Quote Originally Posted by Diapositivo View Post
With the film cameras I normally compose attentively and when the film is developed I don't have surprises.

With the digital I found I have a problem. My digital camera doesn't have an optical viewfinder (it probably was the first really good camera with EVF only, back in 2006 or 2005). The electronic viewfinder, besides being a bit cluttered with information (which must be there because there are not knobs to tell you what your settings are) is not so well defined and big as the viewfinder of an SLR. I sometimes find that there are disturbing elements in the composition (or gross mistakes) that I did not notice when I was composing the picture.
Must say, I always found live view much more fluid for composing. The Pentax 67 viewfinder, while big and bright, is only around 90% coverage of course - same deal with the Hasselblad. But because live view is so easy to work with, like I said in the OP, I found my pictures 'too' composed, contrived. The surprises in my case relate to colour and tonality, but critically, the realisation of the image compressed in two dimensions - DoF preview only ever gives me an idea in broad daylight. The real 'surprise' comes when I realise my intuition at the shooting stage was right. However considered and laboured a composition, the true objectivity and analysis of the image comes afterwards - only then do I know if the picture 'has it'. I've spent whole shoots working with one scene, a handful of compositions, but the 'what was I thinking moment?' when looking at the negs has more to do with what Ansel Adams called confused seeing.

Composition can sometimes feel like sculpting without stepping back to see what you're making, you can get lost in the viewfinder, the 'making'.