View Full Version : New composition tool, small, compact !
There has been several posts regarding different means for composition without lugging the huge camera to every location.... I recently bought the Linhof Multi focal length viewfinder. Although the viewfinder is quite unique and does work as a composition tool, IMO, it's a bit limited and cumbersome. The fl's are limited and the aspect ratios are limited. If you want to change formats, you must change out the masks. The viewfinder was clearly designed for its intended purpose - to sit atop a Linhof field camera. As a composition tool, I would consider it OK at best, as its heavy, not pocket friendly, not easy on the hands, ice cold in cold weather, hot when the sun beats on it. Its also a bit cumbersome to continously change fl settings, as it was designed more for, set it and leave it. Its not really a zoom type lens such as 35mm zoom lenses.
I recently came accross two interesting composition tools that may work well. The first is small, compact, and dirt cheap, its called the ViewCatcher. I just ordered one at Amazon.com for $9 + shipping.
http://www.colorwheelco.com/viewcatcher/features.shtml
The beauty of this little gem, is its ability to show any fl, AND any aspect ratio in the same tool with ease of changing between the two. AND it fits in your shirt pocket! You can mark the exterior with formats you shoot, 24x36, 6x9, 4x5, 5x7,6x12, 6x17, 4x10, etc. Then just slide the insert to suit your composition and see what format best suits the scene. Then look at your format markings. To determine fl, install a thin tape onto the frame, mark the lens fl's you own, (for example, 240mm lens = 240mm distance from eye to View Catcher) pull the tape to your eye, and see the fl required for that composure at infinity focus. Slightly closer focus will not change the fl, assuming its not macro type shooting.... For a small, compact and low cost system, this looks like a winner...
The second item is a movie directors viewfinder, or composing tool. If you shoot wide to normal only, this viewfinder would suffice well. In 1.5 aspect ratio (which you can mask down to 4x5) it will show 18 - 200 mm fl's. If you shoot with long lenses, you could still simulate them by masking down further.
http://www.kishoptics.com/viewfinder-set.html
Hopefully this will add to the list of options, for composing tools....
Bob Salomon
12-Mar-2006, 10:49
" Its also a bit cumbersome to continously change fl settings"
Why is rotating the ring around the eyepiece "cumbersome"? This is exactly how many zoom or vari focal length lenses work.
How is this thing superior to a piece of cardboard with a hole cut in it?
If you put this device at a distance of 240 mm from your eye you would get the right view only if the opening is the same as your format. Because this is not the case (even if you keep the right sides ratio) you would need to recalculate the distance according to the real size of the opening in use. There is the problem - the smaller this device is in comparision with your real format the less accurate is the field of vision (because the device starts to be too sensitive to the eye distance precision).
Jack Flesher
12-Mar-2006, 11:08
My .02...
I do use the Linhof thingy, but generally leave it in the front seat of my car simply to aid in pre-visualize to see if dragging out the camera is worthwhile.
I have also cut out a 4x5 hole in a piece of mount board and attached a tape to it and carried it my bag. And I never used it. In the end, I found that using the thumb and forefinger of each of my hands in opposing "L's" created an almost exact 4x5 rectangle... Since I always had these with me, I could simply shove them in front of my eye, use however far away it is when I was properly framed to tell me the focal, then choose the focal length in my bag that was the closest match.
Since I generally only carry 4 focals in my bag, it took about two days in the field to learn to "intuit" which lens was going to generate the image I was after, so I really don't even use this very often...
The one tool I did use a fair bit, was a Zone VI viewing tool that "converted" a color scene to B&W. IMO this did more to help my B&W composition prowess that anything else...
Keith S. Walklet
12-Mar-2006, 11:24
I have a Viewcatcher that was given to me by a painter friend of mine. It is a nifty gadget and I don't hesitate to share it with my students, but I still favor the white matboard cutouts for giving the most accurate view of what the finished image will look like on the wall. Though the neutral tone tool it employs is interesting, the opening of the Viewcatcher is on the small side for composing to my taste.
Bob, changing the fl settings is not a smooth operation.... it's fine for its intended purpose, but for constant zooming up and back, its a bit cumbersome vs. other options. Again, if its sits atop a camera and you set it, and leave it, its perfect. And the fact its can work with many lenses makes this product very unique indeed, it can replace using many different fl viewfinders.
gps, yep, sorry, I forgot to mention the compensation required for the smaller image size. But this is based on image diagonal and its a linear relationship.
CXC, you could surely build one of these out of cardboard, but the nice aspect ratio changer makes it appealing.... hey, keep in mind here, $9....
Agreed the size is small, but that also is the benefit, as I also had one of the larger 8x10 black boards with the cut out, which B&H sells, comes with fl tape measure.... and I too don't keep it with me enough..... but if I could put this in my shirt pocket, I would always have it....hey, its a $9 rough fl tool that can vary for different aspect ratio and fit in your shirt pocket? lets not loose perspective of what one can expect for $9.
Jack, not sure if your still ignoring me, but if not, what device converts B&W into color for composure? And your 4x5 L method is quite effective, till you start using 1200mm lenses, or very wide angle lenses, it gets hard judging the fl required.... but you always carry your hands :-)
What is more, since the ratio of your chosen format to this device format is different for each of the chosen formats you would need either a different "tape" for each format or different scales on the same tape...
Bob Salomon
12-Mar-2006, 12:59
"but for constant zooming up and back, its a bit cumbersome vs. other options"
There is nothing "cumbersome" about twisting a ring with your thumb and forefinger. If it is not on the camera then you hold it with one hand and twist with the other. That may be much less cumbersome then holding a piece of carboard or plastic at a cetain distance and trying to figure out what focal length from 75 to 360 (range of Linhof 45 finder) you are previewing with the other systems.
Bob, I understand how to use it, but it won't fit in your shirt pocket without cutting your chest up. In the cold, the viewfinders stiffness and finger stiffness makes it bit cumbersome to zoom in and out, vs. moving a piece of cardboard to and from your face.... I am not knocking the product, its quite an engineering marvel, but it does not solve ALL the worlds problems, so c'mon.... be fair.
gps, agreed, the easiest method is, write a conversion chart in small type, from your printer and paste it on the view finder... let the tape measure read in mm, so its a simple glance at the cardboard to have the fl for any format....
"conversion chart in small type" - I'm affraid it would really need to be a small type... Consider this - For each measured length you would need to have its equivalent in at least 7 formats (mentioned by you) . If you want to match the (in)famous Linhof viewfinder range 75-360 mm just for each 20 mm it would require about 14 different length x 7 different format = ca 100 different values... written in small types, of course, as the viewcatcher is not really a NY Times format... I think it would need a loupe (Schneider or to make it better for Bob, Rodenstock) to go with the viewcatcher...
Michael Kadillak
12-Mar-2006, 13:54
I have found the three Linhof viewfinders I own to be quite good but when I added 8x20, 12x20 and 11x14 to the mix, I needed to augment my pre-viewing options.
At Michaels store with the wife a while back I came across some inexpensive canvas covered white painters panels in various sizes for about $0.50 each that worked great. I cut out the format proportions out of them with a razor knife and added 1/4" nylon cord at the base in knots for each lens and I was good to go. I have found that these work great for ULF for two reasons. First, the white color is easy to frame with and is very visually descriminating from a compositional perspective. Secondly I find that using the largest "frame" possible is easier for me to see the possible composition. As a result, I have cut canvas boards for 4x5, 5x7 and 8x10 and leave the Linhof finders at home they work that well.
As a result, I would recommend cutting out your format from one of the large white canvas cards for your format and see what you think. Cost you less than a $1.00. I find small previewing devices like a 13" TV in a 50" HDTV world. They work, but there is nothing quite like BIG.
