SMF

It's trickier to use than I expected. I haven't a hope of focusing it without the magnifier and glasses on, and then there's the whole keeping it upright issue. I can see I need lots of practice.

Rolleiflex 2.8GX, Ilford XP2 @200, Rodinal stand, Imacon 848:








Chris

I really like these portraits, Chris, even if you did find the process initially awkward. The first two images, especially, make beautiful use of the square.

I wouldn't consider focusing a TLR without the magnifier. I just see that as normal procedure. I imagine that it wouldn't be as necessary at some distance with a small aperture, but I use medium format to obtain the best image quality possible, so I focus carefully. Then again, I approach the TLR as someone who should probably be shooting large format but is just a little bit too lazy.

You can stabilize a handheld TLR by pressing down on the camera and putting tension on the neckstrap.

I most often use a TLR on a tripod, where it is stabilized, the image is easy to view, and both hands are free to man the controls. In contrast to my preferred approach, others have learned to work quickly with TLRs and have used them for street photography (most notably of late, Vivian Maier), while they were once used for photojournalism. You can hold a TLR upside down over your head to shoot over a crowd or other obstacle and you can turn the camera sideways, to shoot on the sly, while pretending to concentrate on something in front of you.

One of my early cameras was a Kodak Duaflex IV, which was a very basic TLR, and I have had a weakness for them ever since. My experience is limited to examples with Tessar and Tessar-type lenses (Minolta Autocords, Rolleiflex T, etc) and I am pretty heavily invested in Bay-1 lens accessories.

I hope you get a lot of enjoyment out of this lovely camera.

- Murray

It helps to have so many lovely subjects to photograph.

Rolleiflex 2.8GX, Tri-X @400, TMax developer, Imacon 848 scans:





A new brewery is opening up ~100m from my house. I might just be in heaven!


The last two with a Rolleinar 1:




Chris

Rolleiflex 2.8GX, Rolleinar 1, Tri-X @400, TMax developer, Imacon 848 scan:



Chris

More with the Rolleiflex and Rolleinar 1. HP5+, TMax developer and Imacon 848 scans.













Chris

Brilliant pics, as always. I am a fan of the uber-close up and you do them quite well indeed.

I'm thinking I'll not be using the Rolleinar in future. It is a pair of close-up lenses that fit onto the fixed lenses of the TLR. It thins the depth of field to the point that either the eyes are in focus or the nose, but not both, and even more disturbing it distorts the image, making the closest part look bigger than it really is. The last four photos of Treva look rather like the podlings in The Dark Crystal as a result. Better I use it without the close up lenses and simply crop down.

I am a huge fan of the close portrait with a non-distracting white background. Avedon, Bailey and Duffy all did them to great effect, and if I can do a few I'm proud of I can die happy.

Chris

They are still nice shots, even with the issues of the TLR close-up lens attachment.

drmoss_ca wrote:I'm thinking I'll not be using the Rolleinar in future. It is a pair of close-up lenses that fit onto the fixed lenses of the TLR. It thins the depth of field to the point that either the eyes are in focus or the nose, but not both, and even more disturbing it distorts the image, making the closest part look bigger than it really is. The last four photos of Treva look rather like the podlings in The Dark Crystal as a result. Better I use it without the close up lenses and simply crop down.

I am a huge fan of the close portrait with a non-distracting white background. Avedon, Bailey and Duffy all did them to great effect, and if I can do a few I'm proud of I can die happy.

Chris

Chris, some very high standards to set for yourself. If you work is only 1/4 or so of those 3 artists (photography is an art isn't it?) you will have made some really fantastic images. Good luck with your efforts.

drmoss_ca wrote:I'm thinking I'll not be using the Rolleinar in future. It is a pair of close-up lenses that fit onto the fixed lenses of the TLR. It thins the depth of field to the point that either the eyes are in focus or the nose, but not both, and even more disturbing it distorts the image, making the closest part look bigger than it really is. The last four photos of Treva look rather like the podlings in The Dark Crystal as a result. Better I use it without the close up lenses and simply crop down.

I am a huge fan of the close portrait with a non-distracting white background. Avedon, Bailey and Duffy all did them to great effect, and if I can do a few I'm proud of I can die happy.

Chris

I agree with you, Chris. I have seen a lot of portraits, from years ago, taken from close range with a Rolleiflex and Rolleinar. They had the expected perspective distortion. I thinking that the very shallow depth of field might actually help to mask a little of said distortion. Either way, since one has to work around the lack of lens interchangeability with these wonderful cameras, I think stepping back for improved perspective and cropping for a tight head shot would be the best solution. Otherwise, a normal focal length works better for environmental portraits. (As an accomplished photographer, this is hardly news for you.)

- Murray

Got out the Rolleiflex, some HP5+, some TMax developer, and the Flextight:





Chris

Rolleiflex 2.8GX, HP5+, TMax developer:







Chris

I like how the camera seems to bring out the personality of the subjects. I think I would not be alone in my opinion that if I were to walk into the area where these great folks are busy at work, they'd be very pleasant to be around, and I'd be in very good hands, as a patient.

Rolleiflex 2.8GX, XP2 @200, Rodinal stand, X1 scans:











Chris

You haven't had the TLR out for awhile. Some day I would still like to get a Rolleiflex with a Zeiss Planar or Schneider Xenotar lens.

Lovely square compositions and subject matter that shows well in black and white.

- Murray

The Rollieflex wide open is cruelly sharp, but also very hard to focus. I have to wear glasses to do it, and be certain that my glasses don't push down the close-focussing magnifier as I peer into the WLF. My Hasselblad seems much easier to focus, for the same 6x6 negative and also using a ground glass WLF. Ultimately, the Voigtlander Bessa III takes the same negative with much the same focal length lens, and the rangefinder focussing is quite easy as long as I wear glasses. Oh well, it's for entertainment purposes only as the psychic said!

Chris

Crossing @f2.8 by chrism229, on Flickr

C.