Street photography with an old Rolleiflex

Colin Corneau · Dec 28, 2010

I mean no slight against a person clearly more talented than myself. I should say I base my thought on a few exerpts I read off of the blog in her name...she was outspoken but clearly kept others at a distance.

That can just be a personality trait, or...who knows? I'm not sure that, at this stage, it even matters. What's left are the pictures. And they speak very well.

She sounded like a very interesting but private person. A prototype feminist, clearly very intelligent. It would be fascinating to go into a time machine, go back and have a conversation with her. Apparently she taught herself English from seeing the movies, which she was a big fan of (foreign films, not so much the American Hollywood stuff).

blockend · Dec 29, 2010

Absolutely top drawer art photography. A great find and a big responsibility for the finder.

burchyk · Dec 30, 2010

great find, lovely photos, amazing story

kiku · Dec 31, 2010

Paul Verizzo;1112506i... it said:
I would not consider 6 X 6 on 120 film an archaic format. Howard Tanger

eddym · Dec 31, 2010

kiku said:
I would not consider 6 X 6 on 120 film an archaic format. Howard Tanger

Me neither... but then, I'm pretty archaic myself.

Vincent Brady · Dec 31, 2010

Great story matched by great photos, pity she died before this discovery. Then again maybe it is satisfactory enough just to take the photo knowing what you have captured.

vincent

Cromlech · Dec 31, 2010

I have bookmarked this blog... Best photos I've seen in awhile, with nothing pretentious!

Paul Verizzo · Dec 31, 2010

kiku said:
I would not consider 6 X 6 on 120 film an archaic format. Howard Tanger

Not the film, the camera!

mablo · Jan 1, 2011

I'm glad to see that Vivian's story continues. I think I'm going to buy the book when it comes out. Btw, I'm still using a Rollei my father bought new in the fifties. Never thought it would be archaic.

eddym · Jan 1, 2011

BS. Nothing archaic about a TLR.

Q.G. · Jan 1, 2011

eddym said:
BS. Nothing archaic about a TLR.

I beg to differ.
TLRs had their moment, when SLRs were still big and slow.
Now that SLRs have caught up (which happened in the 1960s, 50 years ago), there is no reason why TLRs, with all their limitations, should be.

Toffle · Jan 1, 2011

Q.G. said:
I beg to differ.
Now that SLRs have caught up (which happened in the 1960s, 50 years ago), there is no reason why TLRs, with all their limitations, should be.

tsk tsk....

eddym · Jan 1, 2011

Q.G. said:
I beg to differ.
TLRs had their moment, when SLRs were still big and slow.
Now that SLRs have caught up (which happened in the 1960s, 50 years ago), there is no reason why TLRs, with all their limitations, should be.

No need to beg; differ all you want. We just happen to disagree.

But I'm a little unclear about the end of your sentence: "there is no reason why TLRs, with all their limitations, should be." ...should be? Are you saying they should not even exist? I do find that a bit harsh.

blockend · Jan 1, 2011

Actually, TLRs are a pretty good street tool. They're smaller than your typical medium format reflex camera and don't suffer from mirror slap or shutter blindness and the viewing lens is bright. They're not eye view confrontational and fairly inconspicuous. I used a Mamiya C330 in the 70s and 80s for street photography and it was good, if a little heavy. A Rolleiflex or Yashicamat would been better. Having said that, a Mamiya 7 with an additional ground glass screen up top would be a near ideal street camera.

Whatever the camera I suspect Vivian would have taken brilliant photos.

Q.G. · Jan 1, 2011

eddym said:
No need to beg; differ all you want. We just happen to disagree.

But I'm a little unclear about the end of your sentence: "there is no reason why TLRs, with all their limitations, should be." ...should be? Are you saying they should not even exist? I do find that a bit harsh.

Yes, i'm saying there is no reason they should still exist.
Luckily, though you perhaps don't, camera manufacturers do agree, and don't make these obsolete thingies anymore.

Sirius Glass · Jan 1, 2011

Luckily for us. Despite the digital revolution, photons work the same way for an old Rolleiflex as they do for digi-snappers. Just the prices are less for old cameras and film. The newest is not always the best! Guess what?!? There is a reason Rolleis' and Hasselblads' are still around.

Steve

blockend · Jan 1, 2011

The reason manufacturers don't still produce TLRs is probably the desire for interchangable lenses. A Rolleiflex is a pretty simple beast, a Mamiyaflex less so.

Q.G. · Jan 1, 2011

That, and the fact that you don't get to see through the taking lens (a Big Thing, especially since that was the sole purpose of, the entire idea behind reflex cameras).

Toffle · Jan 1, 2011

Q.G. said:
That, and the fact that you don't get to see through the taking lens (a Big Thing, especially since that was the sole purpose of, the entire idea behind reflex cameras).

...

Sirius Glass · Jan 1, 2011

Q.G. said:
That, and the fact that you don't get to see through the taking lens (a Big Thing, especially since that was the sole purpose of, the entire idea behind reflex cameras).

That is a style choice. Mine as you point out is towards reflex cameras or ground glass. But the photons still know how to do their job regardless of style choice.

Steve

michaelbsc · Jan 1, 2011

Sirius Glass said:
But the photons still know how to do their job regardless of style choice.

Do you really think they know?

Some of the duality experiments with entangled pairs is freaky enough that sometimes I think they do. But that thought just seems so bizarre.

michaelbsc · Jan 1, 2011

Q.G. said:
That, and the fact that you don't get to see through the taking lens (a Big Thing, especially since that was the sole purpose of, the entire idea behind reflex cameras).

The sole purpose of, the entire idea behind reflex cameras was that the image was right side up to the composer. Which the TLR did admirably.

Q.G. · Jan 2, 2011

Sirius Glass said:
That is a style choice. Mine as you point out is towards reflex cameras or ground glass. But the photons still know how to do their job regardless of style choice.

No, it's not a "style choice".
It's why, for instance, you can't do any decent close-up or macro using TLRs.

It may be your style to shrug your shoulders at such limitations, but real limitations they are. And unnecessary they are too: the TLR concept is woefully outdated, the reasons there have been why it made sense no longer exist. There is no need for a TLR-type camera.

Q.G. · Jan 2, 2011

michaelbsc said:
The sole purpose of, the entire idea behind reflex cameras was that the image was right side up to the composer. Which the TLR did admirably.

Nonsense.
Simple box cameras already had finders that showed an upright image. See through finders also provide a right side up image. Frame finders show an upright image. Why, they do so without the left-right reversal you get with the TLR's reflex finder!

So that is definitely not (!) why people wanted to, why it makes a lot of sense to look through the actual taking lens.

The TLR concept grew out of a desire to have the benefits of a reflex camera that was fast enough to use for anything else but static subjects. It did that admirably well (for as long as SLRs were indeed too slow), but with the limitations mentioned.

eddym · Jan 2, 2011

Q.G. said:
Yes, i'm saying there is no reason they should still exist.
Luckily, though you perhaps don't, camera manufacturers do agree, and don't make these obsolete thingies anymore.

I must insist that "no reason they should still exist" is a bit harsh. Now you want to take away my Rollei. Bad enough that they don't make 'em anymore; but why do you want to destroy all of them? Sounds a bit depraved to me... :munch:

Street photography with an old Rolleiflex

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency