getting in close with a normal lens for portraits

msbarnes

msbarnes

Well-known
Local time
3:14 PM
Joined
Jul 10, 2011
Messages
841
I love my Rolleiflex but sometimes I want something a little longer for portraits. I'm a bit hesitant to add because I think of Penn, Avedon, and all the great Rollei photographers who stuck with normal lenses and mastered them.

Anyways, can I see some of your samples?
 


I found this old picture to show you something. I have a closeup adapter for my Rollei. You can get pretty darn close to the subjet. Parallax funky.


Other than that, I really like to use it for portraits... Darn... I gotta use it more !!!!
These ones are without an adaptor...





 
Silly question, but why do you want to do what someone else has already done instead of finding your own way?

If you feel youo need another lens for your style then get another lens.
 
I'm just trying to explore the normal lens some more before jumping onto another camera/lens.

It is just too easy to want another lens (not so much to afford hehe). I also don't like SLRs too much...if the tele Rollei were cheaper then I'd probably get one.
 
35mm film, 50mm lens

Snyggsiri_brukar_vi_kalla_henne.jpg
 
Is your goal longer or closer? One is perspective, the other is distance.

If you just want closer I'd look at rolleinars. For closer, the mutars are the only option as I understand it but they aren't exactly cheap.
 
Apart from cropping the picture, you can get head and shoulder portraits using a Rolleinar attachment:


The Old Man gets new glasses by *monz*, on Flickr

Rolleinars come in three strengths - they are, in increasing order of magnification:

Rolleinar no 1: focuses 39.5 - 17.75 inches
Rolleinar no 2: focuses 19.75 - 12.125 inches
Rolleinar no 3: focuses 12.5 - 9.5 inches

For portrait work, no 1 and 2 would be best.

eg, with Rolleinar no 2:


Heart of Gold by *monz*, on Flickr
 
Your parameters are wrong!
Look at photos by Penn and Avedon, done with Rolleiflex.
Most were cropped.The camera/lens was not at 3+feet.
Probably 5feet. Some of Penn is with Close up lens and are
very distorted. Don't do it with those close and loved..
In my Studio i used the better alternative to the Rollei-
The one and only Mamiyaflex with Interchangeable lenses.
The 180mm perfect for tight head shots.
The 135mm also pretty effective.
In 35mm I have used the 50mm,
which is a longer focal length than the 75/80mm on a Square format.
Thats like the 40mm on a 35mm camera.
The print not always a full truth..
 
Last edited:
leicapixie said:
Your parameters are wrong!
Look at photos by Penn and Avedon, done with Rolleiflex.
Most were cropped.The camera/lens was not at 3+feet.
Probably 5feet. Some of Penn is with Close up lens and are
very distorted. Don't do it with those close and loved..
In my Studio i used the better alternative to the Rollei-
The one and only Mamiyaflex with Interchangeable lenses.
The 180mm perfect for tight head shots.
The 135mm also pretty effective.
In 35mm I have used the 50mm,
which is a longer focal length than the 75/80mm on a Square format.
Thats like the 40mm on a 35mm camera.
The print not always a full truth..
Click to expand...

Yes, the distortion with the Rolleinars is a problem, esp where the subject's nose is placed centrally in the frame :)
 
thanks for the advice.

By normal I meant 35-50 in 35mm or 80mm-100mm in 6x6, I guess.

Bought some Rolleinars

Rolleinar 1:

Untitled by Michael_Sergio_Barnes, on Flickr

Rolleinar 2:

Untitled by Michael_Sergio_Barnes, on Flickr

Untitled by Michael_Sergio_Barnes, on Flickr

I think it is "OK" I think I would prefer something longer.

I love Rollei's because you can shoot it at very slow shutter speeds, so I am thinking of perhaps saving (selling gear) for a tele-rolleiflex or a Hasselblad 500cm + 120mm. I don't like lenses that are too long because they feel too distant and impersonal, so I'm thinking 150mm is the max that I would go in 120 (not interested in 35mm for portrait work).

I guess I can never decide if I like a camera/lens until I try it but thank you for the examples and advice.
 
zeshootist said:
I have nothing to contribute to this thread other than my admiration for some of the portraits posted. Wow!
Click to expand...

Thanks! I have mixed feelings about getting in close with normal lenses. Sometimes I love the look but other times, not. I think that I just got to keep playing around with cameras to find combinations that I like. :)
 
here's an example of using the flex with rolleinar closeup lens 1.
my gallery has another contact sheet with just head and shoulders.
 

Attachments

  • contactsheet-b.jpg
    contactsheet-b.jpg
    33.8 KB · Views: 0
The bigger the format, the easier it is to get away with a 'normal' lens, cf 300mm on 8x10.

I'd still prefer 100 to 150mm on 6x6, or 58 (a wonderful length) to 85mm on 35mm.

Cheers,

R.
 
Spanik said:
Silly question, but why do you want to do what someone else has already done instead of finding your own way?

If you feel youo need another lens for your style then get another lens.
Click to expand...

What is left to do in photography that hasn't already been done?
It's all just variations on a theme. You can use the exact same gear and technique as someone you admire, and still get a result that has your own signature. I would assert, as well, that all of the masters also began by emulating someone else. And from that exercise and experimentation the character for which they are now known somehow emerged and evolved.
 
CK Dexter Haven said:
What is left to do in photography that hasn't already been done?
It's all just variations on a theme. You can use the exact same gear and technique as someone you admire, and still get a result that has your own signature. I would assert, as well, that all of the masters also began by emulating someone else. And from that exercise and experimentation the character for which they are now known somehow emerged and evolved.
Click to expand...
Dunno. It hasn't been done yet...

Broadly, though, I'd agree.

Cheers,

R.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom