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.

 

[RezaLoghme]

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!

 

[koraks]

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

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.

 

[RezaLoghme]

Luckily opinions and experiences differ and everybody can do as they please, cant they?

 

[RezaLoghme]

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.

I agree.

Also maybe the out-of-focus problem is due to a misalignment. When was the camera last CLA'd?

 

[Elmarc]

...and to the OP, don't rule out cropping even though it may be frowned upon by some.
It certainly did not hinder this iconic image.

 

[Pieter12]

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!

Hogwash. Look at all the well-known portrait photographers that have been cited in this thread, all Rolleiflex TLR users.

 

[RezaLoghme]

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.

 

[baachitraka]

please try Rolleiflex/Rolleicord with Rolleinar I

I am sure, you will make head/shoulder portraits without missing focus

 

[MattKing]

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.

 

[choiliefan]

Someone here seems to be confusing a tlr with a rangefinder camera.

 

[RezaLoghme]

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 thought that TLRs, compared to other types, have the system-immanent parallax issue, and with fixed lens standard focal length lenses, portraits are a different thing than with tele lenses (which are often recommended as the best tool for portraits).

So maybe with all the different options at hand today (and not in the 1950s) "80mm equipped TLRs" are not really "superb tools" for portraits (but rather SLRs with a soft tele), although there are some ways how to make it work.

 

[koraks]

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.

 

[BrianShaw]

I think someone got hold of a bone and isn't about to release it.

Several "someone's" it seems.

This is a reasonable article, with examples in addition to opinion, to help determine what portraiture "look" one can achieve with various focal legth lenses. The examples are not Rolleicord/Rolleiflex or any other medium format camera, but the comparison of "normal FL" versus longer focal length lenses extrapolates nonetheless.

Selecting a Portrait Lens With Correct Focal Length

I know this topic is covered here and there and everywhere: in school and online, in workshops and lectures, on street corner posters and graffiti under

petapixel.com

 

[RezaLoghme]

Thanks for posting - a great and useful overview on which focal lengths are suitable for portrait photography.

 

[Pieter12]

Thanks for posting - a great and useful overview on which focal lengths are suitable for portrait photography.

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.

 

[RezaLoghme]

I would go one step further and say that not only portraits but any kind of subject can be taken with any camera and any lens. It is not limited to portraits.

 

[baachitraka]

please try Rolleiflex/Rolleicord with Rolleinar I

I am sure, you will make head/shoulder portraits without missing focus

update: with rolleinar 1 the max working distance could be 90 cm. If this is a hindrance, then tele-rollei with rolleinar will sure increase the working distance.