[rollei_list] Re: Rolleinar 1 or Crop for Portraiture?
- From: Eric Goldstein <egoldste@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2011 11:02:12 -0400
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
--
On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 10:54 AM, Emmanuel Bigler
<Emmanuel.Bigler@xxxxxxxx>wrote:
>
> Le 01/11/2011 21:57, Bob James a écrit :
>
> I'm wondering about your experiences. For portraits can you get away
>> with using a Rolleinar 1 without too much distortion? Rolleinar 2?
>>
>
> Or do you prefer for closeups just to come in and crop? Thank you
>> Rollei-masters, Bob James
>>
>
>
> Well, in principle for a classical portrait, you should keep the
> camera at a certain distance, whichever the focal length might be.
> Say 1.5 metre, 5 feet or so. Hence a possible answer could be : Rollei
> TLR, standard lens + crop.
>
> The reason is that perspective rendition in photography, for most
> lenses in actual use (telecentric lenses play in another league), does
> not depend on the focal length but only on the distance between the
> subject and the lens. Actually the part of the lens that counts for
> measuring this "correct" distance for perspective rendition is the
> entrance pupil of the lens; for a Rollei TLR the entrance pupil is
> located not far from the iris blades. The actual position of the
> entrance pupil inside the lens does not really matter in this
> discussion.
>
> The problem is that when you place the lens too close to the face of
> your subject, you get a visible difference in magnification ratio
> between the nose and the ears which was often considered (at least by
> conservative people that, hopefully, you'll never meet on this
> discussion group ;-) ;-) ) as being inaesthetic. The exception was the
> case of good old images for the cover of vinyl records of rock-pop
> music groups in the last century, where, on the contrary, a wide angle
> lens in close-up was DEMANDED for group portraits ;-)
>
> [digression]
> However the rules have to be broken, so you could have a look at this
> interesting (even if not convincing to me) series of portraits at 1:1
> ratio with a 8x10" view camera,
>
> http://trichromie.free.fr/**trichromie/index.php?post/**2010/02/20/Hug<http://trichromie.free.fr/trichromie/index.php?post/2010/02/20/Hug>
>
> fitted with a faithful Aero Ektar lens 178 mm (7") wide-open at f/2.5;
> hence at 1:1 = 2f-2f position, the entrance pupil of the lens is
> located at about 2x7 = 14" (356 mm) of the subject: what a scandal !!
>
> But ! The depth of field is so shallow that you cannot see the nose
> AND the ears sharp at the same time, hence the previous arguments
> become totally irrelevant ;-) And at 1:1 the depth of field is also
> totally independant from the focal length ... But here we are very far
> from the Rollei TLR ...
> [end of digression]
> ---
> Rollei List
>
> - Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> - Subscribe at
> rollei_list-request@freelists.**org<rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>with
> 'subscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into
> www.freelists.org
>
> - Unsubscribe at
> rollei_list-request@freelists.**org<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<//www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list>
>
>
Other related posts:
