Portraits with TLR

[BMbikerider]

No disfigurement, just a different angle invoking a different emotion (at least to me). I like to experiment and get bored with always following the rules.

I'm sorry I didn't mean to infer there was a disfigurement it was one of the many pointless reasons that can get an otherwise very good picture discarded. They (whoever makes these decisions) sometimes cannot see past the end of their noses. Too many rules make pointless decisions inevitable.

 

[koraks]

Using an entomology dictionary might lead us to think a urinator (19th century) was a modern day swimmer.

I think an entomology dictionary would be very appropriate for a debate that seems to have spiraled deep into nit-picking territory.

 

[cowanw]

I think an entomology dictionary would be very appropriate for a debate that seems to have spiraled deep into nit-picking territory.

 

[koraks]

Sorry about pulling your leg; it wasn't personal. Just couldn't resist the opportunity.

 

[cowanw]

Sorry about pulling your leg; it wasn't personal. Just couldn't resist the opportunity.

I know what you mean. me too.
I have noticed though, over my years here, that the really vicious fights have often been because two posters are really just defining things differently.

 

[loccdor]

Words are certainly living. It's okay that they mean different things to different people as long as those people can still speak each other's language somewhat. It's fine that someone else has a different idea of what a portrait is than me. Rather than arguing contentiously, I only mean to put forward a differing view

 

[koraks]

I have noticed though, over my years here, that the really vicious fights have often been because two posters are really just defining things differently.

Yes, I think that explains a good number of disagreements. In that sense I'm in favor of getting the definitions straight.
Anyway, sorry for taking this (further) off-topic. I'll leave this to the portraitists among us!

 

[MattKing]

I'm curious @RezaLoghme - how much experience do you have using a TLR? Does any of that experience include photographs of people?

Yes with a lowly Rolleiflex 3.5 (the very early one, let me check the model designation). Oh, and a Lubitel.

And did you use them to take what might reasonably be described as portrait photos of individuals - using the expansive definition that most people photographers are likely to be comfortable with?

Because I did that for years, and had many satisfied customers/subjects. And the 80mm lens was frequently mounted to my C330 when I was doing that - in the context of wedding photography, you often go with the lens on the camera, rather than stopping to switch.

I understand having a preference for one style of working or equipment over another. But I would never discourage anyone from at least trying to use their very fine Rolleiflex camera to do something that many, many photographers have done very well indeed.

This thread started out with a request for help from someone who actually wants to do just that. "Get another camera" or "you are unwise to do what you are doing" isn't very responsive to the question asked.