At the end of the day use what you find comfortable and works for you.
Cheers!
Brian Ellis
12-Mar-2006, 13:57
"Why is rotating the ring around the eyepiece "cumbersome"? This is exactly how many zoom or vari focal length lenses work"
Because when it's held up to your eye with one hand your other hand and arm are in a very awkward and inconvenient position to rotate the front mechanism. Your arm and hand positions are entirely different when using the Linhof Finder than they are when using a zoom lens on a camera. The Finder is also awkward to carry around on your person and it's a pain to have to dig into your backpack every time you want to check out a possible composition. I owned one for three months and sold it for most of the reasons mentioned by wg. It works very well when used as originally intended, i.e. on the camera, but IMHO not very well when used by hand.
"There is nothing "cumbersome" about twisting a ring with your thumb and forefinger."
Some people who have used the universal finder, including me, disagree. As explained above, the problem is the position your two hands, thumb, and forefinger are in when holding it up to your eye by hand and rotating the front mechanism, plus the way it hangs and bumps around if you rig something up to carry it around your neck or on your waist belt. While it can be carried in a bag or backpack that defeats the purpose of using it quickly and easily to check out possible compositions.
"If it is not on the camera then you hold it with one hand and twist with the other. That may be much less cumbersome then holding a piece of carboard or plastic at a cetain distance and trying to figure out what focal length from 75 to 360 (range of Linhof 45 finder) you are previewing with the other systems."
Actually it's much more cumbersome than "The 4x5 Visualizer" plastic card that I use. Have you ever used the Visualizer? It's available from B&H for about $10. It has a 4x5 square cut-out and a tape with focal lengths marked on it. You hold the tape near your eye as you move the Visualizer back and forth until you find the composition you want, then look at the tape to determine the focal length lens to use for that composition (i.e. no guessing about focal lengths). Much faster and easier to use than the Linhof Finder, much more convenient to carry around (it weighs a couple ounces), and much much less expensive.
Sheeeesh, there is no end to the "glass half empty" syndrome....
gps, for starters, not everyone shoots all 7 formats. I only mentioned the different formats can be marked and one system can easily adapt to several of them with out adding masks or other complicated procedures.
I don't know many people who do field work wtih 7 different formats. Next, you don't need every 20mm fl markings. How about just marking the few lenses you own? And if things get really bad, and you have all these formats and 20 LF lenses, then I guess you have to write on the back of the cardboard, and if things get really bad, put this devise in a pouch and use the pouch as look up table. C'mon, what do you really expect for $9? One must apply it to their needs to make it work, its not a $9 cure-all for every composition issue in the world......
You never know what you can find for your photography with "the wife a while back"... Seriously, using the real format frame makes it easy after some time to visualize the scene even without it.
If the things get really bad then I would prefer to use the cardboard frame with no tables at all. After all, you don't need to use 7 different frames either ... At least, you can then have whatever focal length measure.
Dan Fromm
12-Mar-2006, 14:08
Bill, I'm astonished that you, who carries on so much about the need for more precision than can be attained, would use such an imprecise piece of junk except as a joke. And you've never displayed even a hint of a sense of humor.
Brian, thanks for explaining these issues in such detail..... I could have not described it this well.
I too have the visualizer. I have used it for many years, it works great. The only thing I thought was very unique about this View Catcher, is.... (or any similar homebrew version)
1) It fits in your shirt pocket....the visualizer is a bit big, so it usually has to be in your hand...sometimes cumbersome...
2) The Visualizer only has one aspect ratio....with the ViewCatcher, you can choose between several formats, in my case, I was looking for a 6x12 and 6x17 quick check composition finder, in addition to 4x5 aspect ratio. This should accomplish that task.
If a unit was made specifically for LF photography, I would prefer it start with the 4x5 opening size, but only have a side panel to hold it by, (to reduce size for easy carrying) then two curtains from top and bottom to create a pan scene. Now, it will be easier to hold and offer multi format. Agreed with other posters, this View Catchers one disadvantage is the small opening, but again, its only a quick check to determine fl needed, and possibly format.... you need to know if the scene is worth shooting....
