Use a WLF on an SLR and you'll be even less noticeable than with rangefinder held to your eye.
Printable View
Use a WLF on an SLR and you'll be even less noticeable than with rangefinder held to your eye.
What's next? A thread proclaiming the superiority of 110 film? Or maybe we declare McDonald's the world's greatest restaraunt. Fast, cheap, and good enough (for the non-iscriminating).
35mm is a fine format, capable of prints much finer than most people can guess at. But you have to use imagination a little bit and avoid popular convention first.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dismayed
Well you can fit a 110 camera in your pocket... and if you're too much of a butterfingers to load film then 110 has that going for it to. It all depends on your priorities.
Just don't say anything about disc film which had no redeeming qualities whatsoever.
They used to make 110 SLR's. If I remember right Minolta made one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yashinoff
Disc cameras were great because they fit in your shirt pocket. The images they made were crap though!
I recall disk cameras being unwieldy compared to 110 cameras - the flat shape wasn't good for holding. Overall most 110 cameras were smaller I'd think too.
Kodak 110 cameras and disc cameras were shaped differently. Disc cameras fit better in your pocket. As for holding, the disc cameras were more like using a cell phone to take pictures except you looked through a tiny hole.
In my opinion disc, 110, and 126 were all crap. Back then you could buy the hugely popular and cheap Canon Sureshot 35mm and blow them all away.
In a SLR the viewfinder is aligned with the lens and is more or less in the centre of the camera. When you raise a SLR to your hear it covers the entire head. The subject doesn't see any eye of the photographer.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheFlyingCamera
In a RF typically the viewfinder is on one side of the camera. When you raise it it only covers half of your face, and leaves one eye free, and the nose visible. The subject sees the nose, one eye, and probably the mouth of the photographer, while with a SLR almost the entire face is covered.
It might be that for this reason the photographer with a RF is less conspicuous. For the gut, the instinct so to speak, he's raising "half a camera" to his eyes (or at least, it appears "half" because it covers only half of the face).
Rationally this shouldn't make any difference. It's obvious that both are taking a picture. But somewhere in the gut if the camera is bigger and it covers both eyes (and most of the face) it is obvious that the photographer "menaces" to take a picture. If the camera is smaller and the photographer goes on looking at the scene then probably "also the images is going to be smaller..." or it's a snap or it's not really being taken. The gut is not very rational.
i have seen plenty of crap LF images, ULF images PT/PD images, Metal Images, Glass Images &cQuote:
Originally Posted by Dismayed
... just like i have seen crap images from every other format and process.
nothing is superior, format size has nothing to do with the quality of images made by it ...
all it has to do with is the ego and superiority complex of the person using the format + process they hope will exhume their lack of talent into the halls of history.
equipment is a distraction.
John- tell us how you really feel!