Avotius
Some guy
I played around a little bit in the studio with yashica gsn, not really a leica m but as close as I had back then, yes you can do studio portraits with a rangefinder and they look great, no its not the best for getting exact framing but if you understand the quirks of your camera it doesn't mater
Biggles
My cup runneth amok.
The only compelling reason I would have to choose any rangefinder over an SLR in a formal portrait studio would be for the quality and character of the lenses I had for it. Depth-of-field preview alone makes an SLR stand out in this regard, for me, at least. The framing issue, as well, though I've always tended to crop the hell out of my portraits. With that said, Our Man In Milan above has shown that a pocketful of Summicrae and an M-mount body aren't necessarily a handicap.
I'm planning to shoot a local writer's "author photo" next month, and for that mixed indoor/outdoor candid shoot, I plan to use the CL, the 40mm Summicron, and the 50mm Summilux. Less bulky than my SLR, easier to hold slower speeds with in the dim light I plan to place her in, and way better glass than what I have in reflex right now.
I'm planning to shoot a local writer's "author photo" next month, and for that mixed indoor/outdoor candid shoot, I plan to use the CL, the 40mm Summicron, and the 50mm Summilux. Less bulky than my SLR, easier to hold slower speeds with in the dim light I plan to place her in, and way better glass than what I have in reflex right now.
dave lackey
Veteran
Good information so far!
The photos posted have been great. Very helpful. In fact, it is so much better to see actual results so I can make up my own mind. Some have made up their mind that RF's are not for portraits, some have made up their mind that SLR's are not for portraits...yet, I seen some great results with the RF and I obtain VERY good results with my DSLR. If I can get at least this good with the M6, I will be happy:
YMMV, but I think the RF images I have seen are different that those I have seen with other cameras, be it digital or film. And different is okay with me!
So, keep the images comin'...I am impressed!
The photos posted have been great. Very helpful. In fact, it is so much better to see actual results so I can make up my own mind. Some have made up their mind that RF's are not for portraits, some have made up their mind that SLR's are not for portraits...yet, I seen some great results with the RF and I obtain VERY good results with my DSLR. If I can get at least this good with the M6, I will be happy:
YMMV, but I think the RF images I have seen are different that those I have seen with other cameras, be it digital or film. And different is okay with me!
So, keep the images comin'...I am impressed!
Last edited:
FrankS
Registered User
Some have made up their mind that RF's are not for portraits...
That's not what I said. I said that there are better camera choices for studio portraits than a 35mm RF camera. As for RF portraits being different than portraits taken with other cameras, I disagree. It is the photographer that is responsible for the look, not the camera.
That's not what I said. I said that there are better camera choices for studio portraits than a 35mm RF camera. As for RF portraits being different than portraits taken with other cameras, I disagree. It is the photographer that is responsible for the look, not the camera.
max35mm
Member
nobody has said that rf 's are not for portraits because that statement can not be true...one for all "An Inner Silence: The Portraits of Henri Cartier-Bresson" great book.
Maybe rf's are not the best for studio works, but...who cares,
I pretend not to know it
the last one...
thnaks and ciao!
Maybe rf's are not the best for studio works, but...who cares,
I pretend not to know it
the last one...
thnaks and ciao!
Attachments
FrankS
Registered User
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
Don't forget how great they are with just available light:
Leica M3 + 90mm Elmarit I
Leica M3 + 90mm Elmarit I
Wayne R. Scott
Half fast Leica User
Features that I like when using an M for studio people shots:
1). I can tell instantly if the flash(s) went off, there is no screen black out from slr mirror.
2). I can see the expression on their faces at the moment of shutter release, agian due to no screen black out from slr mirror.
3). I can shoot 36 shots with out reloading.
Things I do not like about using an M in studio:
1). The PC flash connection is on the back of the camera near the view finder, (whoever dreamed this up should have been fired).
2.) To use the camera on a tripod I have to use a M grip to get the tripod mount centered under the body instead of off to one side of the camera.
3). There can be parralax errors in the heat of battle at close range, i.e. some people get their heads cut off. This is not normally a good thing in portraiture.
4). The negative is teeny-tiny compared to medium format or large format.
5). If macro (micro for you Nikon users) type close-ups of hands, rings, baby toes and ears are called for, it ain't gonna happen with the M. At least not easily or cheaply!
6). There are no pictures being made while I am holding the bottom plate in my teeth and threading the film through the bottom of the camera.
Almost any camera can be used to take portraits, some are just much better than others.
Wayne
1). I can tell instantly if the flash(s) went off, there is no screen black out from slr mirror.
2). I can see the expression on their faces at the moment of shutter release, agian due to no screen black out from slr mirror.
3). I can shoot 36 shots with out reloading.
Things I do not like about using an M in studio:
1). The PC flash connection is on the back of the camera near the view finder, (whoever dreamed this up should have been fired).
2.) To use the camera on a tripod I have to use a M grip to get the tripod mount centered under the body instead of off to one side of the camera.
3). There can be parralax errors in the heat of battle at close range, i.e. some people get their heads cut off. This is not normally a good thing in portraiture.
