Portraits with Canon RFDR kit

[mukul_dube]

<p>I now have a Canon 7 body and a Canon 100mm f/3.5 lens to serve as back-up to my main portrait kit. First results are encouraging.</p><div></div>

[mukul_dube]

<p>Second.</p><div></div>

[mukul_dube]

<p>Third.</p><div></div>

[mukul_dube]

<p>Fourth.</p><div></div>

[baisao]

Outstanding portraits, Mukul. Did you use a different film than usual? These seem warmer than your other portraits.

[mukul_dube]

<p>Thank you, Jim. These are digital photos of prints made from negatives. Everything is done by eye and there are many variables other than film. In general, I look at the content of a photograph and care little for other things provided that nothing is seriously wrong. I now use only ASA 400 colour negative film, mostly Fuji or Kodak, and the consumer kind because anything else is too expensive and is not easy to get.</p>

[Alex_Es]

<p>These are absolutely stunning portraits. And these are scans of prints !!!!! Gads. I know that the Canon 100/3.5 is a great lens, but who is your printer and what scanner are you using???</p>

[mukul_dube]

<p>Thank you, Alex. These are not scans of prints but digital photos of them, taken with a "macro" lens. There are few labs left in my city -- Delhi in India -- which still handle film; and they are much the same as they all use the same kind of equipment. In the past I have scanned 6" by 4" prints on a cheap flat-bed scanner at 300 resolution, and the results were good enough for my needs.</p>

[Alex_Es]

<p>Thanks for the clarification, Mukul. I think the portraits and the way they are rendered are better than good.</p>

[SCL]

<p>Very nice. I just have to laugh quietly about all the posts over the years where people can't figure how to focus on the eyes in portrait work, and you have nailed it with your rangefinder.</p>

[Lou_Meluso]

<p>Looks great. That Canon should be your primary kit.</p>

[mukul_dube]

<p>Thank you, Stephen. I find the eyes -- because of high contrast -- often the easiest part to focus on. My cameras' range-finders are bright and accurate, and they have correction for vision fitted.<br>

Thank you, Louis. Well, I know that if ever I have to sell the M6 and its Elmarit 90, I shall have something reliable at hand.</p>

[christopher_a._junker1]

<p>Mukul's use of the Canon 100 F3.5 shows how well a good long focus lens works in the right hands. Very nice series.</p>

[mukul_dube]

<p>Thank you, Christopher. I am glad you said "long focus lens" and not "portrait lens", because too many people think that lenses of around twice the focal length of "normal" are good only for portraits. While they are arguably the best for portraits of the head shot and head-and-shoulders variety, they have been used with success in several other kinds of work also.</p>

[luis_g]

<p>Good work, Mukul. I own a Canon L1 (which I haven't used in a long time) and two lenses for it. They're great cameras.</p>

[mukul_dube]

<p>Thank you, Luis. Yes, the Canon screw mount cameras were well made: the earlier, the better. I had a VT Deluxe for many years, and it is my impression that the L1 has the same view-finder.</p>

[starvy]

<p>Mukul, I think they are outstanding for such naturalistic shots. I am not saying that this is just due to using the equipment you have chosen to use but more perhaps your expertise at getting the best out of it. My 35mm scans are seldom this interesting!</p>

[mukul_dube]

<p>Thank you, Starvy. I seem to have become good at keeping my subjects from posing. I also work fast and seldom "arrange" a shot. And then I make just one exposure or perhaps two. My work is usually done before my subjects know it. Facial muscles can become visibly stiff if the photographer is slow. Best to make as little fuss as possible and treat the whole thing as nothing out of the ordinary. <br>

However, equipment is important, no doubt about that. I cannot possibly work smoothly with something that does not feel right; and a certain minimal optical quality is of course essential. The twinned 85mm and 100mm frames in the Canon 7's finder are giving me trouble as the smaller frame is no more than corner marks. In a couple of shots I managed to lop off the tops of my subjects' heads, presumably because I used the outer, wider frame line as a border. User error, of course, but the design of the finder does not help.</p>

[jerry_sousa]

<p>Hi Mukul, nice work, as usual. Would you mind posting a picture of the eyepiece correction lens you have custom fitted, as I also have a Canon 7 which needs such an arrangement. Thank you, your photos have inspired me to search for a 100mm 3.5 too.(I have the 135mm but find it a bit tight for RF use). Jerry</p>

[mukul_dube]

<p>Thank you, Jerry. I shall advise you to consider also the Cosina Apo Lanthar 90mm f/3.5, which is Leica screw mount.<br>

The photo shows, on the left, an unmodified Canon 7 eye-piece and, on the right, the one on my camera. I did not remove the lens (about -1 dioptre) already in it but just glued on the circumference of the metal the +1.25 lens my optician shaped for me. To find the power I needed, I took the camera to the shop and, with my glasses off, held, one by one, three of the lenses used for vision testing between my eye and the finder (which then had the eye-piece fitted) to see which gave the sharpest image. I shall be glad to help in any way I can.</p><div></div>

[jerry_sousa]

Thanks Mukul, looks like experimentation is the order of the day for old rangefinder gear! I shall be in Goa, India end of

January, next year. If there is any accessory you may require do let me know ok. There is a ready supply of aftermarket,

ie. Made in China hoods, for example, here in Hong Kong. Best wishes and looking forward to seeing more of your work

here.

[mukul_dube]

<p>Thank you, Jerry.</p>