Portrait photography is one of my hobbies. I seemed to do all right when I used SLRs but with M cameras I am often disappointed with the results and a lot of it has to do with being too far from the subject. I use 90mm and 50mm lenses and perhaps I'm just not used to the framelines yet. Is it just me or have other people found the same problem?

-- Ray Moth (ray_moth@yahoo.com), February 07, 2002

Answers

Not sure what you mean Ray! 90mm is an ideal head and shoulders length and at portrait distances the fremelines are pretty accurate. The SLR obviously gives you no distracting coverage outside the framelines - are you finding it difficult to make yourself get close enough 'mentally'?

One thing I found tricky with portraits with the M lenses wide open (coming from a slow zoom AF background) is the amount of care needed with focussing.

-- Giles Poilu (giles@monpoilu.icom43.net), February 07, 2002.

Ray - Some thoughts that spring to mind: Close up, the framelines are not as accurate as they might be. Also, if your eye is not "snug" up to the viewfinder, you will get an inaccurate view of what's in the frame which will make a difference close to (try it to see what I mean - if you view the viewfinder diagonally from a few mm away, you get a different area within framelines) Finally,if you use the camera in portrait orientation, close-up you are faced with what I call second-order parallax. What I mean is that the lens is "seeing" a picture slightly above/below (depending on your technique) what you're seeing. What is included in the frame should be corrected for by the parallax correction in the M, but not where it is seen from, if you see what I mean (which means that spatial relationships are altered). All of which means that portraits, in particular, can look different to how you remember them. At the risk of upsetting the world, this is what puts me off using the e.g. 90 for a head and shoulders shot on the M.

-- steve (stephenjjones@btopenworld.com), February 07, 2002.

I should have said that I think there's a rule about close-up using the outside of the framelines as a guide, but I've never been sure about this. Doubtless, somebody can put me straight.

-- steve (stephenjjones@btopenworld.com), February 07, 2002.

Hi

I never would use a rangefinder for portraits, I'd much rather use a SLR. My standard portrait setup is a Nikon body and a 105mm 2.5 lens but then I like very tight head shots... Horses for courses and all that..

B

http://www.35mmf8.org

-- briandavidstevens (briandavidstevens@talk21.com), February 07, 2002.

Steve,

What you say is interesting, because another commomn flaw in many of my portraits taken with the M is that the subject's face is too low in the frame. With a single subject, I usually try to position the face so that the bridge of the nose in the centre (horizontally) and 1/3 from the top of the frame. However, I often misjudge it and the face is too low for my taste. Maybe the different viewpoint that you mention is to blame?

-- Ray Moth (ray_moth@yahoo.com), February 07, 2002.

Steve,

I should also have mentioned that I usually wear glasses, which distance my eye at least a centimetre further from the viewfinder than would be the case without them.

-- Ray Moth (ray_moth@yahoo.com), February 07, 2002.

maybe using that screw in viewfinder magnifier would help?

B

-- briandavidstevens (briandavidstevens@talk21.com), February 07, 2002.

Ray - I too wear specs so sympathise with the grief they cause. My "rule" is to try to make sure that my cheek is actually touching the back of the body - it helps to make sure you're not straying too far from where you should be. If you're cheek isn't cold, you're not close enough!

-- steve (stephenjjones@btopenworld.com), February 07, 2002.

We told you not to swap your R8 for a M6 ! ;-)

More seriously, never had the problem you mention. Used the 90, now using the 75. Framing always seems accurate "enough" in casual portrait situations. Life is easier with the 75, despite the sometimes confusing no-man's land between the 75 and 50 frames.

As a precaution, with the M, I tend to visualise the image very slightly within the edges of the framelines: it is always easier to crop out useless data at printing/scanning stage, than bringing back in what you have cropped out at shooting stage...;-)

As for getting real close to the subject for M portraits, nothing beats the 75 'lux: it features the highest magnification ratio of all M lenses.

But, if portrait is such a crucial application for you, you should buy back your R8, and fork out for the 80'lux. 't is more appropriate and more comfortable. Told you so.

