View Full Version : Exploring the masters : A personal journey
I'll be the first to admit that my opinions are strong, my passions are deep, and photography is intensely consuming in my life.
In my quest down the rabbit hole, I have examined much work of those who have come before me and several stand out, some bring more questions than answers.
I am making a project to explore the 28mm focal length as I'm exceedingly comfortable with 50's and 90's -- I never cared much for the wide / superwide perspective - 35 always reminded me of the cheap p&s cameras... I decided to really experiment and look at quality work from a few photographers who relied on wides.
I have a canon 28 on the way and was doing my research to see other images --- I decided to concentrate on Winogrand - He seems more real to me than the world of HCB. I know this almost makes me a heretic. So be it.
I found an image by Winogrand and my first thought is that sports illustrated would probably pass on this image if it were shot today - styles have changed, the trend is for over saturated digital images using large telephotos for compression -- you don't see as much wide angle photography as used to be.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v280/tomasutpen/Album%202b/winogrand4.jpg
Personally, the only sport I really care for is Hockey -- something about this image grabbed me and made me want to look around a little deeper... It's an amazing image and it made me wish more newsstand magazine would show more photography where the emphasis is really about photography and uniqueness -- most sports images nowadays blend together and get lost - nothing amazing about them. But that's for another time.
I realized quickly there was something familiar about the style and quickly realized many photographers around the forum take his approach and style and make it their own -- gritty, New York, wide angle, in your face, urban landscapes.
OK, that works for them, but most of us don't have the luxury of New York landscapes. This means prowling around some of the rougher seedier areas of our home towns. I photograph musicians because I don't have Canal Street, Chinatown, Broadway, 42nd Street, Wall Street and the likes. Most cities don't have the same type of energy that NYC exudes. Also, I'm passionate about music.
So, I'm going to try the 28mm in my environment - I'm going to take lots of pictures. I'm going to see how life looks through a 28 - Bar lights, Emma, fire hydrants, weddings, Memphis landscapes and all. Maybe this series will be good for the next book -- Maybe I'll really like 28 -- Maybe....
I'm going to keep searching for those elusive photographs that are so fulfilling - I'm always working on my personal images, I always look for striking images.
Overall, Winogrand was a refreshing departure to examine - so, expect images soon
to be continued later.
Memphis,
Another great master of the wide angle lens whose work you should study...Eugene Atget.
Cheers,
Gary
never heard of him-- - oh, well, deeper down the rabbit hole....
I wonder if I've been changed in the night? Let me think. Was I the same when I got up this morning? I almost think I can remember feeling a little different. But if I'm not the same, the next question is 'Who in the world am I?' Ah, that's the great puzzle!
If I had a world of my own, everything would be nonsense. Nothing would be what it is, because everything would be what it isn't. And contrary wise, what is, it wouldn't be. And what it wouldn't be, it would. You see?
Although a master of documentary photography & considered by some to be 1 of the 1st street photographers, I've never seen Atget as being a particularly "wide angle" photographer.
Closer to home (for Blake), what about William Eggleston?
Memphis,
Another great master of the wide angle lens whose work you should study...Eugene Atget.
Cheers,
Gary
Alice,
Atget is one of the greats. And one that many other greats point to as an important influence. Do yourself a favor and search out some books.
Furcafe,
I stand by my first post. Look again at his work.
Cheers,
Gary
Although a master of documentary photography & considered by some to be 1 of the 1st street photographers, I've never seen Atget as being a particularly "wide angle" photographer.
Closer to home (for Blake), what about William Eggleston?
Atget just didn't grip me like some of the others -- but that's ok ---
Bill is a great guy - I appreciate his work much more after having had a few conversations with him. One day, I'm going to see if he'll have a sit down with me.
