Sanders,Really wonderful work. The only disturbing not was the piercing of some of the subjects.
I have seen some of the medical consequences of those, It ain't pleasant.I can tell from the POV that a TLR was used. I would have used my H'blad with a
150mm lens. Your vignetting showed but was not distracting at all. Thanks again, Jerry Sanders McNew wrote:
Jerry, Those particular images are available online only via Flickr. But I have a number of others on my web site,www.mcnew.net/portraits <http://www.mcnew.net/portraits> Here are direct links to a few: http://www.mcnew.net/portraits/slides/Booper101altadj.jpg http://www.mcnew.net/portraits/slides/Brooke209adj.jpg http://www.mcnew.net/portraits/slides/Gina201adj.jpg http://www.mcnew.net/portraits/slides/Cat108adj.jpg http://www.mcnew.net/portraits/slides/Jess301adj.jpg http://www.mcnew.net/portraits/slides/Jessica209altadj.jpg Sanders Jerry Lehrer wrote: Sandy,Sorry, but Flicker will not let me see those pictures that you have linked. I have noaccount with them. Will some other way for you to show them be available? JerryOn Apr 26, 2009, at 9:25 AM, Sanders McNew wrote:John, that's an interesting idea. And if I mount my 0.7x Mutar on my Tele, I get ... somethinglike my 2.8E? I shoot the Tele for portraits all the time. I find that the 0.7 Rolleinar does not get me close enough for a tight headshot. However, you can mount a Bay III Rolleinar I on top of either Tele Rolleinar and the combination gets you real close -- I use the 0.35 Tele Rolleinar with a Rolleinar I all the time, for photos such as these: http://www.flickr.com/photos/sandersnyc/3076791496/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/sandersnyc/2957173694/Apart from some vignetting (which does not bother me) I find the combination very accommodating.Sanders John Wild wrote:Although not recommended (or even mentioned by Rollei) a friend used a Tele-Mutar (BayIII) on his Tele-Rolleiflex to get an approximate 200mm lens. The results were good, better than enlarging the standard Tele negative to the same magnification. The results did show some slight vignetting which probably would be eliminated by stopping down a little. Light conditions did not permit this though and they were only of buildings. Someone could try this combo for portraiture? The other alternatives to taking out a bank loan to purchase a new Tele-Rollei with close focusing are to use one of the Rolleinars (.35 or .7) for the old Teles which give head & shoulder and head shots respectively. John On 16/04/2009 23:30, "Robert Meier" <robertmeier@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:> > The problem with the Tele-Mutar for portraits is that the minimum> focusing distance is magnified along with the focal length, so it's a > little more than five feet. And that is not close enough for a head > shot. --- Rollei List