..is it Heresy?

[Michael Nagel]

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…

Well - EVF was not an option during his lifetime, so this question is pure speculation.
Besides that this photo is a bad choice to demonstrate framing like the reference Jerome cites suggests while there are other sources who dispute the authenticity of it.
Otherwise I would not consider the majority of war photos during the action (shudder) as apt example for framing because the photographer has a few other priorities during his work, like surviving...

So if for you the viewfinder lag, which is besides the colors, luminosity and DR differences the other main difference to optical viewfinders, is something that impedes your capability to catch a specific moment, then don't use it.
But elevating a personal preference to a general discussion and presenting the (apparent/felt) lack of great pictures taken using a relatively new technology (Which professional will actually advertise the type of viewfinder used?) as litmus test for the usefulness of this technology - I do not agree.

Use it or don't and strive for great pictures in both cases

Best regards,
Michael

 

[Cem_Usakligil]

Hi Michael,

.....So if for you the viewfinder lag, which is besides the colors, luminosity and DR differences the other main difference to optical viewfinders, is something that impedes your capability to catch a specific moment, then don't use it.
But elevating a personal preference to a general discussion and presenting the (apparent/felt) lack of great pictures taken using a relatively new technology (Which professional will actually advertise the type of viewfinder used?) as litmus test for the usefulness of this technology - I do not agree....

Very well said.

 

[Theodoros Fotometria]

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

Asher, I think that this conversation has gone to a completely different direction than what the O/P states…
I think that we are discussing here what definition/meaning "visualisation" has for each one of us with respect to taking photographs, while the origin is if the use of EV finder helps visualise with respect to the use of OVF, or if the opposite happens. From this point of view, the cases where there isn't any use of any kind of viewfinder are a completely different subject which does concern one's visualisation abilities but it doesn't alter the requirement which is still if where the viewfinder is used, the use of EVF affects negatively (IMO) the ability of the user to judge lighting with respect to the final print.

 

[Cem_Usakligil]

Asher, I think that this conversation has gone to a completely different direction than what the O/P states…
I think that we are discussing here what definition/meaning "visualisation" has for each one of us with respect to taking photographs, while the origin is if the use of EV finder helps visualise with respect to the use of OVF, or if the opposite happens. From this point of view, the cases where there isn't any use of any kind of viewfinder are a completely different subject which does concern one's visualisation abilities but it doesn't alter the requirement which is still if where the viewfinder is used, the use of EVF affects negatively (IMO) the ability of the user to judge lighting with respect to the final print.

You're getting jiggy with it.

 

[Michael Nagel]

From this point of view, the cases where there isn't any use of any kind of viewfinder are a completely different subject which does concern one's visualisation abilities but it doesn't alter the requirement which is still if where the viewfinder is used, the use of EVF affects negatively (IMO) the ability of the user to judge lighting with respect to the final print.

Wait - I have to get my eyes calibrated...

A human eye is for from being objective and the judgement is based on experience. I do not see how a different viewfinder changes this as for the print process there are many adjustments being made in the digital workflow to make it 'look right' and as long as the RAW files cover the entire DR in the desired part there should be no big issue (hint -> histogram).

Still - your opinion/preference, but for instance I would not consider my eye as standard model for perception. The perception of color already differs between men and women and also on an individual base.

A tool is a tool and stays a tool. Use it or not.

Best regards,
Michael

 

[Theodoros Fotometria]

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.'

It's best if we all post checked truth instead of unreliable information Jerome…
What you post, is a non - confirmed for authenticity tape recording that is supposed to be an interview of Capa from 1947 and was found in Massachusetts (???) only a few years ago (???) and is supposed to be Robert Capa's voice… Funny thing, the timing is coincident with other "attacks" and accusations about the same picture, where it has been accused of being "fake", "fraud" or "set-up" by various people of unknown intensions that have provided questionable evidence to create an argument some 62 years after the happening… I've seen similar "arguments" about the existence of Christ, astronauts on the moon or the death of Hitler… I don't know if the fact that the tape was first appeared on E-bay for a starting bit of 0.99p helps…

Never the less, since the picture is the among the most successful financially of the past century, it is questionable why the reporter that took the interview never published it….

 

[Tom dinning]

Asher, I think that this conversation has gone to a completely different direction than what the O/P states…
I think that we are discussing here what definition/meaning "visualisation" has for each one of us with respect to taking photographs, while the origin is if the use of EV finder helps visualise with respect to the use of OVF, or if the opposite happens. From this point of view, the cases where there isn't any use of any kind of viewfinder are a completely different subject which does concern one's visualisation abilities but it doesn't alter the requirement which is still if where the viewfinder is used, the use of EVF affects negatively (IMO) the ability of the user to judge lighting with respect to the final print.

IMO says it all, Theo. That which you believe does not apply to others nor become gospel or even worth discussion just because you have an opinion on the subject. People here, in their own way seem to be adding some interest and debate into a seemingly dull and irrelevant discussion.
IMO (and I know that counts for little) you should take the advise of others and either get over it or don't use it - or, perish the thought - get more creative with your visualization.
After re-reading the responses here I have come to the conclusion you don't want to change your mind, nor do you seem to value the opinions of others. You're just being bloody minded.
Anyway, who gives a **** if you can't visualize? Really, Theo. don't we have better things to consider?
I'm still trying to figure out how many eggs go in a chocolate mud cake.

 

[Doug Kerr]

Theodoros,

Color emphasis added in the following.​

Asher, I think that this conversation has gone to a completely different direction than what the O/P states…
I think that we are discussing here what definition/meaning "visualisation" has for each one of us with respect to taking photographs, while the origin is if the use of EV finder helps visualise with respect to the use of OVF, or if the opposite happens. From this point of view, the cases where there isn't any use of any kind of viewfinder are a completely different subject which does concern one's visualisation abilities but it doesn't alter the requirement which is still if where the viewfinder is used, the use of EVF affects negatively (IMO) the ability of the user to judge lighting with respect to the final print.

Sorry to quote so much when I will comment on so little, but I am not ready this morning to be insulted in various ways for allegedly citing your words out of context​

.
It is good to have this succinctly stated. It seems to be the real crux of your concern, and I can grasp it much better when extracted from your paradigm of "visualization".

Certainly to the extent that the EVF presents a view of the scene that is substantially different from what the sensor will record (notably with regard to tonal scale rendition), reliance on the EVF view when "adjusting" the lighting can compromise that procedure.

It would seem to me that the ideal - given that the deliverable image must be generated by the sensor chain - would be a highly-faithful presentation of what the sensor chain develops (most handily in a "live view" mode, or alternatively via "test shots").

I am not able to accept the intimation that a faithful presentation of the scene itself (as with a good OVF, reflex or otherwise) would be superior to that. It is as if we were to suggest that a recording engineer had best take of his headset and listen to the performance trough a hole in the control room to studio wall in order to know how to best position the microphones and set the recording level and equalizer curve.

In any case, I think your focus on the mystique of "visualization" has helped obscure key, and understandable, aspects of your concern with the use of EVFs.

And quite frankly, your insistence that photography does not exist without a flat, touchable, mailable deliverable seems to have nothing to do with the principle involved, and repeated reminders of this questionable notion only serve to throw sand in the faces of those seeking to understand the real technical premise of your concerns with EVF use.

And there is some hypocrisy here. You have, for example, mocked some unidentified photographer's lack of attention to lighting when all you have seen of the work is a digital image (maybe in a form compromised for presentation via a forum).

Many of us here have sophisticated visions of various concepts in which we are specially interested, but in presenting practical implications to our colleagues, we must recognize that they may not "yet" grasp those visions. And they may never grasp them, nor even need to in order follow the specific objective point we are trying to make, if we can set it out clearly.

Doug

 

[Cem_Usakligil]

Hi Doug,

You certainly possess the patience of Job. What I ask myself is when one should start ignoring considering the fact that the questions/statements posed by the OP are consistently incongruous and illogical; they are just ravings.

 

[Theodoros Fotometria]

Theodoros,

Color emphasis added in the following.​

Sorry to quote so much when I will comment on so little, but I am not ready this morning to be insulted in various ways for allegedly citing your words out of context​

.
It is good to have this succinctly stated. It seems to be the real crux of your concern, and I can grasp it much better when extracted from your paradigm of "visualization".

Certainly to the extent that the EVF presents a view of the scene that is substantially different from what the sensor will record (notably with regard to tonal scale rendition), reliance on the EVF view when "adjusting" the lighting can compromise that procedure.