I understand Bill and he is definitely one of those artists who's work is enhanced by his personality - he's a rock star - he has the typical indulgences of a rock star, he's rowdy, wild, likes to drink and lvoes his music- - He can often be found playing one of his steinway pianos - He's a hard core leica shooter, opinionated, and often mis understood -- I didn't really appreciate his work until AFTER our phone conversation
Memphis,
Wait a minute. 20 minutes ago you never heard of Atget? Now his work doesn't "Grip you".
What did I miss?
Gary
Memphis,
Wait a minute. 20 minutes ago you never heard of Atget? Now his work doesn't "Grip you".
What did I miss?
Gary
little thing called the internet --- I just spent 20 minutes looking at his work --- it didn't have the same immediate pull that other artists that inspire me do --- it reminded me a lot of hcb stuff
maybe later, it'll sink in and I'll re-examine it...
Shot ala Bill E. - similar style and subject matter
http://lh3.ggpht.com/leicaphotos/SD_8KQIeYyI/AAAAAAAAKkk/m_17NF73FIU/s800/385029-R1-042-19A_019.jpg
re:atget -- I'd much rather see eisenstadt's work than atget --atget just didn't do anything for me ---
Memphis,
Another great master of the wide angle lens whose work you should study...Eugene Atget.
Cheers,
Gary
Gary,
Atget never used wide angle lenses.
"Atget’s Equipment: The photographs reveal Atget’s method of work. His equipment consisted of a simple 18 X 24 cm view camera, with almost none of the present-day adjustments. It had a rising front, as may be seen by the photographs, many of whose corners have been cut off because the lens did not give full coverage. He had no wide-angle lens. The focal length of his lens is unknown, but it must have been between eleven and twelve inches. Atget used glass plates. As for accessories, he certainly did not use an exposure meter. At most he made use of a simple coefficient table with mathematical calculations. But it is more likely that he judged exposure by his vast experience with light conditions, subject matter, and type of plate emulsion. Because the emulsion used then were non-color-sensitive, he never used filters. For interior work, he used no artificial light of any sort but availed himself always of natural light. Any shutter used with the lens was at most a simple bulb shutter. Atget made a practice of closing down to a small aperture if conditions permitted. Only when he photographed people did he open up the diaphragm and focus critically on the center of interest, leaving the background out of focus. It is doubtful if his lens could have been faster than 1/11 at its widest opening. It would seem from the photographs themselves that most of them were taken during the summer months when the sun’s actinic rays are stronger. Also most of the human figures of these series are posed to the extent that Atget probably asked them "to hold still a moment."
Because he did not have the advantage of fast lenses and fast emulsions, Atget had to solve his photographic problems within the capacities of his materials. Since his equipment and materials were not adequate to stop fast action, he worked a great deal in the early hours of the day, rising at dawn."
Keith
informative, Keith --- glad you pitched in here...
I've also found this guy's magazine work to be just powerful and captivating:
http://erikmednis.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/kubrickforlook.jpg
Kubrick was a great pj / street photographer --- i like his images more than his movies
side note of kubrick:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/custom/photos/gallery/chi-kubrick-photogallery,1,3753405.photogallery?index=3
petronius
06-27-2008, 09:21
Memphis, talking about wide: Have a look at Jeanloup Sieff´s work.
Memphis, talking about wide: Have a look at Jeanloup Sieff´s work.
now we're talking- -- definitely needs exploration after work
Yes, Sieff is a 21mm master...
I love Kubrick's films, it make sense now that he was a photographer, I read a piece on how he worked with a technician to hack a Zeiss 1.5 sonnar for cinema so he could shoot some scenes by candle light in Barry Lyndon.
Memphis,
If you can dismiss the work of Atget after a few minutes browsing some low quality on- line reproductions, well I don't know what to say to that. But good luck with the journey.
Keith,
You are quoting someone, but don't even say who it is. At any rate, the person admits that he doesn't know what lens Atget used and is just making a guess based on looking at the pictures. I would take a look at the pictures too.
