The upside down thing

[Shen45]

Yesterday while bottling a very tasty Belgian dark ale with a friend we were discussing the images of Edward Weston and other famous large format photographers. We were looking at published works from various books.

Our discussion centred around "what did they see" and "how did they react" to their GG images.

To illustrate this point we looked at a large majority of EW's [and other's] work upside down [not reversed] instead of the normal manner of viewing and it highlighted some very interesting aspects of the way they approached their work.

Questions??

When you use your GG do you relate to it in any particular manner?

What does the GG tell you?

And is there anything in particular you gain from the inverted image that is not necassarily visual in the final print but is affected by things you saw?

Steve

[domenico Foschi]

First, looking at the image upside down helps you to abstract it and discern the different tonalities and shapes.
Sometime we are attracted by one area of the image that "looks good" and build the image around it by maybe changing composition, or f stop...
In my approach what is in front of the lens is not as important as what I see on the ground glass.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Yesterday while bottling a very tasty Belgian dark ale with a friend we were discussing the images of Edward Weston and other famous large format photographers. We were looking at published works from various books.

Our discussion centred around "what did they see" and "how did they react" to their GG images.

To illustrate this point we looked at a large majority of EW's [and other's] work upside down [not reversed] instead of the normal manner of viewing and it highlighted some very interesting aspects of the way they approached their work.

Questions??

When you use your GG do you relate to it in any particular manner?

What does the GG tell you?

And is there anything in particular you gain from the inverted image that is not necassarily visual in the final print but is affected by things you saw?

Steve

I no longer see the image upside down, somehow my brain has learned to correct for this. Having said that, one of the few things that I agree with Michael A Smith is the fact that you need to see the ground glass, not what is on it. IOW, examine the GG as if it was a picture already. It takes a little bit of time but once you become practiced you start to see things and compose better.

[Leonard Evens]

There comes a point for most of us when we stop being aware the the inversion. When I look at the gg image, I don't exactly see it as right side up, but I have to think about it to realize it isn't.. When I remember later what I saw on the ground glass, I always remember it as right side up. I guess I would say that I am essentially indifferent about it.

The ground glass image is both upside down and reversed left to right. That is the same as being rotated 180 degrees. If you rotate it back, it will have the correct orientation for left and right. On the other hand, if, as the artist Vermeer is supposed to have done, you stand inside a darkened room (camera obscura) with a lens in one side, and trace the image you see on the opposite side, you will find that, when you turn it around, left and right are reversed.

People get very confused about the meaning of orientation. This is typified by the puzzler: "When you look in a mirror, left and right are reversed, so why aren't up and down?" I'll leave that for you to ponder.

[Greg Lockrey]

In art school we would routinely look at images upside down and in a mirror to better study the elements of composition as how it is affected by the constraints of the format and not be distracted by the subject. In drawing and painting it was easier to see if your perspective was correct.

[Colin Graham]

I learned to draw by breaking things down into basic shapes. It has occurred to me that I still work the same way, in that the basic shapes of compositional elements are enhanced by the dim contrast of the ground glass, almost highlighted. So in spending time just studying the gg I become aware of compositional elements and geometric relationships that I might not have noticed at first. Of course the boundaries of the frame help immensely, but even more than that the inverted reverse of the image makes them almost jarringly apparent. It doesn't feel upside down or unnatural- even though in the weather here lately it is often raining or snowing in the wrong direction when I come out from under the dark cloth. :-D

[Jim Galli]

Whenever I invite an interested non photographer to look at the ground glass I always tell them "you would be surprised how quickly your brain stops telling you it's upside down." My dad was a news proof reader among other things. We kids thought it strange that he could read just as well and just as fast with the book upside down. When I was very new at LF I read everything upside down as an exercise to speed up the inevitable process of overcoming that akwardness. I haven't answered your question. I can get very excited or very bored while looking at the GG. I don't know that famous photographers saw any different upside down than we do. I rather doubt it.

[Jim Fitzgerald]

It doesn't even register as being upside down and backwards anymore. I compose the elements on the GG and react to the shape ,line and forms. It all just falls into place.


Jim

[Vaughn]

A friend served on a Navy ship -- writing backwards on the plexiglas (or whatever it is) where they keep track of the fleet and aircraft. After a shift he wrote a letter home to his mom -- all written backwards without any intention of doing so.

The funny thing is, is that his mon wrote back to him the same way.

The mirror thing is pretty straight forward -- harder to describe than to think about. A whole different principle than a projected image onto GG from a lens...especially when viewed from the backside like we do with view cameras.

The projected image from a lens to a GG is upside down and backwards -- but since we view it from the backside of the GG, what we see is only upside down from that point of view. Interesting...never really thought about it before, and I have been looking at a GG for almost 30 years.

To make things interesting, I make single transfer carbon prints -- the prints are reversed (backwards). If I turn my prints upside down, they are exactly what is projected onto the GG -- but backwards from what we see from the backside of the GG.

At this point in time, I don't really think about the orientation of the image on the GG, but I do remember one time after a long period under the darkcloth, that I was momentarily confused as to the orientation of the world when I took my head out from under the cloth.

vaughn

[John Kasaian]

Just as soon as I get my hands on a very tasty dark Belgian ale and imbibe while looking at my gg, I'll let you know what I see :D

Really though, when I've been away from my camera for a long time it takes awhile to get used to the upside down cattywompus thing, but if I'm shooting on a regular basis I don't really notice it...but then I grew up attending California public schools in the
60's and 70's ;)

[Shen45]

Questions??

When you use your GG do you relate to it in any particular manner?

Probably answered to a reasonable degree


What does the GG tell you?

Again most replies covered this quite well.

And is there anything in particular you gain from the inverted image that is not necessarily visual in the final print but is affected by things you saw?

An explaination may help.

When you look at the GG do you see any relationships between elements in the image on the GG that when printed don't seem to be all that important or lack the power you saw on the GG? Do you think this inverted relationship and visible connection on the GG has a subconscious connection to the viewer of the final print?

I looked at a couple of EW's prints which I liked but could not work out why, they were really quite ordinary, however I noticed in those images the above relationships. There was a strength in the inverted image that on the surface wasn't conveyed in the final print. I was however aware there was something that attracted me to that print.

Steve

[Greg Lockrey]

...but then I grew up attending California public schools in the
60's and 70's ;)

Gee John, that's really too bad... :D

One other thing I liked to do when I worked in the wet lab doing my "fine art" photography was to have the negative upside down and move the easel into a "best" composition position. Looking at a negative and upside down really helps in that regard which I sort of miss going digital. ;)

[Brian Vuillemenot]

Whadya mean the ground glass image is upside down?!? Isn't it just the rest of the world outside the ground glass that's that way?

[Bruce Watson]

There comes a point for most of us when we stop being aware the the inversion. When I look at the gg image, I don't exactly see it as right side up, but I have to think about it to realize it isn't. When I remember later what I saw on the ground glass, I always remember it as right side up.

What Leonard says. It took me several hundred sheets of film, but one day I realized that I no longer saw the image on the ground glass as upside down and backwards any more. Unless I applied a conscious effort to see it that way. So all I see these days is the image I'm working on.

[N Dhananjay]

2 things the ground glass does for me. 1) It makes me forget the thing I am photographing and concentrate on visual relationships and that is important to me. 2) I'm not looking through something at something. I am looking at something, the ground glass. That is exactly what one does with a print - you look at it, not through it (hopefully!). So, the ground glass, in some physiological way, gives me a closer approximation to the print viewing experience than looking through a viewfinder etc. Cheers, DJ

[Daniel_Buck]

It doesn't even register as being upside down and backwards anymore. I compose the elements on the GG and react to the shape ,line and forms. It all just falls into place.

I agree. I can't say that my eyes/brain have flipped the image right side up, but the longer I shoot, the less and less I am aware that the image is flipped at all. I do as you do, I compose what I see, get my major angles and shapes the way I want to, and don't usually worry about the little details in the scene, unless they are details that have alot of contrast and could potentially affect my composition. (bright flowers on dark grass, or other things that stand out clearly)

[Kuzano]

I agree. I can't say that my eyes/brain have flipped the image right side up, but the longer I shoot, the less and less I am aware that the image is flipped at all. I do as you do, I compose what I see, get my major angles and shapes the way I want to, and don't usually worry about the little details in the scene, unless they are details that have alot of contrast and could potentially affect my composition. (bright flowers on dark grass, or other things that stand out clearly)

Actually, your brain already does that, considering that the optic nerve, or the brain turns the image right side up since the lens in our eyes deliver it upside down to the rods and cones. So, it has always made me ponder these points:

Why isn't there a little switch we can throw to uncouple that action and be able to take a little more objective look at the world?
Why isn't there a little switch we can throw to invert the image on the ground glass, the same as we do within our eye?
Is the "correction" taking place in the nerve or the brain really a trick, and the world is not really "right side" up, or to put it differently... just the opposite from what we think we are seeing?

And as long as I ponder those questions, I always take time to wonder about the declaration that was once made to me that "my" world is actually a scene on a stage wherein the stage hands move along in front of me setting the stage of "my" life and following along behind me, disassembling things. I was told that if I occasionally snap my head around sharply, I would see vague shadowy images of them.

Oh yes, and does gravity really hold us down.......or up?

Am I still on task for this post?

[Colin Graham]

I want some gravity cups for my eye balls. So no matter how upside I get, everything looks ok. :-)

[Shen45]

In my original post I wasn't soliciting comments about the "problems" with the upside down image. I personally have shot 5x4 for over 30 years and don't consider the image to be unusual.

My question was attempting to examine something different than the purely mechanical aspects of the GG.