-- Jacques (jacquesbalthazar@hotmail.com), February 07, 2002.

If it's tight headshots you want, use an SLR and spend your time composing the shot as you see it instead of cluttering your mind with "hmm, if I shoot this vertically and I want it slightly off- center, do I place the nose of my subject to the right of mid-center, or . . .". Like everything else, if you're using the wrong tool for the job, the results will suffer. I struggled for years with the Hasselblad reverse-image viewfinder until one day I just said "to hell with this" and bought a prism finder. Whew! Things changed after that and when I tilted the camera to the left or right, I could actually see what the result would actually look like instead of wasting time thinking about it. Leica Ms are fine for portraits where you're framing head and shoulders, but I've found they suck for actual headshots, 90mm, HCB, and all that notwithstanding. A Nikon with a 105 f/2.5 or 180 f/2.8EDIF, a Hasselblad with a 150 and 16- or 21mm extension tube or 180mm lens, a Pentax 67 with 200mm, all are excellent choices for what-you-see-is-what-you-get portraiture.

-- Cosmo Genovese (cosmo@rome.com), February 07, 2002.

I find that the rangefinder is ideal for in-situ portraits showing the subject in their surroundings. But I also find that when I want to do real tightly framed head and shoulders I switch to my R3 (unless I'm shooting in public and want to be inconspicuous - then it's the rangefinder w/90mm). IMO this falls into the 'owning the right tools and knowing when to use them' situation.

-- Bob Todrick (bobtodrick@yahoo.com), February 07, 2002.

My favorite RF portrait lens in the 50, not the 90. It means getting closer to your subject; looking him or her in the eyes and establishing some kind of rapport. My favorite lenses are my late model Summicron (with detachable hood) and the trusty old Summicron 50/2 dual range. the later 50/2 focuses from infinity to 0.07m continuously. The DR requires fiddling with googles and the distance scale sleeve, but in close focus it goes down to 0.03m, which is more than you need to fill the frame with your subject's face. The DR is also unmercifully sharp close up.

I like the intimacy of the 50mm lens; you might not.

One thing I do is set the lens at a certain distance and then move back and forward to focus.

Portraits are personal. I shoot portraits much the way I shoot street scenes. Little or no posing, no artificial background, usually without flash. If you are doing formal studio stuff, a 35mm SLR or medium or large format cameras might be the best thing.

I think of RF portraiture as being highly knenetic and ad hoc -- but maybe that's just me.

-- Alex Shishin (shishin@pp.iij4-u.or.jp), February 07, 2002.

I have yet to take a good picture with my 90. Its days are numbered.

-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), February 07, 2002.

I'm sure the M telephotos are great lenses but we have to face it, that's not the strength of the M system. For portraits I use the Canon 85mm/1.2L, but I'm thinking of going medium format for that purpose. Horses for courses.

-- Anon Terry (anonht@yahoo.com), February 07, 2002.

Ray

I have no problem with an M, but for a long portrait dedicated session would prefer my R. I think you just have to hang with it and persevere. It works just fine, I suspect it is just the r/f viewing that makes it look different to your brain. You will get used to it.

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), February 07, 2002.

"If it's tight headshots you want, use an SLR..."

If you look at all the available M lenses, the majority are 50mm or less. If you look at the new offerings, talked about in another thread here, they are all under 50mm. If Leica thought there was a huge demand for longer lenses, surely they would introduce say a 75mm f2.0 or something like that.

I second the Nikon + 105mm f2.5 combo. It is a very compact lens and the FM3a body + 105mm f2.5 will cost around $1,000, which is less than a Leica M 75, 90, or 135. Of course, if you already have the Leica R system, get a R lens for portraiture.

To me the Leica M is for 50mm or less. I currently have the latest 35 mm f2 Asph and 50mm f2. Both of these lenses have a 39mm diameter, the most unobtrusive lenses in Leica's lineup and the quality is second to none.

My next purchase will definitely be in the wider lens category. I have an old Nikon 24mm f2, so a dilemma is already brewing. Needs vs. wants? A lot of decisions here (and in other areas) are made on the basis of wants and not on needs. If you can separate these two forms of thought, it will help in your decision-making.

