Help me choose a folder for portraits

[tofagerl]

Hey ho!

I'm a pretty new photographer-hobbyist, with most of my experience from SLRs and recently some FSU RFs.

I've decided to continue my learning experience (LOVE to learn new stuff!) towards 120-film, and I want to keep using RFs for "street photography" as people here seem to call everything that's not a portrait (no, I don't get it yet, but I will at some point) and I want to keep using DSLRs for parties and other indoor stuff.

So what I really want to use a 120 folder for is portraits. I want to learn both shooting portraits, using 120 film, and I want to learn all about old folders.

Obviously you should feel free to suggest anything you like, but please tell me _why_ you suggest that specific camera, since I'm unlikely to understand it from just a quick google search.

Oh, and a PC sync port on the camera would be sweet so I could use flash in a pinch.

Edit: Really like the looks of the old Voigtländers, but that's just the looks. I have no idea if they're anything like what I need/should use.

 

[Gumby]

Forgive me for being a tad negative, but in general I think folding 120 cameras and portraiture are incompatable. Been there; tried that. The problem is often image quality, but where they really fail is when you try getting in for a tight head shot. The "normal lens" limitation does not favor good tight portraits. For less tight portraiture I like "half-frame" folders that have 6x4.5 vertical exposures since vertical is a generally flattering traditional orientation for portraits.

 

[Gumby]

p.s. 120 folders really do "look cool" and are compact to carry so don't give up thinking about them. Get one and use it to shoot "street"... or landscapes.

 

[sevo]

For less tight portraiture I like "half-frame" folders that have 6x4.5 vertical exposures since vertical is a generally flattering traditional orientation for portraits.

Learning how to turn a camera by 90° usually is cheaper than buying yet another camera...

But that said, the distance limitations you mentioned are valid - with 1m-1.5m minimum focal distance (and pretty horrible performance from many cell focusing lenses at that close limit) they hardly are a all-round portrait camera. A good unit focusing folder like a Heliar Bessa RF or II does quite well at it nonetheless.

Sevo

 

[tofagerl]

Good point, hadn't considered that. I know SLRs and TLRs are generally considered more "portraitfriendy".
Well, what about wideish angles then? Lower end of the "normal" spectrum, something like 28-35mm 135-equivalent.

 

[f16sunshine]

I'm on this quest as well. The cameras in my sites are a Zeiss Ikonta 524-2 with Opton Tessar 105mm f3.5. It's an uncoupled RF with a 5' minumum focus distance. The Opton Tessar is nearly Modern in it's IQ. Images I have seen look great. The other one is as Sevo mentioned. A Voigtlander Bessa with Skopar or Heliar. I think Heliar as The Skopar is a Tessar Scheme if I remember correctly. The Bessa has a closer MFD which could be handy. For me the MFD is not as important since both of these cameras are 6x9. There will be plenty of resolution to crop for tighter compositions if desired. Either the original Bessa or bessa ii with it's coated lens will work for me since I will only shoot B+W most likely.

 

[kuzano]

Most folders not optimal for portrait.....

Most folders not optimal for portrait.....

I shot folders for 2-3 years.

Folders generally come in the lens focal length that is normal for the format. So, a 6X9 generally has a 100-105 focal length. 6X6 generally is fitted with a 75mm.

Portrait is generally considered best shot with a longer (short telephoto) lens for better characteristics of the face shape, etc.

I found that most folders would not fit that aspect of portrait photography.

The one post above that may offer a compromise, would be a dual format camera that has the lens normal length for 6X9, which is 105. Then, using the mask down to 6X4.5, one would achieve portrait focal length, since a normal focal length for 645 would be 60-75mm. Therefore the 105 lens would affect a short telephoto on 645.

I used a Bessa folder (6X9) with the mask to 645, which occasionally also came with the upgrade Color Skopar 105. It did the job nicely. There are others, but many dual formats shoot 6X9 and 6X6, which is not as portrait friendly. I liked the results on my Bessa I, but they are hard to find with the smaller format mask still intact. Most of the masks have been separated from the camera long ago, due to the preference to shoot the larger format.

Modding a single format camera to shoot 645 is tough since there are no dual windows in the back of the camera to place the frames for 15 shots on 120.

Also, if you like FSU cameras, there are the Moskva folders which did occasionally come in dual format, and are replete with stock light leaks as so many russian folders are noted for.

Another thing to note about the reference above on the Bessa RF and the Bessa II. The Bessa II is not a dual format. Voigtlander made the many of the older Bessa's, including the Bessa RF AND the Bessa I in dual format with an internal removable mask and dual ruby windows on the back. The early Bessa RF had an incredibly accurate coupled rangefinder, and could be had with early Skopar (not Color) and Heliar lenses. (Heliar the best). The Bessa 1 came with either Vaskar, or by special order the COLOR Skopar, but never saw one with a Heliar. Again the Bessa II is NOT Dual Format, but more often found with the Color Skopar or Heliar, and one higher quality lens, which I'm having trouble remembering the name right now.

 

[f16sunshine]

I shot folders for 2-3 years.

Folders generally come in the lens focal length that is normal for the format. So, a 6X9 generally has a 100-105 focal length. 6X6 generally is fitted with a 75mm.

Portrait is generally considered best shot with a longer (short telephoto) lens for better characteristics of the face shape, etc.

I found that most folders would not fit that aspect of portrait photography.

The one post above that may offer a compromise, would be a dual format camera that has the lens normal length for 6X9, which is 105. Then, using the mask down to 6X4.5, one would achieve portrait focal length, since a normal focal length for 645 would be 60-75mm. 105 would then affect a short telephoto on 645.