My intent in starting this thread was to stimulate discussion on whether a photographer reacts on a different level to what the GG is showing them. Whether there is something about the inverted image that impacts on the final print. Some of the replies have touched on their relationship to the GG in a manner I had hoped would come out.

Just to repeat the post I made earlier -- maybe there is no real relationship and it is only in my mind :)


"When you look at the GG do you see any relationships between elements in the image on the GG that when printed don't seem to be all that important or lack the power you saw on the GG? Do you think this inverted relationship and visible connection on the GG has a subconscious connection to the viewer of the final print?

I looked at a couple of EW's prints which I liked but could not work out why, they were really quite ordinary, however I noticed in those images the above relationships. There was a strength in the inverted image that on the surface wasn't conveyed in the final print. I was however aware there was something that attracted me to that print."

Steve

[David_Senesac]

Before I embraced my view camera, I spent two decades looking at right side up images with 35mm SLR and 6x7. As a landscape photographer graphic shapes, lines, and geometries in my compositions are extremely important. Although I manage to compose such elements reasonably well, the overall frame look tends to suffer unless I also take my head out of the groundglass and frame the scene a bit with my squaring fingers. So to your question, yes the result of an inverted image does have some impact at least from this photographer's viewpoint. Being upsidedown is not quite the same as right side up and will always be somewhat lacking in my full aesthetic perception. I think where that tends to come out most is with subjects with strong diagonal and crossing lines of geometry that tend to have greater expectation while viewing the groundglass than what I see in results. Examples might be a narrow stream in a landscape that routes from upper center frame towards either corner or center frame. Trying to discern which one really looks better are likely better evaluated outside the darkcloth than under. ...David

[Maris Rusis]

It's a long time since I noticed the image on the ground-glass of a view camera is upside down BUT looking down at the 4x5 image in a Graflex with its right to left reversal is truly disconcerting. Is there something about the brain's visual lobe that makes mentally rotating images easy but flipping them so hard? Or is it me?

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

When you look at the GG do you see any relationships between elements in the image on the GG that when printed don't seem to be all that important or lack the power you saw on the GG?

Not at all, I beleive that everything or every element in the photograph should be there for a reason. There are times when an element intrudes and no matter how you place the camera it is always there to mess things up, this cannot be helped, but in my case I try to think of all the elements within the picture and how can I arrange them to make a better photograph.


Do you think this inverted relationship and visible connection on the GG has a subconscious connection to the viewer of the final print?

I don't think it does, nor do I think it should if you have a finished picture in your mind before you even pressed the shutter. for example, in this shot, I knew I was going to print it upside down, the bottom part of the picture is the top part of a door.

http://i190.photobucket.com/albums/z197/jorge1966_photo/Ebay%20Prints/Sunrise.jpg

If you turn this image around you will see that the "content" is enterely different and IMO not as good.

[Gary L. Quay]

My eyes are not so good these days. I spend so much energy switching between a loupe, my glasses, or just my eyeballs for focusing that I really have to compose while looking at the scene, object or model, and just making sure that the image on the GG contains the parts that I want. I try not to have to make camera movements unless I absolutely have to, and I really appreciate having a grid on the GG for that. I can't say that I find that upside-downness adds or subtracts anything.

Yet.

--Gary

[Murray]

I agree with Domenico about the abstraction idea. I noticed that helping customers with picture framing. I have a different view than they from the other side of the table, but the composition is already done in most cases there.

I will try to think about that behind the glass in the future.

[Eric Woodbury]

It's upside down?!

Years ago I was setting up a picture of a reflection. When I looked through the camera, the image was right side up and I found it confusing.

(Actually, the image is rotated.)

[jetcode]

Yesterday while bottling a very tasty Belgian dark ale with a friend we were discussing the images of Edward Weston and other famous large format photographers. We were looking at published works from various books.

Our discussion centred around "what did they see" and "how did they react" to their GG images.

To illustrate this point we looked at a large majority of EW's [and other's] work upside down [not reversed] instead of the normal manner of viewing and it highlighted some very interesting aspects of the way they approached their work.

Questions??

When you use your GG do you relate to it in any particular manner?

What does the GG tell you?

And is there anything in particular you gain from the inverted image that is not necassarily visual in the final print but is affected by things you saw?

Steve

I think the way GG works visually is a plus though I use the same techniques with my DSLR and that is: composition via shape, tone, movement, texture, form, relationships between objects, luminence, contrast, target visualizations, etc.

[Dave Brown]

I'm generally neutral about such things, but for me, the ground glass is if anything, a hindrance. I do the bulk of my composition before crawling under the dark cloth, although obviously focus, final framing, and any movements require looking through the glass. In particular, I find that viewing the image upside down on the ground glass makes it difficult to place the horizon where I want it when doing landscapes (fortunately, the squarish aspect ratio of 4x5 & 8x10 leaves a lot of room for error).