It would seem to me that the ideal - given that the deliverable image must be generated by the sensor chain - would be a highly-faithful presentation of what the sensor chain develops (most handily in a "live view" mode, or alternatively via "test shots").

I am not able to accept the intimation that a faithful presentation of the scene itself (as with a good OVF, reflex or otherwise) would be superior to that. It is as if we were to suggest that a recording engineer had best take of his headset and listen to the performance trough a hole in the control room to studio wall in order to know how to best position the microphones and set the recording level and equalizer curve.

In any case, I think your focus on the mystique of "visualization" has helped obscure key, and understandable, aspects of your concern with the use of EVFs.

And quite frankly, your insistence that photography does not exist without a flat, touchable, mailable deliverable seems to have nothing to do with the principle involved, and repeated reminders of this questionable notion only serve to throw sand in the faces of those seeking to understand the real technical premise of your concerns with EVF use.

And there is some hypocrisy here. You have, for example, mocked some unidentified photographer's lack of attention to lighting when all you have seen of the work is a digital image (maybe in a form compromised for presentation via a forum).

Many of us here have sophisticated visions of various concepts in which we are specially interested, but in presenting practical implications to our colleagues, we must recognize that they may not "yet" grasp those visions. And they may never grasp them, nor even need to in order follow the specific objective point we are trying to make, if we can set it out clearly.

Doug

Once again Doug, you're posting different to what I say, but still make it my saying…
I say that the result will be different anyway, either if you use OVF or EVF… I also say that photography up to now is based on the ability of the photographer to think of the outcome with respect to what he sees and that the approach of the subject is based on real vision …as well as the process to achieve the outcome, I also say/mean that the education on future photographers (or even self education) is up to now up with the tradition... Finally, I say that (although I tried) I find myself unable to use EVF and do the same thing as I do with OVF… Trying to explain why, I came to the conclusion that vision information is much limited and thus it affects the whole process…
Finally, I stated that I use LV on all still life or set up I do and it works better (look back to the OP)… Wondering why that is, I also concluded that it was because real human vision was what is used and thus LV was a tool (as Michael calls it) to set up some parameters…
Now, I'm working with Anastasia on posting an answer to Tom about the number of the eggs needed for his cake… Anastasia asked me on how much flour he will use… In the mean time I referred to that story about the Babel tower… but it has no information on cakes or flour or eggs….

 

[Cem_Usakligil]

… In the mean time I referred to that story about the Babel tower… ….

Coincidentally, I just took this picture yesterday, keeping these discussions in mind. I didn't realize that it would be put to good use so soon.

The Tower of Babel by Pieter Bruegel (around 1565):

​

 

[Asher Kelman]

Asher, I think that this conversation has gone to a completely different direction than what the O/P states…
I think that we are discussing here what definition/meaning "visualisation" has for each one of us with respect to taking photographs, while the origin is if the use of EV finder helps visualise with respect to the use of OVF, or if the opposite happens. From this point of view, the cases where there isn't any use of any kind of viewfinder are a completely different subject which does concern one's visualisation abilities but it doesn't alter the requirement which is still if where the viewfinder is used, the use of EVF affects negatively (IMO) the ability of the user to judge lighting with respect to the final print.

Theodoros,


So I'll accept your "conditional": we want to use the viewfinder! So is it sticking out the body of a tank on a battlefield or used in the open where one looks around freely?

If one has already planned and visualized the shot, the EVF, just has to serve the purpose of accurate framing and timing. Modern EVFs do that admirably.

Asher

 

[Jerome Marot]

It's best if we all post checked truth instead of unreliable information Jerome…
What you post, is a non - confirmed for authenticity tape recording that is supposed to be an interview of Capa from 1947 and was found in Massachusetts (???) only a few years ago (???) and is supposed to be Robert Capa's voice… Funny thing, the timing is coincident with other "attacks" and accusations about the same picture, where it has been accused of being "fake", "fraud" or "set-up" by various people of unknown intensions that have provided questionable evidence to create an argument some 62 years after the happening… I've seen similar "arguments" about the existence of Christ, astronauts on the moon or the death of Hitler… I don't know if the fact that the tape was first appeared on E-bay for a starting bit of 0.99p helps…

Never the less, since the picture is the among the most successful financially of the past century, it is questionable why the reporter that took the interview never published it….