I used a Bessa folder (6X9) with the mask to 645, which occasionally also came with the upgrade Color Skopar 105. It did the job nicely. There are others, but many dual formats shoot 6X9 and 6X6, which is not as portrait friendly. I liked the results on my Bessa I, but they are hard to find with the smaller format mask still intact. Most of the masks have been separated from the camera long ago, due to the preference to shoot the larger format.

What would be the difference using a mask or using a cropped 6x9 image? A 105mm lens will flatten and flatter regardless of the film format you shoot it on originally. The reason I'm targeting 6x9 is for the "normal" 105mm lens they typically come with. It is the best Focal length for portraits imho.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Yet another vote against folders for portraiture. With the vast majority of folders, it would take several rolls to correlate viewfinder and actual framing -- or you'd need to frame fairly loosely to allow for viewfinder inaccuracies Personally I'd back an old SLR (Pentacon Six, KowaSIX, etc); or a rigid camera with a good viewfinder (Mamiya Press, Graflex XL); or (ideally) an old quarter-plate SLR ('3x4 inch' in American, a more accurate 3-1/4 x 4-1/4 inch in English) with a 6x9cm, 6x8cm or 6x7 cm roll-film back.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

What would be the difference using a mask or using a cropped 6x9 image? A 105mm lens will flatten and flatter regardless of the film format you shoot it on originally. The reason I'm targeting 6x9 is for the "normal" 105mm lens they typically come with. It is the best Focal length for portraits imho.

Not really. It's a wide angle on 4x5 inch (roughly a 30-35mm equivalent in 35mm terms) and an ultra-wide on 5x7 inch (21mm, near enough). In 35mm terms, on 6x9cm it's 45mm and on 645, about 65mm. The latter is of course a very good portrait length.

Cheers,

R.

 

[tofagerl]

Well, on a medium format frame you could place the motive far in the back and still get fairly good quality on a cropped image. That way you don't get the distortion from placing the camera too close.

Of course, a longer lens would be preferable.

Anywho, I'll stick with a wide lens if that's easier. I can do portraits with my DSLRs untill I find a better analogue camera.

 

[Gumby]

Learning how to turn a camera by 90° usually is cheaper than buying yet another camera...

Perhaps, but at least I don't have to get into the "overhand vs underhand" discussion.

 

[Gumby]

With the vast majority of folders, it would take several rolls to correlate viewfinder and actual framing -- or you'd need to frame fairly loosely to allow for viewfinder inaccuracies .

With my Kodak Duo I have a lot of portraits with cut-off heads. I guess I'm fortunate that those kinds of framings are currently fashionable.

 

[easyrider]

Get a Crown or Speed Graphic. A folder of sorts -- they do fold --and great for portraits.

 

[chris00nj]

You can use a folder for portraits, but it is slower. Most have either no rangefinder or an uncoupled rangefinder. That means you have to figure out your distance and then transfer that your the lens.

A Zeiss Ikon Super Ikonta III has a coupled rangefinder. Models with the Tessar are pricey ($300), but don't snub your nose at the Novar triplet models, which are substantially cheaper ($150).

A Zeiss Ikonta 524/16 may be another option. It's got an uncoupled rangefinder. Here's a price list of the later Zeiss folders which I keep track of.

This is an Agfa Ansco Speedex on Tri-X at f/11 or f/16, with a uncoated triplet 85/4.5 lens. It does not have a rangefinder, but I used an accessory rangefinder to determine the distance.

 

[oftheherd]

Yet another vote against folders for portraiture. With the vast majority of folders, it would take several rolls to correlate viewfinder and actual framing -- or you'd need to frame fairly loosely to allow for viewfinder inaccuracies Personally I'd back an old SLR (Pentacon Six, KowaSIX, etc); or a rigid camera with a good viewfinder (Mamiya Press, Graflex XL); or (ideally) an old quarter-plate SLR ('3x4 inch' in American, a more accurate 3-1/4 x 4-1/4 inch in English) with a 6x9cm, 6x8cm or 6x7 cm roll-film back.

Cheers,

R.

I have taken very good portraits with the Mamiya Press, 6x7 back and 100mm lens. I usually framed a little loosely and cropped. But that allowed some very big enlargements, up to 16x20 or even larger.

The other cameras mentioned by Mr. Hicks are also worthy of consideration. Nonetheless, don't discount old folders, especially in the 6x9 range. They do better than you might think as long as you use them carefully. And what is the difference if you use a TLR or a folding 6x6, unless you are using something like a Rolleiflex or a Mamiya 330? And even then you might find you prefer the folder. You have to try to find out.

 

[tofagerl]

Big help, everyone
Beginning to lose trust in The Auction Site, though, 9 out of 10 folders I look at look like someone didn't even take the camera down from the attic they found it in before they took the pictures of it.

 

[f16sunshine]

Big help, everyone
Beginning to lose trust in The Auction Site, though, 9 out of 10 folders I look at look like someone didn't even take the camera down from the attic they found it in before they took the pictures of it.

Look in at KEH from time to time. The auction is a mess for these things. Also here at RFF there is a steady supply from trustworthy sellers.

 

[tofagerl]

KEH is fantastic, but their shipping fees are HUGE to Norway, so for a folder under $100 it's not worth it. If I'm ever to buy anything from there, I would have to save up for months to make it worth it to myself...

 

[Frank Petronio]

I'd consider a medium format folding camera more of an "environmental portrait" where you'd capture more of the background and tell a story with what's included. Shoot at middle distances, getting close with a folder is not a good idea.

Keep that 50-100mm lens on the DSLR for head and shoulders portraits.