[rollei_list] Re: rollei_list Digest V5 #103
- From: "Peter K." <peterk727@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 07:35:45 -0700
Doh!!!!
On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 7:14 AM, Sanders McNew <sanders@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Oh wait: You mean I don't have to use the entire negative?
>
>
>
> Peter K. wrote:
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 11:16:22 -0700
> Subject: [rollei_list] Re: T shutter jam, cont'd
> From: "Peter K." <peterk727@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> Sanders,
> Don't you get it?! That is why wedding photographers for many years used
> square Sanders, they can crop it vertical or horizontal as needed. Or leave
> it square if desired. It was an ideal format.
>
> Peter K
>
> On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 5:26 AM, Sanders McNew <sanders@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Ordinarily I would agree with you. But when I am
>
> shooting a 3/4-length person, the square leaves
>
> an awful lot of space on either side.
>
>
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/sandersnyc/2494312376/
>
>
> Of course it is possible to use arms and hands and
>
> posture to help fill more of the frame and make the
>
> person look less like a stick:
>
>
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/sandersnyc/2355209130/
>
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/sandersnyc/2671412044/
>
>
> In the past my impulse has been to shoot these with
>
> a 5x7 view camera:
>
>
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/sandersnyc/1402145874/
>
>
> Recently I've moved to the T with the 16-frame mask,
>
> turned on its side, to shoot them:
>
>
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/sandersnyc/3436677435/
>
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/sandersnyc/3479890438/
>
>
> Though it sounds awkward, using a T on its side (on
>
> a tripod, of course) is actually quite easy. And since
>
> none of the people I photograph have ever been
>
> shot with a film camera before, let alone a Rolleiflex,
>
> they don't find it any weirder than being photographed
>
> with an upright Rolleiflex -- it's all alien to them.
>
>
> Sanders
>
>
>
>
>
--
Peter K
Ó¿Õ¬
Other related posts:
