[rollei_list] Re: Rolleinar 1 or Crop for Portraiture?
----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Goldstein" <egoldste@xxxxxxxxx> 
To: <rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2011 7:02 AM
Subject: [rollei_list] Re: Rolleinar 1 or Crop for Portraiture?
I agree. There is a significant different between shooting with a rolleinar and cropping, and that difference is perspective as Emmanuel exhaustively explains ;-). You will see a difference in how the face is drawn with the 
two approaches.
That said, there have been wonderful examples of heads shot by many of our group members using both approaches. One of our group members, Sanders McNew, shoots a tele with rolleinar, which could still maintain a traditional camera to head distance depending upon which rolleinar is used. 
I use a .70 with my tele and like the results.


Eric Goldstein

--
I think the modern eye is much more tollerant to perspective "distortion" than in the past. For one thing we are used to seeing extra-wide-angle shots on TV, a once slightly shocking effect which as become an affectation along with various forms of shaky camera and slap zooms. The "distortion" when using a normal WA lens, that is not a fisheye lens, is really from viewing the image from the wrong distance. If the eye is at the equivalent position of the camera lens the distortion goes away. This is also true of the distortion of shapes in the corners of pictures taken with orthographic lenses (most camera lenses are orthographic, i.e. reproduce straight lines as straight). If you photograph a square grid, like graph paper, the reproduced image will have all equal sized squares on it but if you photograph an array of spheres, like a golf balls, arranged in a grid pattern those at the corners will be egg-shaped, unless... the photo is viewed with one eye at the correct distance. Then the diminishing perspective in _viewing_ will compensate and the shapes will be correct. The same applies to portraits. If the image is viewed from the correct distance the relative size of nose and ears will be correct. We usually see people from some distance, several feet, so faces often don't look right if seen from a closer perspective in a photo. There is also the difference between normal stereoscopic vision and the one-eyed version of common photography. I think the eye sees somewhat different outlines in the two kinds of images. I think this is why people sometimes look fatter in photos than in real life.
The old rule of thumb for portraits was to use a lens with a focal length of from 1.5 to 2X the diagonal of the plate. This sets the camera at about the right distance for faces or head and shoulder shots. In fact, it also works well for whole body photography. For a Rollei TLR the effective focal length when using a Rolleikin is about right. 

--
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx


---
Rollei List

- Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'subscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
- Unsubscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org 

- Online, searchable archives are available at
http://www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list

Other related posts: