tim_cowes

Using the 'sports finder', or a prism or RF system is of course always an option (I use a Yashica and a Mamiya TLR; the Y has a sportsfinder, the M a Porroflex.) Then, however, the MF TLR begins to approach a 35 mm SLR in terms of obtrusiveness; breaking eye-contact is certainly one by-product. That general 'invisibility' that the camera develops when the person looks at your face instead goes away as well.

I'd be interested to hear if anybody uses the waist/chest level angle to their advantage. Are there shots that you feel are only captured with that angle? (Posting a photograph would be a great guide.)

Or is it always a case of working around things to make it look as if the image was taken from eye level? (Either by raising the camera to the face, lowering the person to the camera, or in cropping/enlargement later.)

Hello all. This is more a 'request for thoughts' than a 'request for

advice', but any tricks are of course greatly appriciated.

<p><blockquote>

I've been doing what you'd probably call 'environmental portraits'

with a TLR system for about a year now. This usually involves

'shadowing' the person for between a few minutes and an hour, blending

in until they're comfortable and no longer worrying about the image

they're presenting to the lens.

<p>

I find the TLR system great for this kind of thing. However, I've

noticed, because of the way I shoot (either from chest or waist level,

looking down into the viewfinder), that the perspective can be

distracting. I like to work 'close in', and sometimes it's quite clear

that the 'eye' is looking <i>up</i> at the subject. This is in

constrast to what most often happens with 35 mm work, where the camera

can sit up at a 'natural' eye level.

<p>

I've never used (or seen in person!) an MF SLR, so perhaps people run

into the same problems there as well. The parallax from the TLR

probably exacerbates this problem (two inches down may not crop too

much, but it will of course change the angle.)

<p>

What do you do? Do you accept this 'looking up' (which may or may not

be immediately apparant) as a quality of MF portraiture? I could

imagine people working with it. Do you back up, crop and enlarge? (I'd

prefer not to; why am I using MF in the first place if not to squeeze

out more negative area?) Do you arrange things so, e.g, you're

standing while the subject sits? (The 'perfect' moment rarely arranges

itself so nicely -- and I can't pose.)

<p>

I hope folks understand my dilemma here! Let me know if I've not been

clear.<p>

</blockquote>

The 'broad' question is perhaps this: "Shooting angle: bug or

feature?"

Hi Marianne,

<blockquote>

I too use a Yashica A, with the supposedly 'bad' Yashimar ('bad' in the 'it sucks' sense, not 'baaad'.) If you go on the net, you'll read that the lens is 'not so bad stopped down to f8 or so'; however I find the limiting factor in producing beautiful images is the shutter speeds -- in low light, f3.5 doesn't cut it at 1/25th of a second. Wide open, the lens to my eyes is smooth, but certaintly not distortion inducing.

Some things I think the Yashica excells at (and MF TLRs in general):

Portraits and candids. The waist-level shooting is <i>very</i> unthreatening to folks. I was amazed, when I went to a 35 mm SLR, how less lifelike my photographs became. It doesn't register on people that you <B>ARE USING A CAMERA HELLO THERE SMILE</B>. Even when people are aware that you are taking their picture, the thing looks so odd and amusing they tend to relax more.

<br><br>

Street photography. Unfairly, people will assume that you're a 'professional' when you use a TLR, and not a tourist. That can ease up situations a great deal when photographing folks who are suspicious of the second group (cafe-goers, punks.) And again, you're far less obtrusive fiddling with something at your waist or chest then in pointing a huge glass eye. Subways (with 400 speed or higher) are a joy.

<br><br>

Landscapes. Close down and use a tripod, or open up and focus to infinity. I'm not much of a landscape photographer, but even with a Yashica you'll see the difference between MF and 35 mm.

<br><br>

I've had best luck with Fuji film; Kodak's Portra VC/NC seems to play too much with the colors. And use an external lightmeter, unless you're very good. I've no idea how it handles with B&W!

<br><br>

Some Yashica unhappinesses: it's very easy to double expose. Get in the rhythm of advancing the film right after taking a shot. Even so, in the heat of the moment, you'll forget once in awhile (about 2% of the time, given my recent record.) And, get in the habit of fully winding off film after the last exposure.

<br><br>

The bokeh is not so great -- in particular, any out of focus point lightsources will be lensed to a very hard oval shape! This is very distracting and will kill a picture, so keep it in mind and steer clear.

<br><br>

I've just upgraded to a Mamiya, which gives interchangeable lenses. Actually, my real desire was to be able to open up another stop and let me shoot at 1/50th. Bear in mind that, unless you do your own developing, you can spend over $150 a year on film and developing.

<br><br>

Finally, 'learning' the square exists! I learned to take pictures manually on the Yashica; after a year, I bought a 35 mm SLR, and realized I had to relearn practically everything about composition.

</BLOCKQUOTE>

Best of luck!

Roland,

I spent a long time going through this work, and came back to it again. I'm sure many of us would be curious to hear more about how you go about your work (unfortunately, I can't read German, so your webpage gives no leads.) I am struck by how 'unarranged' the compositions are -- meaning that the camera seems to 'find' the composition, as opposed to creating it. (I find the exact opposite with Salgado's work, and I think it's why a lot of people react negatively to what they see as aestheticization of suffering.)

Beautiful. Stunning.

Delurking after a long while here.

I find the topic of bokeh endlessly fascinating. This is partly because I spent the first two years of my photography time taking either street shots or portraits with an 80 mm lens on a medium format camera. I used slow film, opened up, and enjoyed working with the transition to out of focus. To me, management of the out of focus regions is of comparable importance to the composition of the 'primary subject'.

As a physicist, I can attest -- bokeh is "real" in as much as two lens systems that both produce perfectly sharp images can have radically different behaviors away from the focal plane. It's a function of the construction of the entire system, however -- a single lens (e.g., a magnifying glass) that has proper convergence will have identical 'bokeh' to any another. There was an article on the technical aspects of the subject, somewhere that google can reach.

As someone taking pictures, however, I see much more blame placed on the lens than the photographer in bokeh complaint (or praise.) One composes the out of focus regions as well! I love the sharp focus of a medium format print, but I don't understand people who simply want to minimize a 'background'. It's there, work with it!

I've heard it said (again, perhaps around here?) that 'good bokeh' is that which mimics the bokeh of the human eye. Done well (by both lens and photographer), it should give a far greater substantiality to a scene. Sitting here and comparing eye to photograph, my MF system stopped down has much harder edged bokeh than my eye. The eye seems to have a 'step' in the defocused halo, whereas the Yashica grades out.

In any case, the reason I'm reading this thread at all is because I recently purchased an R3 and two lenses (50 and 92) only because of some of the wonderful examples of bokeh I've seen. I'll happily post a few images once I get started, if people are interested.