Mamiya C220 and some new portraits.

[Ulrik Christiansen]

I thought I would post some more from my 100 strangers portrait series, which I have been working on and off for quite some time now. Last post was in 2022 and while I have not finished the series, I am certainly closer than ever.

The Mamiya C220 is still a camera I absolutely love - especially for portraits. I still struggle with composition, though, more so when I only have a minute or two to get the image in the box. But, it is a challenge and a fun one at that, so I don't think I'll be stopping at 100

My 2 other threads with some previous portraits are here:

https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/mamiya-c220-and-portraits-of-100-strangers.187333/

https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/mamiya-c220-and-100-strangers-continuing.192814/

I always ask for their first name and their favorite music to go with the portrait and offer to send the portrait to them, if they want it (and then I hope I don't screw up the focusing or development!)

Anyway, here are 8 of my shots which I do like. Feel free to comment (good or bad) if you feel like it. Constructive critique is very much appreciated I hope you all have a Happy New Year and wonderful light.

Name: Nadja. Favorite music: Experimental music / Punk. Delta 400.

Name: Dan. Favorite music: Rock'n'Roll. Tri-X.

Name: Chloe. Favorite music: The Beatles. FP4.

Name: David. Favorite music: Metallica. Delta 400.

Name: Maja. Favorite music: Hiphop. Tri-X.

Name: Pi. Favorite music: Depeche Mode. Tri-X.

Name: Allan. Favorite music: The Beatles. Tri-X.

Name: Niklas. Favorite music: Ganger (Danish band). HP5.

 

[koraks]

I still struggle with composition

In a rather good way, though. Very pleasing portraits!

 

[Trask]

I'm impressed -- very nice photographs. You seem to have been able to shoot in the f/4 or f/5.6 range even in sunlight and even with a fast film, if the out of focus areas behind the subjects are anything to go on. I do like the tonality you have in these pictures -- what developer did you use? I'll go look at your prior series, and hope to see more in the future.

 

[Ulrik Christiansen]

In a rather good way, though. Very pleasing portraits!

Thank you

 

[Ulrik Christiansen]

I'm impressed -- very nice photographs. You seem to have been able to shoot in the f/4 or f/5.6 range even in sunlight and even with a fast film, if the out of focus areas behind the subjects are anything to go on. I do like the tonality you have in these pictures -- what developer did you use? I'll go look at your prior series, and hope to see more in the future.

Thank you very much! Yes, they are all f/5.6 or below and taken with the 80mm lens. I have used Ilford DD-X in 1+9 dilution for all development. Then you can get through 19 rolls in 1 bottle.

 

[Kodachromeguy]

Spectacular work. Well done. And I especially like the fact that they do not look like digital pics!

 

[runswithsizzers]

Really liked these.

One thing I noticed in a couple of them is an emphasis imposed by using a waist-level finder. I think the subject's knees in #2, and the subject's thighs in #3 seem slightly disproportionate. And in #7 ("Allan") the vantage point was also noticeably low. I am not saying the lower-than-expected camera angles are good or bad -- only that it's something I happened to notice. Perhaps it is because after decades of using a 35mm SLR at eye level, my mind has become prejudiced to favor the slightly higher viewpoint?

As a recent convert to shooting with a TLR, I find myself constantly struggling to get the camera a bit higher by standing on tip-toes. In my "studio" (really just the loft of an old barn), I keep a step ladder handy so I can compose and focus with the TLR on a tripod at eye-level.

 

[MattKing]

Really liked these.

One thing I noticed in a couple of them is an emphasis imposed by using a waist-level finder. I think the subject's knees in #2, and the subject's thighs in #3 seem slightly disproportionate. And in #7 ("Allan") the vantage point was also noticeably low. I am not saying the lower-than-expected camera angles are good or bad -- only that I happened to notice. Perhaps it is because after decades of using a 35mm SLR at eye level, my mind has become prejudiced to favor the slightly higher viewpoint?

As a recent convert to shooting with a TLR, I find myself constantly struggling to get the camera a bit higher by standing on tip-toes. In my "studio" (really just the loft of an old barn), I keep a step ladder so I can compose and focus with the TLR on a tripod at eye-level.

Brings back memories of my early days in wedding photography, where my mentors drummed into me the need to avoid the "navel-eyed view of the world" .
Eye level points of view tend to be pleasing - which helps sell wedding photos.
But varying that point of view can be used carefully to add weight, presence, drama, humour, and all sorts of other really interesting elements to portraiture - which I see in lots of the OP's excellent work.
I'd share one of my examples, but not in the OP's thread.

 

[AnselMortensen]

Very nice work!

 

[Pieter12]

Wonderful! Keep up the good work, it looks like a great project. If you are looking for some input, I find the shot of the young woman (Pi) to be my least favorite composition. A bit too static for an individual who looks like she has an attitude (not a bad thing, by the way).