Cheers,
Gary
Memphis,
If you can dismiss the work of Atget after a few minutes browsing some low quality on- line reproductions, well I don't know what to say to that. But good luck with the journey.
Cheers,
Gary
I'm just saying that style is not what I'm looking for right now, it reminds me too much of HCB -- too... french / early-mid 20th century -- first impression is not one that evokes a strong powerful and immediate response - no different than turning the dial on my fm radio as driving through the country --- I can usually tell you within a few bars if I like an artist --- I personally don't care for techno -- you can identify within a few notes that a piece on the radio is techno, country, rock, blues, classical, regggae, punk, jazz, whatever --- then, you change the channel if you don't like it. pretty simple really.
Actually, f/0.7. Now that's what I would call a fast lens. :p
http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/sk/ac/len/page1.htm
I love Kubrick's films, it make sense now that he was a photographer, I read a piece on how he worked with a technician to hack a Zeiss 1.5 sonnar for cinema so he could shoot some scenes by candle light in Barry Lyndon.
I'm just saying that style is not what I'm looking for right now, it reminds me too much of HCB -- too... french / early-mid 20th century -- first impression is not one that evokes a strong powerful and immediate response - no different than turning the dial on my fm radio as driving through the country --- I can usually tell you within a few bars if I like an artist --- I personally don't care for techno -- you can identify within a few notes that a piece on the radio is techno, country, rock, blues, classical, regggae, punk, jazz, whatever --- then, you change the channel if you don't like it. pretty simple really.
Atget is too similar to HCB and too "french"...
Thank you for giving me my dose of annoyance for the day!
Memphis,
Your way of alalyzing a (master) photographer is incredible. You're after the instantaneous Wow effect? So you must like the Backstreetboys and Rihana instead of Beethoven, right?
Glad to help out there --- I'm not berating you because you don't like Blind Willie Johnson -- I'm not berating you because you say "Coltrane just sounds like noise", I'm not making an issue that your cd collection includes Barry Manilow and Kenny G and Zamfir, master of the Pan Flute - while telling you how insulting it is that you said that Blind Willie Johnson's sound was too... primitive.
relax, dude
Memphis,
Your way of alalyzing a (master) photographer is incredible. You're after the instantaneous Wow effect? So you must like the Backstreetboys and Rihana instead of Beethoven, right?
No, I really don't === I was giving an analogy using music.
you really don't need to act like a complete tool
Another great master of the wide angle lens whose work you should study...Eugene Atget.
Ah, Eugène Atget (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eug%C3%A8ne_Atget), yes - he produced some stunning work. Apparently he stuck to old processes long after most people had given up on them (Wikipedia refers to "his already antiquated technique"), so he really should appeal to us RF film people, at least philosophically.
PS: Why do some people get upset when some other people don't like some people's favourite photographers? It all seems rather childish to me. (I love Atget's work, but I'm not the slightest bit upset if someone else isn't drawn to him - in fact, I gain from the experience of hearing other opinions)
We each take things in in our own individual ways, in our own individual times, and it's all subjective - The only thing we can confidently say about he who insists he knows artistic truth is that he is undoubtedly wrong.
Atget is the single greatest artist photographers ever and if you don't understand his work it means you need to learn more about photography before spewing your misinformed arrogance and embarrassing some of us with your "little knowledge is dangerous" sign written all over your posts.
Cheers,
I guess this needs no comments from me -- a little on the zealot side for such an absolute opinion ---- but, I'll play along for the sake of proving a point here.
Bob Carlos Clarke is the single greatest artist photographers ever and if you don't understand his work it means you need to learn more about photography before spewing your misinformed arrogance and embarrassing some of us with your "little knowledge is dangerous" sign written all over your posts.
(just making a point guys)
pesphoto
06-27-2008, 10:51
Actually it's Harry Callahan that is the single greatest artist photographer ever...
