douglasf13
New member
I like using the 35 Cron IV for environmental portraits, and the 90/2.8 tele-elmarit for tighter portraits...although I pretty much like those two lenses for everything.
Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
I think the OP's question concerns only the "casual portraits". The "effect" comes as a surprise when the film is developed or the image is seen on the LCD. "Delayed gratification" that "Horsermage" referred to, is in play.While I have done many "casual" portraits with an M camera, for the above reasons, a rangefinder isn't my first choice for portraits because I cannot see the actual effect that a focal length has on the subject. The very strength of a traditional rangefinder for eliminating lens effects and concentrating on what the image is about, is its weakness here.
Marc,Interesting to read different people's take on doing portraits.
Personally, I select the focal length and character of a lens based on the person I am shooting ... what is the shape or geometry of their face, how symmetrical are their features, what is their most interesting feature, where are we shooting, is it an environmental portrait, what light are we working in, it is a revealing portrait, or one intended to flatter?
Example: for a heavier set woman you often see their own attention to their eyes, so it often means a bit wider lens shot a bit more down on the face which slims the face and emphasizes their eyes. For a narrow face it may mean a longer lens to compact the perspective. A weak chin, or larger nose do not need to be more revealed by choice of focal length, etc.
While I have done many "casual" portraits with an M camera, for the above reasons, a rangefinder isn't my first choice for portraits because I cannot see the actual effect that a focal length has on the subject. The very strength of a traditional rangefinder for eliminating lens effects and concentrating on what the image is about, is its weakness here.
I'd also caution regarding the fast aperture, "creamy dreamy" M lenses as being potential "soft nose", "one eye in, one eye just barely out" optics ... or the second person in a photo being "almost" in focus ... as I have instructed my second shooters at weddings, "That fast lens of yours actually stops down, and should be for some images." As I often see demonstrated in M portraits, again, you cannot see that plane of focus.
It seems the new M will elevate use of a rangefinder for portrait work ... the EVF/LCD will work to show what you are getting real time, rather than after the fact, and focus peaking will help reveal the whole plane of focus ... or you could just use a decent DSLR and save $8,000+:shocked:
-Marc
You are right, shooting to get an image with some basic portrait elements intact doesn't mean it is forced, posed or anything of the sort. The subject looking at the camera doesn't always mean it was formally posed.Marc,
I guess it is also a bit about the preference. Is the goal to produce a more composed image most pleasing for the customer or is it more about intuively catching the moment. Even though the first doesnt neccesarly mean that it is not intuitive.