Theodoros, you posted the controversial picture, not me. In the history of photography, there must be about a zillion other famous pictures which are undisputedly framed through some kind of optical viewfinder device. Why you chose that particular picture as an example is beyond my comprehension.

You also win the Godwin point in this discussion (emphasis added). Need I say more?

 

[Asher Kelman]

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…

Theodorus,

Notwithstanding your recently won Goodwin prize for use of this inevitable picture, I really find some extra value in this particular miraculously times shot. Capa would be working fast for any photographer of his time, but with ant modern EVF equipped camera, firing 5-10 frames per second and high ISO capability, this very shot would have 4 magnificent companions, each frame a dissection of that moment that Capa caught.

We're like surgeons having lasers and robotic guided surgery. Capa would have absorbed this technology and moved the known boundaries of action photography revealing even more impressive images than he ever created in his lifetime in situations where timing and access are the limiting factors. He's have far longer reach, ability to see in the EVF through the fog of war and bring home the killer pictures of our time!

Asher

 

[Theodoros Fotometria]

Theodorus,

Notwithstanding your recently won Goodwin prize for use of this inevitable picture, I really find some extra value in this particular miraculously times shot. Capa would be working fast for any photographer of his time, but with ant modern EVF equipped camera, firing 5-10 frames per second and high ISO capability, this very shot would have 4 magnificent companions, each frame a dissection of that moment that Capa caught.

We're like surgeons having lasers and robotic guided surgery. Capa would have absorbed this technology and moved the known boundaries of action photography revealing even more impressive images than he ever created in his lifetime in situations where timing and access are the limiting factors. He's have far longer reach, ability to see in the EVF through the fog of war and bring home the killer pictures of our time!

Asher

Obviously I used this shot because it's a characteristic one of what most of us consider as being the reference of street/action/artistic photography, which is "Magnum".
But Asher, I don't know any active Magnum photographer using a camera with EVF… I know Nikos Economopoulos recently got a Fuji Rangefinder with hybrid VF, but I also know he doesn't use the EVF part of it at all… I know his choice was because of the LL abilities of the camera. Actually I tried the same camera extensively and i was also impressed by both the "LL grain" and the superb lenses, that's where my EVF vs. OVF opinion comes from… In fact (going back to your example of MR and his gloves), I rejected it only because of the APS-c sensor (I prefer the shallower possible DOF to cover the "depth" of my subject) and …the big left part of the body (!!!) …because the way I handle rangefinders, my wrist was "bothered" when focusing or setting aperture using the left hand.
Is it possible that you have excluded that kind of photography from your plans and thus seek more of "having the time to set up things" subjects that make you think of VFs as being "equivalent" or of not important specification to consider?
Let me put it another way (by using a "fast" example again), these two where street shots that took advantage of the "kiddish game" with respect to the camera… I'm sure I wouldn't be able to do them (correct) with EVF (because of the foggy lighting)…

…Do you feel (IYO) that it can be done (correctly) using an EVF? …and if the answer is "yes", ..how? I mean here, you have exactly in your mind the print you want and obviously there is no time to judge things with out working through the VF…

Thought of adding another one...

 

[Tom dinning]

Ho hum.
Still going.
Back to sleep.

 

[Asher Kelman]

Ho hum.
Still going.
Back to sleep.

I just woke up? What happened?

 

[Doug Kerr]

Hi, Asher,

I just woke up? What happened?

If you mean in the entirety of this thread - nothing.

Go back to sleep, so it shouldn't be a total loss.

Best regards,

Doug

 

[Theodoros Fotometria]

I just woke up? What happened?

Some had a "digital vision" dream… It looked like a nightmare.

 

[Doug Kerr]

Hi, Theodoros,

I remain eager to grasp what you are telling us. I have not yet been able to do so.

Suppose that you intend to take a picture of a scene, perhaps a farmhouse and barn in front of beautiful rolling hills. Let's imagine you are using a fixed focal-length lens. I will assume that the time of day to take the shot has already been determined (perhaps of necessity).