Dan, I get through life on my sense of humor.... but there was nothing funny here?
You have a good memory, and when the application requires such, I am an advocate for serious accuracy, indeed. In my wood shop, I strive for .005" accuracy on many cuts. However, there is little accuracy required here, as the lens fl's are far enough apart whereas a crude device like this will be 98% accurate if set up properly...probably only times it will be questionable, is when the it lands right between two fl's, in which case, I bring both! Now isn't that funny? :-)
But really, all I am doing is creating a tool I can put in my shirt pocket and ALWAYS have with me, I can't see all the objections... But I will sure be careful in the future about posting neat little gadgets that may help LF shooters!
Have no illusions - if you reduce 6x17 format 3 or 4 times you will never get 98% precision in your framing simply because the distance from your eye needs to be 3 to 4 times more precise than with using the real 6x17 format size in order to keep the same framing precision. If you think you can put the big frame at the right distance with 2mm precision (try it) you would need to use 0.25mm precision for 4x smaller frame. You can't have the cake and eat it.
0.5 mm precision, to be more precise...
Jack Flesher
12-Mar-2006, 15:54
>>Jack, not sure if your still ignoring me, but if not, what device converts B&W into color for composure? And your 4x5 L method is quite effective, till you start using 1200mm lenses, or very wide angle lenses, it gets hard judging the fl required.... but you always carry your hands :-)<<
Huh? If i was ingnoring you I woudln't have posted in your thread to begin with :~0
As for my "L" method, you make a good point, but my longest lens is a 450 on my 4x5 -- and I can easily make that with my arms (FWIW I'm 6'-6" tall) ;-)
Anywhooo... The device I'm referring to was a frame that had a dark amberish-green filter in it and it rendered everything a monochromatic tone where the separation values closely matched B&W film. A quick search turned this one up on @Bay (I know NOTHING about the seller, so this is NOT a recommendation) and the one I had was similar, though not identical:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ZONE-VI-B-W-VIEWING-FILTER-FOR-4X5-8X10-LARGE-FORMAT_W0QQitemZ7592730798QQcategoryZ15247QQcmdZViewItem
gps, what kind of precision are you trying to attain with this $9 device? My only purpose would be to determine whether to use a 150mm, 240, 360, 600, fl lens? so if you reduce the 6x17 frame by 3, you divide the fl by 3. So the difference between 360/3 = 120 mm and 600/3 = 200 mm, so i can't get close to measuring 120 mm vs. 200 mm?? 5" vs. 8" ? I can do that, just ask Dan! (more humor)
jack, that must be one cool device, I would love to see one in action....
I have tried the L method before, but for some reason I prefer the crisp borders of the visualizer and without the tape, I am not as accurate as I thought. With the tape, its a slam dunk.
With this device for 9$ you try to achieve 98% precision in framing. I try to explain to you that it is an illusion. If you miss the the right distance from your eye by 5mm it makes 20mm for a 4x bigger film format. The difference between 90 and 110mm lens. Far from 98% precision.
gps, the 98% precision meant....
It will give me sufficient information to pick the right lens 98% of the time. That's all I want it to do... are we in agreement now?
Jack Flesher
12-Mar-2006, 22:49
WG: I think the filter in that Zone VI device is a standard Wraten gel -- something like a Wratten 90. Maybe you could cut and tape a piece to your new viewer thingy and use that for B&W preview? Heck, for $9 you could buy a second one and have one normal and one B&W viewer ;)
I do hear you on the precision of the edges -- and i agree. My problem is I'm lazy and never took the time to pull the one I made out of the pack...
Cheers,
Read it again (nothing has changed on the math) - if you miss the right distance from your eye just by 5 mm you missed the right focal length by 20 mm each time. How often will you miss those 5mm count it for yourself. You can even make statistics, print it on your printer and put it on your viewcatcher or to its pouch... or publish it in NY Times on the first page, whatever you like.
