the possibilities of the future. Don't get too carried away with its artistic possibilities. Even Doug, who will deny profusely, that he would dare visualize when photographing, is subconsciously predicting the outcomes of his own actions. Otherwise he wouldn't bother.
Cappa! Really! What does this have to do with the price of tea? Suggesting the impossible isn't good grounds for logical argument.
Haven't you got it yet?
It's you! We all seem pretty content with the tools we choose.
Christine is left handed, sometimes. She never has any issues with using my right handed screwdrivers. She only has vision in one eye, her right. She falls right into place when she uses a left eyed viewfinder, EVF or not.

Hi, Tom,

Tom dinning said:

. Even Doug, who will deny profusely, that he would dare visualize when photographing, is subconsciously predicting the outcomes of his own actions. Otherwise he wouldn't bother.

Click to expand...

Oh, I often visualize things. I just don't deal with "visualization" as a code word for something mystic and transcendant.

Best regards,

Doug

Cem_Usakligil said:

Visualization does not need a viewfinder, electronic or not. If you are visualizing while using an optical VF, you are not visualizing at all.

Click to expand...

Agreed! Cem, you remind me that when I use a pinhole camera, I merely have marked on the top of the camera the angle of view for that pinhole. I then imagine what's in it and it works fine, as I take my time!

The same when I would walk around villages in Africa and shoot with my Kodak Retinette 1B stuck to my hip. All I'd do would be pause, look away from the scene with the lens pointed to where I visualize the interest is, and then trip the shutter. The camera was on a taught leather strap and that was my stabilization in those days!

Today, I imagine clearly what I want in the camera, before I bring the camera to my eye to achieve what I can already see in my head.

Asher

Doug Kerr said:

Hi, Tom,


Oh, I often visualize things. I just don't deal with "visualization" as a code word for something mystic and transcendant.

Best regards,

Doug

Click to expand...

You have a good point there, Doug. Visualising seems to have been hijacked by some to mean something pretty unusual and reserved for higher beings. There's nothing mystical about it. If we didn't have such an ability, imagine how hard it would be to dress appropriately in the morning or catch the right bus home at the end of the day.
Transcending sort of falls into the same fate. The theologians certainly liked the sound of that word and grabbed it for their own. Understanding some of the conversations here is transcendental enough for me, not that I feel any better for the experience.

Theodoros Fotometria said:

Interesting… but isn't framing and "moment of pressing the shutter" part of it? …photography isn't only related with images that one has the time to direct all parameters and shoot the scene… Plenty of great shots have been made by "photographer instinct" to have "forced" the direction in a split of a second… ("why?" - the title that it was published) of R.Kappa is a good example… and I don't think that would have been ever shot by using an EVF…

Click to expand...

I think that you are pulling our collective leg, Theodoros. Robert Capa did not use a viewfinder at all for taking that picture.

From a recent article in dpreview:

'That was probably the best picture I ever took. I never saw the picture in the frame because the camera was far above my head', Capa said on the NBC radio show 'Hi! Jinx' in 1947.

In the interview, Capa recounts that he was in a trench in Andalusia, Spain with soldiers trying to attack a machine gun post. He said there were several unsuccessful attempts to rush the gunner, but each time the soldiers moved out they were mowed down.

Capa goes on to say:

'This thing repeated itself about three or four times, so the fourth time I just kind of put my camera above my head and even didn't look and clicked a picture when they moved over the trench. And that was all. I didn't ever look at my pictures there and I sent my pictures back with a lot of other pictures that I took.

I stayed in Spain for three months, and when I came back I was a very famous photographer because that camera which I hold above my head just caught a man at the moment when he was shot.'