I've shot already portraits (not head/shoulder shots) with the Rolleiflex without the Rolleinar. Only some issues with proper focussing...
The controversy is about TLR with normal 80mm (or so) lens and, perhaps, the definiiton of "ideal"...
You can easily buy a 80mm lens for your C33 and you'll be good to go.
And its not as pricey as buying overpriced M lenses with 80mm for a Leica.
It would help if you'd further discuss your technique: how are you currently focussing (and on what part of the body), are you hand holding or using tripod, is the subject (in the problematic pictures) standing or seated, what shutter speed are you using? What aperture are you using? What type of portrait are you taking and what is the distance between you and the subject? As mentioned much earlier, an example would really be helpful. Also, have you experienced this focus issue with any other type of photography?
There may or may not be "an easy fix" especially since you've already told us, "I have a Rick Oleson spilt [sic] screen ground glass in my Rolleiflex.".
Here's a question for Reza: If a TLR is less than ideal for portraits.... how about 4x5, 5x7, 8x10? They must be impossible!
View attachment 410701
Good point... I always focus on the eyes, brows, and sometimes on the nose.
The giant slow telephoto lens isn't very useful.
Here's a question for Reza: If a TLR is less than ideal for portraits.... how about 4x5, 5x7, 8x10? They must be impossible!
One trick - focus first on the ears/top of the head, then re-focus on the tip of the nose, then adjust to midway between the two focus settings.
Assuming that you are having trouble seeing catchlights in the eyes in the first place.
It sounds elaborate, but it quickly becomes reflexive.
The 135mm lens is sweet! See my post #19 for an illustrative image
I'm not Reza and I hope he doesn't mind me replying to a PM...
Portraiture with a large format camera is fantastic. Maybe even better than that, if there is a more emphatic word. But in general, what's important is not the size of the film or camera, but the length of the lens.
The 135 is amazing but nailing focus and having the right amount of light outside a studio environment is difficult to say the least.
If a TLR isn't for portraits then why do I have a portrait lens for my Mamiya C33?
If the portraits are good, maybe the photographers aren't lacking. Hoc ex se intellegitur.The short answer.
My counter argument is based on the premise that millions of good portraits are being taken everyday by 'lacking photographers'.
All this is rubish.
If the portraits are good, maybe the photographers aren't lacking. Hoc ex se intellegitur.
Or perhaps, it's the technology that's become so exceptional that anyone with a camera is capable of taking a good portrait.
I did a number of portraits w my 5x7, but these days i prefer the Rolleiflex usually with FP4. I prefer to use a tripod or monpod.
I rarely do head shots, but do use the Rolleinar 1.
View attachment 410412
It never was for me - in a wedding photography environment.
Perhaps the viewing system in my C330 is/was brighter than what you are working with.
Marketing.
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.
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?