In case you didn't get it you could also publish it on the last page of the NY Times. In 98% of cases or even in 100% of them of that makes you happy.
> if you miss the right distance from your eye just by 5 mm you missed the right focal length by 20 mm each time.
Yep, considering most of my lenses i will be using is 100mm seperation in fl, that means I have to mess up 25mm to pick the wrong lens. I will take out the ad in NY Times, thanks for the lead....
But then, do you really need the viewcatcher in order to decide between a 90mm wide angle and a 180 mm lens??
Brian Ellis
13-Mar-2006, 09:54
You're right about the disadvantages of The 4x5 Visualizer. It's too big to fit in your pocket and it has only one aspect ratio (though it can be used for 8x10 as well as 4x5). While it would be nice if it fit in your pocket, it's so thin and light that carrying it in one hand isn't a problem or if you need two hands it can easily just be carried under a shirt or jacket. John Sexton uses something similar to the Visualizer but the card is much smaller and it will fit in your pocket. The problem with that for me is that because it's so small you can still see things outside the card when it's held up to your eye. I like the large size of the Visualizer because when it's held up to your eye you can't see anything that lies outside of the cut out. For me the single aspect ratio isn't a disadvantage since the only two flarge formats I've ever used are 4x5 and 8x10. But for other aspect ratios the single aspect ratio would be a problem.
Brian, totally agreed with your comments.... the reason I liked the ViewCatcher concept is for multi format and small size. If one shoots 45 or 810, the Visualizer is near perfect....it has served me well.
gps, you have proven we have no need for the ViewCatcher. Thank you.
You're welcome. Now, when you know that the 9$ piece of junk is good for nothing you can see what is a better solution. As the Visualizer is your dream come through but it doesn't fit your pocket there is a natural solution to your problem... Make a compromise. Make your own Visualizer for 4x5 that is perfect for your pocket. Make it half the real format size i.e. 2 x 2.5 in. In that way you will have a pocket fitting device which will still keep its precision (it's just 1/2 of the real format). No need to fiddle with a much smaller and imprecise viewcatcher. Then go one more step - make yourself a half size visualizer for 6x17 format - still fitting your pocket as it will be 3x 8.5 cm. Even this one will be precise enough. No need to tell you that the same solution will be even better fitting your pocket for the 6x12 (i.e. 3 x 6 cm) format. Like that you will have 3 flat in a pocket fitting visualizers that will have better precision than the viewcatcher and no need for a table written on the back or on a pouch. How about that?
> How about that?
That's Brilliant gps, THANK YOU! I may make one more for 6x9, so only 4 to carry! I will begin assembly this week....
Pleasure is on my side, wg! (Literally, as I have a whole collection of them too...)
Colin Graham
13-Mar-2006, 21:15
the 9$ piece of junk..
Actually, it's only 5.98 from Dick Blick
AFter trying this view catcher out, I am not as excited, the small window limits the "feel" of the image vs. my larger 4x5 cut out...
Alonzo Guerrero
29-May-2006, 15:09
Anywhooo... The device I'm referring to was a frame that had a dark amberish-green filter in it and it rendered everything a monochromatic tone where the separation values closely matched B&W film.
I was just reading this thread and remembered that I once owned a pair of Blue Blocker sun glasses that I picked up at some flea market. These glasses also rendered everything monochromatic and, although amber in color, was very similar to B&W film. I liked the effect so much that I had my next pair of perscription sunglass clips made from the same material by my optician ("Today's Vision" if I remember correctly). I have no association whatsoever with either of these companies or products, other than I really liked the effect and think I will order another pair really soon.
--ag
Kirk Gittings
29-May-2006, 19:27
It appears that the Viewcatcher is also pretty close to middle grey. If it is, it will do double duty with a spot meter.
