Portraits with TLR

Rolleinar I

Disclaimer: Not my photo. All credit goes to the original photographer.

Thanks again guys! I'm getting really excited to take the Rolleiflex for a spin and take some portraits of random people with and without the Rolleinar.

This website has also some valuable information about different focal lengths for shooting portraits:

RezaLoghme said:

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.

Click to expand...

I do....

GregY said:

I do....

Click to expand...

I second that...

GregY said:

I do....

Click to expand...

"Ideal"?

RezaLoghme said:

"Ideal"?

Click to expand...

I think it can be, in the hands of those who appreciate them and for whom they work well for.
And poorly suited to those whose needs and preferences are different.

Whats "ideal" in a fixed lens TLR for taking portraits, compared to, say, a 135mm lens on a 35mm film SLR?

The operator - because the camera matters little.
Use what works well for you, the photographer.
For many people, the relatively small size, quite operation, ergonomic (for many) design and reservoir of superior results experience make something like a Rolleiflex ideal for the purpose.

ok i agree with it

RezaLoghme said:

"Ideal"?

Click to expand...

sorry for the troll. 85/100mm in 135 ;-)

Pieter12 said:

One can make a good portrait with any camera and any lens. The key component is the photographer. If the photographer is lacking, no equipment will help.

Click to expand...

While this argument is valid it is certainly not sound as the truth contradicts the primary premise.

MARTIE said:

While this argument is valid it is certainly not sound as the truth contradicts the primary premise.

Click to expand...

Please explain.

Pieter12 said:

One can make a good portrait with any camera and any lens. The key component is the photographer. If the photographer is lacking, no equipment will help.

Click to expand...

MARTIE said:

While this argument is valid it is certainly not sound as the truth contradicts the primary premise.

Click to expand...

cliveh said:

Please explain.

Click to expand...

The first sentence in @Pieter12 's post says one thing. The third sentence in that post then contradicts (mostly) what was said in the first sentence.

And in response to some other posts in this thread - if a photographer doesn't like using a TLR for close focus portraiture, or finds them awkward for that sort of usage, then the TLR is neither appropriate nor ideal for that use. So they shouldn't feel that they should use them for that purpose, or are in any way lacking in themselves.
It turns on the photographer, their skills, their preferences - not on the camera itself.
The same applies to most common types of photography.
Many photographers find 80mm lens equipped TLRs wonderful for portraits - and they are aware of any tricks and tips that help make that happen. I believe that the OP, @Analogski , was in search of that sort of help when they started this thread. I understand that they have appreciated what has been contributed so far. I hope that their Rolleiflex works as well for them as my C330 works for me for portraits.

I'll have to try some close-up people photos with my new to me Toyocaflex. The incredibly dim viewfinder should provide a good challenge
Here it is:

cliveh said:

Please explain.

Click to expand...

The short answer.

My counter argument is based on the premise that millions of good portraits are being taken everyday by 'lacking photographers'.

Analogski said:

Hi,

I want to get more experience with portrait photography. Still no Pentax 67, but I have a beautiful Rolleiflex 3.5F with Rolleinar 1 and 2.

I have a Rick Oleson spilt screen ground glass in my Rolleiflex.

I lean on the coupled lichtmeter (yes I know....). I also use only natural light.

In some pictures I made, if found it hard to focus, and some portraits are slightly out of focus, maybe due to too open aperture, but don't know for sure.

Anyhow, tips and tricks are welcome!

Thanks in advance!

Click to expand...

Get a spool of hemp twine and a cloth retractable measuring tape for taliors, marked inches/feet on one side and centimeters/meters on the other.

Figure out your ideal F stop, work out the zone minimum and maximum , as well as shutterspeeds, then have someone sit for a series of shots in existing light and your electronic lighting, at each ideal distance and depth of field, making knots/notes on lengths of twine/paper pad and with permanent watercolor markers on the tape rule.

You should make a string for each distance that starts at the film plane of the camera and ends at the ideal focus spot, ie. eyes, bridge of the nose, etc, when stretched taunt enough without pulling you tripod/camera off it's feet.

Likewise, keep tapes with similar markings, less than $2.50@ at Wal-Mart, and a notebook.

With this measuring method, you should be able to quickly set-up, including reflectors and like.

Develop and analyze the results for your ideal results and chose what will work for your photography.

Shoot a series for each film, developer, lens, strobe, etc and keep a running log of your evolving work and you should be able to have collection of photo ideals to work from.

Others can explain better what I have written here but it will work and you can do the same for close-up photography.

A marked telescoping antenna can also be useful for this method.

Concentrate on making head and head and shoulder shots, the use of reflectors for lighting and zone focusing in general and in depth of field in detail.

Cheers

Pieter12 said:

One can make a good portrait with any camera and any lens. The key component is the photographer. If the photographer is lacking, no equipment will help.

Click to expand...

MARTIE said:

While this argument is valid it is certainly not sound as the truth contradicts the primary premise.

Click to expand...

MARTIE said:

The short answer.

My counter argument is based on the premise that millions of good portraits are being taken everyday by 'lacking photographers'.

Click to expand...

Long answer.

In summary, the statement uses valid logic to make a strong point about the primacy of human skill in creative endeavors. It is a rhetorical emphasis on the artist over the tools.

Validity is determined by the argument's form, not the actual truth of the premises.

Key concepts of valid logic
• Logical guarantee: A valid argument guarantees the truth of the conclusion, assuming the premises are true.
• Structure over content: The validity of an argument depends solely on its logical form, not on the real-world truth of its statements.


Validity vs. soundness
It's important to distinguish validity from soundness:
• Valid: An argument is valid if its conclusion logically follows from its premises. A valid argument can have false premises and a false conclusion.

• Sound: An argument is sound if it is both valid and has all true premises.

A TLR brings an advantage to a photography session that other cameras do not offer. The form factor is very retro and attention getting for the modern portrait sitter.
If they ever say "nice camera but why the two lenses?" merely explain that the top lens is for framing and focussing and it's the bottom lens that steals your soul.

RezaLoghme said:

"Ideal"?

Click to expand...

Yes. I've photographed people standing, sitting, close up, environmental.
It's an versatile tool with a great lens and you get a negative 4.17x bigger than 35mm.
BTW, i've never ever used a 135mm lens for a portrait. It's the red headed stepchild of lenses in my photogrqphic world.

MattKing said:

I think it can be, in the hands of those who appreciate them and for whom they work well for.
And poorly suited to those whose needs and preferences are different.

Click to expand...

Fully agree
A MF TLR is an ideal tool for portraits, as you said.