 

[runswithsizzers]

@MattKing, all so true! A discussion springs to mind where one side argues, it is the natural order that artists should accept or embrace the limitations imposed by the media -- and the other side seeks to overcome limtations that impede their vision.

 

[Pieter12]

Brings back memories of my early days in wedding photography, where my mentors drummed into me the need to avoid the "navel-eyed view of the world" .
Eye level points of view tend to be pleasing - which helps sell wedding photos.
But varying that point of view can be used carefully to add weight, presence, drama, humour, and all sorts of other really interesting elements to portraiture - which I see in lots of the OP's excellent work.
I'd share one of my examples, but not in the OP's thread.

The other side of the coin is I see many wedding and fashion photographers kneeling to get a pleasing angle. It moves the horizon down, giving more emphasis to the subject(s). Just don't shoot up their nostrils!

 

[Sirius Glass]

Interesting portraits and tattoos.

 

[Laurent]

Wonderful images!

 

[MARTIE]

You keep bring variety, obviously in people and location, but perhaps more importantly, surprisingly, and impressively in poses, which all appear quite natural which is delightful and not an easy thing to do.

It would be great to see your work exhibited.

 

[Tel]

You keep bring variety, obviously in people and location, but perhaps more importantly, surprisingly, and impressively in poses, which all appear quite natural which is delightful and not an easy thing to do.

It would be great to see your work exhibited.

I agree: I think portraits as good as these are largely a product of the photographer’s rapport with the subject. Very well done!

 

[Ulrik Christiansen]

Spectacular work. Well done. And I especially like the fact that they do not look like digital pics!

Thank you

 

[Ulrik Christiansen]

Really liked these.

One thing I noticed in a couple of them is an emphasis imposed by using a waist-level finder. I think the subject's knees in #2, and the subject's thighs in #3 seem slightly disproportionate. And in #7 ("Allan") the vantage point was also noticeably low. I am not saying the lower-than-expected camera angles are good or bad -- only that it's something I happened to notice. Perhaps it is because after decades of using a 35mm SLR at eye level, my mind has become prejudiced to favor the slightly higher viewpoint?

As a recent convert to shooting with a TLR, I find myself constantly struggling to get the camera a bit higher by standing on tip-toes. In my "studio" (really just the loft of an old barn), I keep a step ladder handy so I can compose and focus with the TLR on a tripod at eye-level.

Thanks for the comments. I do have some portraits where I did not pay attention to this, so they came out a little weird - certainly a thing to watch out for. But then again, I think this can also bring about this TLR look - or something similar of previous days.

 

[Ulrik Christiansen]

Brings back memories of my early days in wedding photography, where my mentors drummed into me the need to avoid the "navel-eyed view of the world" .
Eye level points of view tend to be pleasing - which helps sell wedding photos.
But varying that point of view can be used carefully to add weight, presence, drama, humour, and all sorts of other really interesting elements to portraiture - which I see in lots of the OP's excellent work.
I'd share one of my examples, but not in the OP's thread.

That is a very good explanation of what the point of view can do - and thank you very much Matt!

I'd like to o see your images if you post them!

 

[Ulrik Christiansen]

Interesting portraits and tattoos.

Thanks for looking at commenting

 

[Ulrik Christiansen]

Wonderful images!

Thank you Laurent!

 

[Ulrik Christiansen]

You keep bring variety, obviously in people and location, but perhaps more importantly, surprisingly, and impressively in poses, which all appear quite natural which is delightful and not an easy thing to do.

It would be great to see your work exhibited.

Thank you very much Martie . The posing is also one of the really hard things. I mean, where to place arms and hands etc. I have done some studio session where I have had problems guiding the model and the results were not to brag about to say the least.

For these street portraits, I like it the most when I can just make a portrait with minimal interference. Sometimes I ask if they could change position if the light is not good, or if I spot something which obviously would not work.

Exhibition - phew... that would be awesome I do plan to make some kind of book with them all at some point.

 

[MattKing]

That is a very good explanation of what the point of view can do - and thank you very much Matt!

I'd like to o see your images if you post them!

My pleasure Ulrik.
Not exactly from waist level, but intentionally from a bit lower, with room to breathe up top:

And then, quite intentionally, from down below, and looking up:

 

[Ulrik Christiansen]

I agree: I think portraits as good as these are largely a product of the photographer’s rapport with the subject. Very well done!

Thank you! Absolutely, the chemistry has to work. Also, an old-school TLR camera definitely has a charm that invites curiosity and can open a door to a connection.

 

[Pieter12]

A camera with a waist-level finder does not hide the photographer's face, he or she can easily look up from the camera and better engage the subject. Same with large format.