It appears that the Viewcatcher is also pretty close to middle grey. If it is, it will do double duty with a spot meter.
Hmm. How would you use it with the spotmeter? Hang it on a tree and then try to spot it? Hold it in your hand and then try to focus on it with the spotmeter?
Alan Davenport
31-May-2006, 09:53
I guess I'm becoming more and more a Luddite. Simple = good! I made a composing frame from a piece of coat hanger wire, wrapped it with black tape and tied a piece of string to one corner. Knots in the string, when held to the tip of my (ample) proboscis, place the frame at the correct distance for each of my lenses. It's much more robust than cardboard or matboard, smaller too.
http://home.comcast.net/~w7apd/public/lensframe.jpg
Graeme Hird
31-May-2006, 17:30
I clicked on this thread thinking someone had come up with a way to improve my compositions, only to find talk of a lens selection aid. Composition comes from your imagination and (ideally) should occur before a lens is selected.
Oh well, I'll just keep using my Linhof viewfinder - at least the optics approximate those of a lens, even if it is a little uncomfortable to hold. (BTW, why are people talking about rotating the ring on these devices? A simple cock of the wrist turns the whole device 90 degrees without needing to rotate a ring ....)
Cheers,
Graeme
Bob, changing the fl settings is not a smooth operation.... it's fine for its intended purpose, but for constant zooming up and back, its a bit cumbersome vs. other options. Again, if its sits atop a camera and you set it, and leave it, its perfect. And the fact its can work with many lenses makes this product very unique indeed, it can replace using many different fl viewfinders.
gps, yep, sorry, I forgot to mention the compensation required for the smaller image size. But this is based on image diagonal and its a linear relationship.
CXC, you could surely build one of these out of cardboard, but the nice aspect ratio changer makes it appealing.... hey, keep in mind here, $9....
Agreed the size is small, but that also is the benefit, as I also had one of the larger 8x10 black boards with the cut out, which B&H sells, comes with fl tape measure.... and I too don't keep it with me enough..... but if I could put this in my shirt pocket, I would always have it....hey, its a $9 rough fl tool that can vary for different aspect ratio and fit in your shirt pocket? lets not loose perspective of what one can expect for $9.
Jack, not sure if your still ignoring me, but if not, what device converts B&W into color for composure? And your 4x5 L method is quite effective, till you start using 1200mm lenses, or very wide angle lenses, it gets hard judging the fl required.... but you always carry your hands :-)
What Jack was referring to was a Zone IV viewing filter that is in the 4X5 aspect ratio and filters the color scene to a approximate grayscale rendition. It helps you visualize what the scene will look like in B&W
Doug Dolde
5-Jun-2007, 12:26
I used to have the Linhof viewfinder but honestly with three lenses (110mm, 210mm and 300mm) it's ridiculus. I have no trouble picking the right lens just by being there. IMHO these a waste of money.
Andrew O'Neill
5-Jun-2007, 17:46
A piece of white card board with a 4x5 rectangle cut out of it in the middle. For 8x10, I use the same card but double the focal length. Simple and I have used this method for years to suss out compositions and to determine focal length.
something else that i find useful is a multi lens viewfinder for rangefinder 35mm cameras, mine is a zenit, but there's plenty around on ebay for a couple of quid, obviously designed for 35mm it has the focal lengths writen in terms on 35mm so you have to adjust, but it gives a range that would go as wide as 90mm and as narrow as about 300-350mm - also has a standard shoe mount
looks like this - http://photo.net/bboard-uploads/00FsMB-29196084.jpg
Eric James
8-Jun-2007, 13:10
I've used a device like the one Alan has illustrated but instead of coat hanger stock I used the thick plastic cover to a spent black loose-leaf notebook. It's stiff enough to hold its shape and flexible enough to stuff in a pocket without worries. The border on mine is about 4cm. I don't use it much anymore because I'm up to ~70% efficient at choosing the right lens on the second go around:)
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.