Perhaps you have an initial thought as to the point of perspective for this shot. You stand at that spot, bring the viewfinder to your eye, and observe the scene

Now, what decisions do you make that are more effectively made if:

• your view through the viewfinder is. a faithful rendering of the actual scene (as we might have through a good reflex optical viewfinder)

than if

• your view through the finder were derived from the camera sensor and presented in a " not-so-faithful" way (perhaps involving a "compressed" rendering of the luminance range of the subject, or lack of fidelity in chrominance, or perhaps noticeably-limited resolution, or some other deficiencies I would look to you to mention in your reply) (as we might have from an EVF of a kind now available)?

Might a shortfall from a more-faithful rendering of the actual scene (resulting from the use of an EVF of today's type rather than a reflex OVF) cause you to less-effectively:

• Decide if this were in fact the point of perspective you would use for the shot (vs. moving to a different spot and observing again)?

• Choose the exact aim of the camera (finalize the "composition"?

• Choose ISO sensitivity, exposure time, and/or f-number for the shot?

• Choose values of certain parameters when processing the image from the camera (and such as which parameters, for example)?

• Decide to apply various special processing functions when processing the image from the camera (and such as what, for example)?

• Decide on a certain type of medium on which to print the processed image?

• Decide which printing process to use for the final photograph?

• Decide how to crop the image for printing?

• Decide the dimensions of the print to be made?

And of course if none of these matters are actually the critical ones, what are?

Thanks.

Best regards,

Doug

 

[Doug Kerr]

How do I feel limited by the performance of the EVF I now use (in a Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ200 camera)?

• It has a finite latency (delay of the view vs. real time) which in effect piles onto the shutter release lag.

Note that both these delay terms are quite small compared to those in some other cameras I have used*, but still not "negligible")

*For example, my Canon Powershot SX-20.​

• The finder image dimensions (angular) are smaller than I would like.

That gives me "less information" about the part of the scene that will be recorded than would be nice.​

• The dynamic range of the camera through to the finder is not as great as I would like; thus, in a scene with a large luminance range, it can be difficult to see in the finder details in the shadow areas of the scene.

Note that I am not conscious of the EVF image being brighter than the actual scene in low light conditions, nor of it being less bright than the actual scene in bright light conditions.

I do find that the view through the finder differs from a direct view of the scene with regard to chromatic rendition, it giving a rendition that is essentially identical to the chromatic rendition of the image as recorded in the file (certainly subject to the chromatic rendition limitations of the EVF display).

That is, its paradigm aspires to be "what you see is what you will get", not "what you see is what you would see looking over the camera at the scene".

Best regards,

Doug

 

[Tom dinning]

Aaaah, yes! Now I get it. 3 eggs.

 

[Doug Kerr]

Hi, Tom,

Aaaah, yes! Now I get it. 3 eggs.

Indeed.

Whereas tennis games start with only two, and can end with only one (but never two).

Best regards,

Doug

 

[Theodoros Fotometria]

Hi Doug…
I have to say, I really feel like we are moving in circles here… The Babel tower story is a good example of what is happening… Here is my position once again:

As posted on No:16 in this thread, all Bresson, Man Ray and Adams, although doing different subjects, suggest that photography (as an art) is no different to other arts where the artist sees in his mind the outcome… All of them, where using a human sense (the vision) to "build" and "see" the result in their minds (the photograph) which they knew that it was going to be different to what they see and worked on been able to pre-visualise that difference and to adopt the capture and the process following in a way that the result will be achievable.

In photography where one has plenty of time to set up things (landscape or studio where setting up the scene is involved) like Adams or Man Ray was doing most of the times, LV can be used like a tool to adjust the parameters, yet, still the image is directed from real vision with LV being only a modern tool, but on "street" or "action" like Bresson was doing, the same processes is done quickly through a viewfinder (TTL or not).

So, an EVF that replaces an OVF would be a serious eye to mind communication problem (since it interferes in the path) for the cases that one has to use the VF, while in all other cases it's useless, since LV will be more effective if done with a larger screen on the back of the camera or (even better) a monitor… The question here, is if there is somebody that has managed to relate what he sees to his mind vision of the print (especially in "tricky" or "difficult" lighting)… because I am unable to do it, If there is, his explaining of the method he uses could be valuable… some examples on artistic photography done with an EVF camera, (even on screen) could also be helpful...

 

[Doug Kerr]

Hi, Theodoros,

I have to say, I really feel like we are moving in circles here… The Babel tower story is a good example of what is happening…

Do not be so self-critical. This is a complicated matter.

