In my view, the 75 mm lens in 6X6 is about ideal because it simplifies things. One of my favorite out-and-about kits is a Rollei, light meter, a few accessories and film in a compact camera bag (well, sometimes a tripod, too.) It is supremely portable and there isn't much I can't handle with that setup. If a photo opportunity comes up for which another focal length lens would have been more suitable, I wouldn't have had it with me anyway because of the extra weight. I prefer the 75 mm focal length to the 80 mm because it includes just that bit more on the negative, leaving an option to crop later. Since a 1939ish Rolleiflex Automat was the first serious camera I ever used, at this point I am convinced my preference has more to do with imprinting than technical or aesthetic criteria. However, unless you are willing to crop drastically, there is a place for longer focal lengths in portraiture. This is more for the sake of the subject than the photographer because of perspective considerations. Most people consider the 75-80 mm close-up to be unflattering. Richard Avedon got away with it because he was essentially producing caricatures of his sitters, who usually deserved it. But I like the focal length as an all-arounder and don't mind cropping.
Allen Zak On Mar 7, 2010, at 4:40 PM, Marvin wrote:
Thanks for the post Allen. I find myself agreeing with your post.It's interesting to me that the photographers who used Rolleis well who have been mentioned previously, used them within their design limitation, such asDiane Arbus. The 75-80 mm lens is suited to portraiture 3-4 feet or more from thesubject, with a head and shoulders to full body perspective-proving a little context around the subject. When used skilfully the marque is wonderful.What do you think? Marvin -----Original Message----- From: rollei_list-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:rollei_list-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Allen Zak Sent: 08 March 2010 05:12 To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: [rollei_list] Re: (No Date: Sun, 7 Mar 2010 16:12:20 -0500 On Mar 6, 2010, at 8:57 PM, <marvin0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:Interesting, you mention the list of photographers who all used the square format. Yet the individual who is considered the master of the format Robert Mapplethorp used a blad. He is considered head and shoulders above the rest in the art world, not including Ernst Hass, because of composition and the quality of his prints-tonality. By the way I would have to include Mary Ellen Mark on the list of accomplished Rollei users. Marvin.Although I don't know if there is an actual art world concensus on Mapplethorpe's standing, his work is not universally regarded as "head and shoulders" above the field, certainly not by me. I regarded him as visually talented and technically competent, but not a whole lot more. As I see them, most of his subject matter tends to be art market oriented, including his shock-the-bourgeoisie homoerotic images, or too personal to translate into universal values. I never really thought much about this before (incredibly!), but at first reflection, it occurs to me that most of the square format photography I admire has been performed with Rolleis more often than Hasselblads, by far. Some of this can be because so much was produced during Rollei's heyday before 'blads were in widespread use, but also because of the operating advantages of a TLR; simple, lightweight, quiet, qualities suited for the unobtrusive, slice of life type of photography I am drawn to. OTOH, lugging a Hasselblad outfit is a commitment, and in use the machine asserts its presence by sight and sound. Beyond that, there seems to me a technical, sort of detached quality to the Hasselblad signature. Apparently I am not alone in this notion; Annie Leibowitz gave up using Hasselblad for that very reason. That said, I used 'blad for years because of the need for lens interchangeability, but seldom for personal projects. This is not to say there aren't virtuoso Hasselblad photographers, because there are many. Allen Zak --- 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 //www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list --- 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 //www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
--- 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 //www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
