kelly_flanigan1 Posted February 25, 2006 Share Posted February 25, 2006 College scholarships and goverment handouts were not available when I worked my way thru college shooting portraits with a TLR. Maybe these handouts drop the "hussle factor"; and create the notion that shooting portraits with a TLR today is impossible. When you dont have much money alot of negative notions are ignored, due to hunger and paying tuition and rent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poravich Posted February 25, 2006 Author Share Posted February 25, 2006 KELLY, My question deserves a good answer like KIRK's. It is because he carefully read my question. Again, reread my full question before putting any posts. Don't read only the topic and answer. TLRs are possible of portraits?---Yes, yes, yes, I know about that for a very long time. But what kind of portraits?? all? I did not learn and use TLRs while studying at lawschools in Univ of Cal. at David, Berkeley, American Univ. and Wake Forest. Neither I have any degrees in photography from any college nor Univ. However, I don't see that my royal gov. scholarship resists me from using good old Rolleiflex, Y MAT, Mamiya and Hassy. IMHO Getting used to them is rather a personal enthusiasm than the knowledge from college degrees. What you complained in your long words is merely your personal attitude. Well, I eat rice not corn.:) Pat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kirk_teetzel Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 Poravich, Sorry to reply so late. Yes, that's the original image. It took a little getting used to the camera when I first got it, but by the time my son came around I had a good understanding of it. Mine is a Mamiyaflex C2 and I used the standard 80mm lens. The nice thing about using the TLR for portraits, and why many people used them for it for so long, is that you see the subject all time. Very important when photographing children ;) But, like I said, they take a little getting used to, just like any camera. Luckily, in the finder, they have a line in the frame so you know where to compensate for close ups like this. Good luck with it, and have fun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poravich Posted February 28, 2006 Author Share Posted February 28, 2006 Dear Kirk, Your image is very encouraging to me. He's cute though! I tried my friend's C330 and surprised that its bellow help make the subject much more closer to its lens esp. when compared to my 75mm in Rolleiflex and 80mm in Y Mat. I suspect that 80mm in C2 or C330 can even produce great macro works. That's terrific for Sekor normal lens! Regards, Pat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
millertime Posted April 10, 2006 Share Posted April 10, 2006 I don't want to sound like some sort of old timer or "Yoda" of photography, because I am not. I try to become a better photographer with each roll of film that I expose, and therefore I am in a constant state of learning. I'm aware of the limitations of TLR's but I approach those as a challenge for me to think more creatively. I treat that "square" viewfinder as my canvas, and the rest is up to me. I shoot with a Yashica D and Yashicamat. I dare to shoot portraits on occasion (without a close-up lens). I'll let you be the judge.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kelly_flanigan1 Posted April 10, 2006 Share Posted April 10, 2006 Poravich, TLR's with regular 75mm to 80mm lenses have been used for portraits since the 1930's. By asking the question :<i> "I wonder if TLRs're capable for portrait works similar to 85-90 mm on small format."</i> It is like asking if a skill saw is capable of cutting plywood. Many millions of portraits have been shot with TLR's for many generations of photographers, just like several generations have cut plywood with circular saws. <BR><BR>Perspective is determined by distance to the subject, not focal length. Labs that processed 120 roll film used to have a "portrait mask" one cut out to place on a TLR screen, to aid in not getting super close. Many folks use to use a grease pencil to have a max size of a face on a tlr screen, so one didnt get too close. With the portrait mask of the 1940's thru 1980's, one often got one 8x10" and two 4x5" prints, with a cropped section of the 6x6cm negative. With a portrait shoot, one often used on 4x5 as a proof,a nd then sold the other 4x5 and 8x10 one already had made. You shouldnt act so old and keep a free mind, TLR's were hawked for shooting sports and making portraits in the 1930's in Popular Photography, and were/are still used today by some folks.<BR><BR> Perspective is determined by distance, not focal length. With a TLR one should not fill the frame with a face, unless one wants the close up big nose perspective look. The older books from pre WW2 and just after had one using a grease pencil top make frame lines on the finder to insure one didnt get too close, AND run portrait tests purposely at different distances, to learn how perspective varies with distance. <BR><BR>There is no rule that one must use the entire negative for a portrait. With my C3 TLR I can use my 105 lens to get a larger image, for a given distance. This is a heavy beast. <BR><BR><b>Keep track of the subject to camera distance, and go out and shoot some portraits PURPOSELY at different distances, to see the different perspectives.</b> In order to learn something about shooting portraits with a TLR, you need to not be so critical of those who have have shot with them for 1/2 century, and who learned from those before us who shot portraits the generation before. It is abit bizzare that you ask if it is possible, when several generations have already done this. Folks are at ease with a TLR, it is a good portrait camera. <BR><BR>Many of the classical first portraits of Betty Page were shot with a low cost Kodak TLR, a lessor TLR than you now own. In that era there were in all fairness better Photography magazines and books, and a radically better hussle factor with using the tools one has. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poravich Posted April 14, 2006 Author Share Posted April 14, 2006 Kelly, Kinda hard to understand a man like you. Thought that this would be already ended. Perspective of 50mm produces 46 degree while 85mm produces 28 degree. It is the same for you? After cropped then what -the same angle view? How'd you measure? Your eyes? OK, the reason I posted the thread because 85mm in small format is the most desirable angle view for photojournalists. Then I wanna see pic taken from normal length, then enlarged. I wanted to see the images as above. Kelly, I firstly did not think I needed to tell you this but seems that I must let you realize that you were entrapped!!!, oh yes..with my subject. Reread your early posts and you will know it. Before typing my question, I knew there'd be some like you appearing to argue and blame such a stupid topic: "TLR for portrait- possible?" But that is NOT a question. Do ya really think I meant only that? Smart guys here who were careful and thoughful already gave me what I wanted. Try not to ignore other people's questions by saying "the question like this is like asking...bla.bla.bla.." That's BORING!!! I saw more than 5 times in this forum of SUCH complaints posted by you, i.e, Maxwell is not a must for TLR. I don't know how old you are now, but seems very... Keep your mind opened! Your knowledge from your old books is not everything. Diff people, age, idea, diff. views. And don't try to bother for any further discussion cos my job is an expert extradition prosecutor. I have plenty of discussions a day - more than you ever thought. But I will really discuss with the same level rival. If some questions are really hard on you, just leave them for others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poravich Posted April 14, 2006 Author Share Posted April 14, 2006 Dear Mark, Nice work! It is from Yashinon or Yashikor? Was that the closest length? Pat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stwrtertbsratbs5 Posted April 14, 2006 Share Posted April 14, 2006 Scrap the TLR. You need a whiz-bang DSLR with anti-shake technology to take any decent photos. Plan on a $10 k budget just to get started! Seriously, Kelly makes some very good points - it just seems that you have some communications problems with him. I find his posts interesting and humorous. And I think that your question could have been better worded. As for Kelly working his way through college - it was once possible. But college costs have outstripped inflation for decades. It's hard to imagine that my kids will be able to work part-time and earn $45-50k per year for college (or "only" $25-30k for a public university). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stwrtertbsratbs5 Posted April 14, 2006 Share Posted April 14, 2006 One other suggestion - search pbase if you want to see sample photos from different cameras and lenses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poravich Posted April 14, 2006 Author Share Posted April 14, 2006 Robert, Thanks for your compromise. But I observe my full question use appropriate words - very easy and understandable...when fully read. I know the subject might irritate some TLR users. But that's only the subject!! They will clearify when reading the full question afterwards. Just carefully read, not eagerly to show off and blame others. By this way I can screen for the right guys to answer, and the wrong guys to get hooked. This should not come too far like this cos I have signalled him more than twice earlier. Every question here deserves good answer regardless of what to be asked for. If somebody can't answer. Leave it. There will be the one who can. I won't discuss about education cos every body have struggled their own ways. Pat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stwrtertbsratbs5 Posted April 14, 2006 Share Posted April 14, 2006 The hard part of your question is that the answer is, "It depends." I wouldn't use a TLR with and 80mm for tight head shots because of the distorted perspective. But yes, you can make very nice portraits from the waist up or cropped if you want tight. Or buy a Mamiya that takes interchangable lenses (I used to owm a Mamiya C330f - the 180 super lens is excellent). TLR's are excellent cameras. But, like all cameras, they have limitations. That's why I own a Mamiya 645 Pro TL, Bronica RF645, Ikoflex TLR, and a Nikon D200. So, by all means, buy a TLR. Just don't expect it to be the only camera that you ever need! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poravich Posted April 15, 2006 Author Share Posted April 15, 2006 Robert, Thanks for your suggestion. My TLR question is limited solely on Yashicamat and Rolleiflex, not Mamiya, which can do better close up with its bellow. I wonder if, after cropped, the pic from normal lens can make similar perspective of 85 mm's view on small format. Tight crop for close up face, is not the only thing I want from the portrait lens. I rather want its perspective! If normal lens can't do, it's just fine for me. I don't expect a miracle. The answer is simple & easy: A picture and the provided details. PS. TLR is a superb camera: I totally agree.That's why I have 6 of them. Have a good light! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolf_rainer_schmalfuss Posted September 12, 2006 Share Posted September 12, 2006 Hi to all! At the Photokina, you can buy the new re-launched Tele-Rolleiflex with a new SCHNEIDER lens! Closest distance compared to the old camera, is now 1.50m (!) with makes the new TLR perfect for portrait photography. Take a look at www.franke-heidecke.net Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poravich Posted February 13, 2007 Author Share Posted February 13, 2007 Take with my Yashica Mat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poravich Posted February 13, 2007 Author Share Posted February 13, 2007 Taken with 80 mm Yashinon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kristian_heitkamp Posted December 2, 2015 Share Posted December 2, 2015 <p>Rolleiflex 3.5 E Xenotar, rolleinar 1 close up, no crop:<br> <a title="Ole in may 2009" href=" data-flickr-embed="true"><img src="https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5098/5439574647_ca5db239b8_b.jpg" alt="Ole in may 2009" width="1024" height="1018" /></a><br> The image is slightly out of focus, I should have even got a bit closer, as you can see, the focus is in the hair, which is a bit in front of the eyes.<br> Another one without a close up, this was shot on a Rolleiflex 3,5 F Xenotar:<br> <a title="christoph march 2011" href=" data-flickr-embed="true"><img src="https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7021/6478962661_5c884e02a7_b.jpg" alt="christoph march 2011" width="1004" height="1024" /></a><br> Both were not cropped.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kristian_heitkamp Posted December 2, 2015 Share Posted December 2, 2015 <p>Both no crop, no close up. <a href="/bboard/"http:/wp.ki-online.net/rolleiflex-35-f-xenotar-tlr-portraet/">Rolleiflex 3.5 F Xenotar</a>:<br /> <a title="Clemens Scan-140724-0001" href=" data-flickr-embed="true"><img src="https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5551/14707918700_f2fa6566ff_b.jpg" alt="Clemens Scan-140724-0001" width="993" height="1024" /></a><br /> <a title="2014-06-20 Stefan S." href=" data-flickr-embed="true"><img src="https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2906/14480423851_c0516775ba_b.jpg" alt="2014-06-20 Stefan S." width="1002" height="1024" /></a></p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now