Here is my position once again:

As posted on No:16 in this thread, all Bresson, Man Ray and Adams, although doing different subjects, suggest that photography (as an art) is no different to other arts where the artist sees in his mind the outcome… All of them, where using a human sense (the vision) to "build" and "see" the result in their minds (the photograph) which they knew that it was going to be different to what they see and worked on been able to pre-visualise that difference and to adopt the capture and the process following in a way that the result will be achievable.

Indeed.

In photography where one has plenty of time to set up things (landscape or studio where setting up the scene is involved) like Adams or Man Ray was doing most of the times, LV can be used like a tool to adjust the parameters, yet, still the image is directed from real vision with LV being only a modern tool, but on "street" or "action" like Bresson was doing, the same processes is done quickly through a viewfinder (TTL or not).

[Blue emphasis added - see later]​

So, an EVF that replaces an OVF would be a serious eye to mind communication problem (since it interferes in the path) for the cases that one has to use the VF, while in all other cases it's useless, since LV will be more effective if done with a larger screen on the back of the camera or (even better) a monitor… The question here, is if there is somebody that has managed to relate what he sees to his mind vision of the print (especially in "tricky" or "difficult" lighting)… because I am unable to do it, If there is, his explaining of the method he uses could be valuable… some examples on artistic photography done with an EVF camera, (even on screen) could also be helpful...

Yes, I get that as an abstract concept.

And I understand (and agree with) the ranking of various kinds of viewing organ as to the degree of "fidelity" to the scene itself they afford.

What I cannot grasp, in a pragmatic sense, is what I have marked above in blue - things you might do in "setting up" or "executing" a shot that are based on your ability to visualize the result on the print, which things you could do less well if that visualization was impeded by the relative deficiencies of an EVF.

I am disappointed that you are reticent about giving concrete examples of those actions to help me relate your concept to actual photographic craft.

Doug

 

[Cem_Usakligil]

Just pause for a second while I go get the popcorn from the kitchen...

 

[Tom dinning]

Just pause for a second while I go get the popcorn from the kitchen...

No salt on mine, Cem.

Theo, do you really think someone could explain how they do that which you ask? What if, just say, for argument sake, someone had grown up knowing nothing els but digital display screens or electronic view finders. Now I know that May seem a long shot but just go with me for a moment.
So you ask this fine young photographer to explain how he/she does what she does with the DDS or EVF and he/she looks at you with disbelief and says: 'is there something else?'
Then you mention HCB or Capa or any of the others you mention here and they say" who? ".

Surely what you ask is so personal, so cerebral, that we might as well ask Whitely how he sees the lines on the canvas.

This isn't a complex problem. This is a simple one. What works for you and what doesn't leads you to make a choice. Make your images in your own way and enjoy those of others made in a different way.

After all, isn't that one of our objectives? Or is it to understand every single aspect of the tools .
Now post a bloody picture before I eat all Cems popcorn.

 

[Theodoros Fotometria]

No salt on mine, Cem.

Theo, do you really think someone could explain how they do that which you ask? What if, just say, for argument sake, someone had grown up knowing nothing els but digital display screens or electronic view finders. Now I know that May seem a long shot but just go with me for a moment.
So you ask this fine young photographer to explain how he/she does what she does with the DDS or EVF and he/she looks at you with disbelief and says: 'is there something else?'
Then you mention HCB or Capa or any of the others you mention here and they say" who? ".

Surely what you ask is so personal, so cerebral, that we might as well ask Whitely how he sees the lines on the canvas.

This isn't a complex problem. This is a simple one. What works for you and what doesn't leads you to make a choice. Make your images in your own way and enjoy those of others made in a different way.

After all, isn't that one of our objectives? Or is it to understand every single aspect of the tools .
Now post a bloody picture before I eat all Cems popcorn.

Let this be a reply to Doug's latest post too….