Best of luck,

-- Vikram (VSingh493@aol.com), February 07, 2002.

Didn't HCB use a VIDOM for his portraits with the Leica? - perhaps he had the same problem!

-- Giles Poilu (giles@monpoilu.icom43.net), February 07, 2002.

I would second the opinions with regard to SLR for tight portraits. My favorite lens is my Nikkor 105/1.8, and the 180/2.8 can also be useful. The higher flash sync also helps. Of course, I'd use an R8 if I could afford it. (Is there an R 105/1.8?) :+)

-- Phil Stiles (stiles@metrocast.net), February 07, 2002.

If you really like doing portraits, Ray, you should get an 8x10 view camera. There's nothing like doing contact prints from a heavily retouched negative. Ask Hurrell. ;-)

More seriously, I think there are a couple of ways of approaching this. One can fine tune the aiming of the camera, much like an archer fine tunes precisely where their knuckle on the draw hand touches their cheek. Or, one can frame somewhat more loosely and adjust precise composition when doing the enlargement. Personally, I think the latter is more productive.

Although several have suggested that an SLR is the more appropriate tool for tightly framed portraits, I'm not convinced that is true. Many SLRs have a variation between what is seen in the viewfinder and what is actually recorded on film. I'm not sure about the Leica Rs, never having used one, but that is certainly true with Nikons.

Thus, it may be generally more appropriate to think in terms of taking advantage of lens characteristics for portraiture (e.g. the quality of your Leica M lenses), and save precise composition for the darkroom. After all, it is in the darkroom that one must make the adjustments for the difference in aspect ratio between the film and the print, so why not take advantage of that process at the image creation stage, as well.

-- Ralph Barker (rbarker@pacbell.net), February 07, 2002.

Haven't had a problem with tight portraits and my M3-90mm Elmarit combination. The lens focuses to 3 feet-move in closer! I did have to learn to focus and quickly recompose slightly otherwise there is too much space on top of the subject. Like some others above, I still prefer my Nikon N90S with 85mm AF lens for this type of work, (especially wihen shooting children) but the M3 does just as good as long as I don't need fill flash.

-- Andrew Schank (aschank@flash.net), February 07, 2002.

I second Phil's answer. I love my Nikon 105 f1.8. I use this lens on an FM2 oe FE2 for true headshots, which generally pay my rent. I have tried using my M3 with a 90 f2.8 Elmarit and found that aside from the framing issues, I couldn't get a shallow enough d.o.f.

I really like my 90 for the Leica and I use it a lot, but not for formal or studio situation portraits. The horses for courses comments are right on the money.

There's a good article in this month's issue of "View Camera" about using large format for portaits. It's making me want to break out the 4x5 for some portraits...

-- drew (swordfisher@hotmail.com), February 07, 2002.

I find the vast majority of "tight portraits" (or "headshots") phenomenally boring, Brian's photo above being a major exception. Most don't tell enough about the person to make them worth looking at for more than a second, once again Brian's being an exception.

I shoot portraits mostly with wide to very wide lenses, occaisonally with a "normal" lens. I don't own anything longer than "normal" in any format and somehow think it hasn't hurt my portraits at all.

-- Jeff Spirer (jeff@spirer.com), February 07, 2002.

The off axis viewfinder of M has two parrallax errors, horizontal which is corrected, and uncorrected vertical parallax.

The way to compensate this uncorrecte vertical parallax is to handle the way Rolleiflex TLR does: put camera on tripod, rack down the viewfinder to the lens was, compose, then rack the camera back up to the original position.

Many viewfinder cameras have no vertical parallax, because the viewfinder is on the same horinontal plane as the lens, for example Minox TLX, Minox 110s and Rollei 16, Rollei E110

BTW, for close object, rangefinder camera viewfinder covers an area slightly larger than what is on film-- in otherwords, the right frame is smaller than the viewfinder frame.....and this must also be taken into account

-- martin tai (martin.tai@capcanada.com), February 07, 2002.

ray:

thank you for the post i have trying to decide whether to switch over to the m series for over a year now. i currently shoot with an R6.2 and minolta af. most people who switch seem to drop slr's almost completely, yet i do not want to give up my ability to do tightly cropped facial portraits, at the same time i do not want to relegate a leica m to part time status.

greg

-- greg mason (gmason1661@aol.com), February 07, 2002.

