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 think an entomology dictionary would be very appropriate for a debate that seems to have spiraled deep into nit-picking territory.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.
Sorry about pulling your leg; it wasn't personal. Just couldn't resist the opportunity.
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.
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.
There's already a discrepancy between these observations. I think either the first is true, or the second. Personally, I believe it's the first.Different folks, different strokes, as we can see from the many responses in this thread. A fixed-lens MF TLR with a standard focal length 80mm is not the ideal tool
Portraits with a TLR are inherently do-able, but that might not be the ideal camera for that task. The best portrait situation seems to be environmental portraiture rather than head-and-shoulders type. Can't comment on the forus issue you mention without further information about your situation. Perhaps a more complete description and example will help. But in general, focus with open aperture can be difficult as the DOF tends to be quiteh thin and any subject movement can affect focus as much as any camera movement. For exposure, consider getting a meter that measures incident, as that makes portrature a bit easier/quicker.
Different folks, different strokes, as we can see from the many responses in this thread. A fixed-lens MF TLR with a standard focal length 80mm is not the ideal tool for portraits which in a mainstream definition seem to mean "depicting people with some emphasis on their face".
Is it possible? Certainly? Can a Rolleiflex owner find some workarounds? With the help of this forum most certainly!
There's already a discrepancy between these observations. I think either the first is true, or the second. Personally, I believe it's the first.
I dont think anyone here believes a MF fixed-lens TLR is the "ideal" tools for taking focus-sensitive photos of faces and upper torsos, commonly known as "portraits". Yes, you can make ends meet with some workarounds, but "ideal" they are probably not.
80mm equipped TLRs are superb tools that many skilled users create great work with - including "for taking focus-sensitive photos of faces and upper torsos".
The type of camera barely matters, and should be the last thing that a current Rolleiflex owner worries about.
I think someone got hold of a bone and isn't about to release it.Someone here seems to be confusing a tlr with a rangefinder camera.
I think someone got hold of a bone and isn't about to release it.
Thanks for posting - a great and useful overview on which focal lengths are suitable for portrait photography.
please try Rolleiflex/Rolleicord with Rolleinar I
I am sure, you will make head/shoulder portraits without missing focus
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?