But in response to your response to my comments...I can only go by what you have posted here, since I don't really know you except by your presence on this "People Forum".
My thoughts on focal length were motivated by your observation that "These (various medium format) cameras come with 80 mil lenses and these lenses are too short for portraiture. If a person is serious about larger negs (MF) in a studio he or she needs at least a 180." I was merely stating my own views about this point.
I didn't mean to sound extreme about portraits gotta have body or they suck... that's not what I meant to say at all. But I think more is revealed about the subject when you show some "body", and less with a tight head or face only. I was trying to imply that you might feel that way too, since this wasn't just a head shot, that you did decide to show some arms/hands and posture. I'll try to be more explicit.
Sorry about the size of my posted image, it was included just to show the perspective of what I consider a "regular" portrait... not as some "vaunted" (your words) technique or as a standard for all the world to aspire too. And yep, it's pretty standard stuff that I ripped off from Irving Penn... His "standard" stuff being what I aspire to.
As I said in my second post (this being the third) I have made a few real tight "portraits" that I liked, but I wouldn't say they offer any illusion of personality. This one I use as a logo on my business card and it works better there as a graphic, than when enlarged as a portrait. You can find a thread on it's use in that context (logo) in the archives here, if you're interested at all.
Just as a coincidence, my "much vaunted teeny portrait of the white haired guy" was made on 665, and so was this teeny face. White haired guy was with a 127 on a RB67, and the teeny face with a 180 and a big ol' extension tube... t
p.s. I'll try to be even more diplomatic in the future, if you'll try to be less defensive. Barring that, I'll not comment on your work any further, if you prefer... t