Hi, Ray:

I have noticed that several rather educative answers to your question have to do with paralax correction though you are very specific about being too far from the subject, which is exactly the direction less prone to paralax error.

I usually do portraiture with 50mm and 90mm (more with 50mm) and feel both lenses to be perfectly useful and confortable to work with according with my intended results/subject distance circumstances.

Furthermore, your reference to the frame lines makes me asume that you could inadvertently be framing 90mm work with the 50mm frame lines and 50mm shots with the full viewfinder area - SLR wise.

In short: if you could post sample photos showing your doubts I'm sure somebody here could advise you on what to do in order to improve them if necessary.

By the way: what M are you referring to ? Mine are M3s so that my conclusions are based on that kind of viewfinder/frame lines.

Regards, Ray !

-Iván

-- Iván Barrientos M (ingenieria@simltda.tie.cl), February 07, 2002.

FWIW,i no longer get so close-up.Looking back at portraits that i did found that many resembled "heads on sticks" as a warning!!! Include some body and surroundings...you see your Leica was right after all....

-- jason gold (leeu72@hotmail.com), February 07, 2002.

As a reply to those who say that headshots are boring. A fact is that many people want headshots or head and shoulders type shots. I want them of my family (they fit best in portrait frames) and of friends and many others want them for similar reasons. Also some people have intrinsically interesting faces - that is the challenge. Many people enjoy seeing McCurry's headshots. I certainly do. On matters of taste there is no discussion...

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), February 08, 2002.

Thanks to all for your interesting and thoughtful responses.

The camera I've been using for portraits is an M6 TTL .72, with 50/1.4 Summilux-M and 90/2.8 Elmarit-M lenses. I agree that the 90 Elmarit is an ideal lens for tightly-framed portraits. It was my favourite portrait lens with the R8 and it still is with the M6. I use the 50/1.4 for portraiture in low light conditions.

I must say that, up to now, my experience leads me to agree with those who say an SLR is the better tool for the job. It's interesting to see how many respondents take that view. Since I've only been using Leica M for 3 months, I'm still in learning mode. I will persevere with the M, because I love the results I've been getting, apart from the mistakes in composition, for which, of course, I must blame myself. I have ordered a 1.25x magnifier in the hope that it will help me to improve.

If, after all, I find that I can't get the results I want with Leica M, then I'll revert to using my Olympus OM (SLR) gear fro portraits. I have hung on to my OMs for macro work, for when I'm traveling in dodgy places and don't feel like risking the M gear, and for when I feel like traveling light. Believe it or not, Olympus SLR gear is significantly smaller and lighter than Leica M.

Thanks again for all your helpful responses.

-- Ray Moth (ray_moth@yahoo.com), February 11, 2002.

I've taken many head+ or head and shoulders protraits with a 90/2.8 Tele-Elmarit which is small and unobtrusive, so that it doesn't disturb most people. I can't imagine the same would be true of a Canon 85/1.2 lens for candid shots, excellent lens that it may be.

IMO, the M Leica is a terrific portrait camera, and the 90mm lens is a fine focal length for that purpose. However, if your thing is really tight head shots, you cannot do that with an M camera, because of the limited close focussing. The 90mm lens focusses to 1 m (3 ft 4 in), giving a maximum magnification of about 1:9. The 75mm Summilux at its closes distance (0.75 m) gives 1:7 magnification. 1:7 is the highest magification you can achieve with any current M lens.

If you want to frame only a portion of the face, you probably need to get down to 1:4-1:5 or so. That will require an SLR lens. In the olden days, you could accomplish that type of close focussing or even closer using an M camera on a Visoflex, with either a longer lens with a detachable lens head (90-135) or a lens made specially for the Visoflex only.

-- Eliot (erosen@lij.edu), February 11, 2002.