Tom, you are teaching photography and you know very well what I am talking about… you could let some of the pop corn aside and help here.
Obviously, when one starts doing photography, what he first has to understand is what makes him a photographer which (again, of course) is the ability of one to make PHOTO-GRAPHS which (as with all arts) have emotions, communication and meaningful purposes. To do that, one has to understand "codes" that others use in their art and develop his own ones. Hence, it is important for one that uses "street" or "powerful action" examples of life, to visualise the outcome quickly and effectively with as many less errors as possible. Natural talent is of course different with different people and inevitably, there are many that what they are doing has nothing to do with the art of photography whatsoever, or others (pros too) that confuse "camera using" with "doing photography"…
It is difficult for some to understand how a "master" can visualise a final "photo-graph" out of a subject he spotted within fractions of a second, but the answer here is that "this is exactly what makes him a master in photography". Yet, we are going away from the O/P again… which is, can one "see" a print in his mind when he looks through an EVF? …my opinion is that he can't, its natural vision that mind has been build to communicate with and if something interferes in the way, it kind of "brakes" the path… "communication error by filtering" would perhaps be the right phrase to explain my position…
Here is a picture of you (IMO)… which uses an actor to play your part…

Any pop-corn left? …and a cold beer perhaps? …yes with salt please! …May I let my shoes go and lay the legs on the table?

 

[Asher Kelman]

The question here, is if there is somebody that has managed to relate what he sees to his mind vision of the print (especially in "tricky" or "difficult" lighting)… because I am unable to do it, If there is, his explaining of the method he uses could be valuable… some examples on artistic photography done with an EVF camera, (even on screen) could also be helpful...

Theodorus,

Artistic photography has been done with a pinhole camera and no optics or alignment for the eyes, but pre-visualization is not impaired by the experienced and skilled photographer who knows how to use his/her tools! Just do a Google search. There are thousands of brilliant pictures made that way.

I'm certain artistic photography has also already been done with cameras with EVF's, you just have to do a search there too. In any case, folks will face that challenge over the next few years as increasingly sophisticated EVF cameras come to dominate the compact camera market.

Of course, you cannot expect to transition to such work with no learning curve as your mind refigures things out. After all, it takes an newborn infant a while to learn to invert images in the brain to visualize them upright, as they are in real life! So we do this all the time, readjusting out viewpoint to assess out prey!

Either retrain yourself or simpler still, don't use the EVF cameras! However, there's nothing physiologically preventing you from composing your masterpiece with any camera, with whatever viewing system it has. The only barrier is expectation that moving from one camera to another should not involve somewhat different learned skills which can be used intuitively once you gain competence.

And that's my final word on the subject, LOL!

Asher

 

[Theodoros Fotometria]

Theodorus,

Artistic photography has been done with a pinhole camera and no optics or alignment for the eyes, but pre-visualization is not impaired by the experienced and skilled photographer who knows how to use his/her tools! Just do a Google search. There are thousands of brilliant pictures made that way.

I'm certain artistic photography has also already been done with cameras with EVF's, you just have to do a search there too. In any case, folks will face that challenge over the next few years as increasingly sophisticated EVF cameras come to dominate the compact camera market.

Of course, you cannot expect to transition to such work with no learning curve as your mind refigures things out. After all, it takes an newborn infant a while to learn to invert images in the brain to visualize them upright, as they are in real life! So we do this all the time, readjusting out viewpoint to assess out prey!

Either retrain yourself or simpler still, don't use the EVF cameras! However, there's nothing physiologically preventing you from composing your masterpiece with any camera, with whatever viewing system it has. The only barrier is expectation that moving from one camera to another should not involve somewhat different learned skills which can be used intuitively once you gain competence.

And that's my final word on the subject, LOL!

Asher

Asher, I don't see why we argue on the same issue all the time although it has been clear what one suggests, pin-hole cameras and other relevant where one's visualisation of the camera's output is based on advanced skills and time to set up his subject are totally irrelevant, EVF or OVF when one sets up and directs things is also irrelevant because he uses his actual vision and if parameters need to be more accurate, LV is the better way of setting them up… so EVF doesn't add anything to the equation, nothing at all.
The argument is with "fast" photography through the viewfinder (in other words where the VF is a necessity), where I've yet to see a worthwhile outcome made by using an EVF camera and I doubt if there will ever be any important one ever…

I want to see one posting an attempt (or success) to create something important artistic wise that, 1. would require looking through the VF to be made… 2. It will be an attempt (or success) and not flying balloons or cats or dogs or other snap… Here is another three attempts of mine using OVF in high contrast situations which I am sure I wouldn't even try using an EVF…