4). The negative is teeny-tiny compared to medium format or large format.
5). If macro (micro for you Nikon users) type close-ups of hands, rings, baby toes and ears are called for, it ain't gonna happen with the M. At least not easily or cheaply!
6). There are no pictures being made while I am holding the bottom plate in my teeth and threading the film through the bottom of the camera.
Almost any camera can be used to take portraits, some are just much better than others.
Wayne
dave lackey
Veteran
FrankS said:
Frank,
I am only saying that I would like to see images made with Leica M cameras. To me, and it is only an opinion of mine after 35 years with Nikon SLR's, my images with film cameras are different than the images I obtain with my D2H or D80. Just my observation and that is why I just want to see images made with a different type of camera. Some are saying the images are better with MF...okay, whatever. They are still different aren't they?
Again, I have no problem with everyone's opinions...I merely asked to see Leica M images.:angel: The one's I have seen certainly appear different to me than those on the Miranda forum! And different from my results, too...
As far as the photographer being responsible for the look, I agree, but I do obtain different results with my F3 film than my DSLR. Maybe one day I will be able to venture into MF land and experience that wonderful format, but financially, I don't see that happening...
I really appreciate all of your opinions...that is what is so great about this forum.
Thanks so much!
Shac
Well-known
Portraits with Ms
Portraits with Ms
Apologies for coming in late - but I've never really been unhappy with M portraits even though I use an SLR as well - almost seems as if the M is less intimidating for some people.
Here's an example that moree than satisfied my needs - hand held with an 90 Apo on an M6 using XP2.
Portraits with Ms
Apologies for coming in late - but I've never really been unhappy with M portraits even though I use an SLR as well - almost seems as if the M is less intimidating for some people.
Here's an example that moree than satisfied my needs - hand held with an 90 Apo on an M6 using XP2.
Attachments
M
Magus
Guest
Post deleted by posters request
M
merciful
Guest
A studio shot?
Shac said:
jkelly
Analog hobbyist
Merciful, love your sig. Heinlein is (was) THE MAN.
Here's a snapshot, not a studio portrait, of my daughter taken in available indoor light with an M3 + Summitar and Ilford XP2. I've been messing around in Photoshop a little too much lately and added the black background. Anyway,
BTW, what's the secret code to upload photos to the RFF gallery? I've been totally unsuccesful for months, even though the photos are sized correctly, and I always get a message that my photos were successfully uploaded. When I check the gallery, however, they are not there.
Here's a snapshot, not a studio portrait, of my daughter taken in available indoor light with an M3 + Summitar and Ilford XP2. I've been messing around in Photoshop a little too much lately and added the black background. Anyway,
BTW, what's the secret code to upload photos to the RFF gallery? I've been totally unsuccesful for months, even though the photos are sized correctly, and I always get a message that my photos were successfully uploaded. When I check the gallery, however, they are not there.
wilt
Well-known
M
merciful
Guest
The focus of this thread has been lost. It's not about whether or not Ms are good for portraits (we all know they are), but whether or not they're well-suited to studio portraiture.
ywenz
Veteran
FrankS said:
The immediate feedback of digital cameras definitely diminishes the need to learn the basics. I don't see that as a good thing, but that is a fact. This however, doesn't mean younger digital shooters are lacking sound photographic skills. What they might not be learning from the photography books, they're learning from trial and error.
rogue_designer said:
Correct as well, however, when multiple lights are used, it makes it even more difficult to calculate light falloff and camera settings. I'd rather have instant preview and adjust as needed. If I'm way off on my lights/camera setting, it usually takes me 3 or 4 test shots to arrive at what i want.
The bulk of my lit portraits are shot on digital. However, if I really need a shot on film, I would shot it with digital first and transfer the camera settings to my TLR. I don't see myself deviating from this workflow unless the majority of my shooting is on film.
Last edited:
PaulN
Monkey
Tri-x & 50/1.4 ASPH. I used a canon 550EX in a softbox attached to an MP via an off-shoe chord. Shutter was triggered via a cable release.
PaulN
Monkey
Two more, but I cheated and used my R-D1 with a 28mm VC/1.9 Ultron. On-shoe canon 550EX used as fill flash and remotely triggered a 580EX in a softbox. Portraits can be done with an M system, and you CAN utilize a Canon wireless flash setup on the M's (in manual mode, of course).
Shac
Well-known
Merciful - It isn't a studio shot - I realised after posting that the original question was specifically about studio shots. My mistake.
dave lackey
Veteran
PaulN,
Nice!
Have you tried to use the M flash to trigger the strobes?
I have just picked up the studio setup (3 lights) including softboxes. All that is missing is the microsync and a light meter.
BTW, just how hard is it to do studio portraits of pets? Our grandchildren are definitely a handful!
Nice!
Have you tried to use the M flash to trigger the strobes?
I have just picked up the studio setup (3 lights) including softboxes. All that is missing is the microsync and a light meter.
BTW, just how hard is it to do studio portraits of pets? Our grandchildren are definitely a handful!