Hm. I've never found this to be true at all. For me, if it works one way then it will work just as well the other way. YMMV I suppose.
Hm. I've never found this to be true at all. For me, if it works one way then it will work just as well the other way. YMMV I suppose.You can drive yourself nutty looking at a photo that has a strong composition, then looking at it in a mirror. It usually falls apart.
Moving far off topic, long ago was in a photo class and someone showed an image that left people a bit, well, cold, confused. The typical 'uh.... hmmm... I like the doggie!' type of responses. Then someone talked about how they way the dog sat looking one way was wrong to him, and someone else mentioned that she was drawn to the sky then the dog but that she didn't know where to look after that. Someone got up and pointed out how his eye moved aorund the image, and the photographer jumped. She realized why no one really saw the story she thought was obvious in the image. She was from Israel... Who knew that visual narratives used the same rules of eye movement as literary narratives, eh?Hm. I've never found this to be true at all. For me, if it works one way then it will work just as well the other way. YMMV I suppose.
I'm the opposite. I just couldn't get on with the reversed WLF image on my Hasselblad, but found working with the fully inverted image of a LF camera very easy and natural.
I do exactly the same and concur - I find it an aid to composition.
Wait until you go to a large format view camera, if you ever do, where the image is upside down on the ground glass. Once I adapted to that I find it a huge aid to composition, even more so than the MF WLF, because it's abstracting to a degree and forces you to actually compose and not get so fixated on what you see as the subject that you forget the surrounding area and the actual composition. Most people who stick with LF seem to agree with this, but it's not something everyone ever adapts to.
Yes, that way I have a more intelligent audience.
Hm. I've never found this to be true at all. For me, if it works one way then it will work just as well the other way. YMMV I suppose.
I have no problem composing with a reversed image. It's the reverse movement to compose that throws me.
Not for action! For action shots you will need to depend on depth of field as focusing manually will take so long the action will have moved.
Using a WLF is a matter of getting used to the right/left inversion. After a while you learn to move the camera in the opposite direction of what you'd think by looking in the WLF. A prism finder eliminates that issue, usually has a bit of magnification and you can add corrective diopters. But it comes at the price of being heavy (quite heavy) and expensive. The WLF will have a pop-up magnifier that gives greater magnification than the prism finder, so it can be more accurate for checking focus. And the greatest advantage of the WLF is since you are not holding the camera up to your eye, you can have eye contact with the subject, something that often leads to better portraits. The depth of field issue has nothing to do with the finder, but the longer focal length of medium-format lenses. Most MF SLR's (including your 6008) have a depth-of-field preview button allowing you to judge that. TLRs do not.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?