Atget is the single greatest artist photographer ever and if you don't understand his work it means you need to learn more about photography before spewing your misinformed arrogance and embarrassing some of us with your "little knowledge is dangerous" sign written all over your posts.
Now THAT is arrogance! (Or is it intended as humor?)
No, I'm the greatest photographer, and so is my wife ;)
http://www.masters-of-photography.com/images/full/atget/atget_notre_dame.jpg
Look at this photo, he photographed Notre dame from behind a tree!
It might have shocked people at the time but now when you look at it, its pure poetry and elegance with that phenomenal mood which only he could capture. You can sit and stare at this photo for hours if you have imagination and if your eyes are pleased by art.
This is a genius at work and not some crazed machine gunner with a camera obsessed with women.
I've always like Harry Callahan, Galen Rowell, Bob Carlos Clarke, Dorthea Lange, Weegee, Eisenstadt, and many others --- kinda hard to pull the absolute of X is the best ever in any creative subject -- I'm not sure that would even fly as saying x is the greatest musician ever -- i'd get grief even with a more narrow focus of x is the greatest alto sax player ever / guitarist ever / and so forth...
again, too... French for my tastes....
Dammit, Pixtu is the greatest photographer ever --- his weather shots are amazing and introspective, while having all the essence of a fine wine -- I really like his French influence in his photography.
Pixtu - how does the 25/4 cv look? would lvoe to see some pics ----
Even with my many years of acedemia behind me, I try to find new influences daily.
Who's someone I should re-examine, Pixtu, and why?
pesphoto
06-27-2008, 11:11
I have seen and been inspired by that Atget image(see my photo)...he was a true master. But there were many.
This one by me(not a master)...oh, and it's wide angle
http://www.paulshelaskyphotography.com/Photos/Gallery1/capital2.jpg
Dammit, Pixtu is the greatest photographer ever --- his weather shots are amazing and introspective, while having all the essence of a fine wine -- I really like his French influence in his photography.
Pixtu - how does the 25/4 cv look? would lvoe to see some pics ----
Even with my many years of acedemia behind me, I try to find new influences daily.
Who's someone I should re-examine, Pixtu, and why?
ROFL!
I knew he was a master...
It only takes 20 minutes for Blake to differentiate masters from the ordinary people... And this makes you one of those 20 minute wonders, I guess.
The coolest part is, tastes are personal, Thank God!!!
To me Atget is like the patron saint of photography, the Buddha of photography and the only single photographer who has shaped photography more than anyone else and for the first photographer to elevate photography from being an imitator of art to art itself.
pesphoto
06-27-2008, 11:21
To me Atget is like the patron saint of photography, the Buddha of photography and the only single photographer who has shaped photography more than anyone else and for the first photographer to elevate photography from being an imitator of art to art itself.
Dont forget about Stieglitz: He brought attention to artists such as Atget at a time when photography wasnt considered art. We were lucky to have them both.
http://andrewhungaski.com/Stieglitz-Flatiron-cropped.jpg
back alley
06-27-2008, 11:23
Wait a minute there. What is your problem?
We went from a wide angle topic to you being called a master and now you're calling me names? I don't even know you. Who are you? What are you?
he is a respected member of this site...your first warning is in the mail.
joe
back to 28 / wides / superwides ---- i'll have my canon 28 ltm soon and this will lead to an interesting experiment -- I'm just studying a few RANGEFINDER specific people who have excelled at the use of this focal length ---- would love to finagle press passes to an nba game or a college football game here in town and do a few shots like the previously mentioned winogrand
I'm just searching for ideas here ---- I guess I need a break from working with musicians ---
I had forgotten about Steiglitz --- good inspiration here
Thank you
Andrew Sowerby
06-27-2008, 11:28
the only single photographer who has shaped photography more than anyone else
That's my favorite comment in a while!
Memphis,
If you can dismiss the work of Atget after a few minutes browsing some low quality on- line reproductions, well I don't know what to say to that. But good luck with the journey.
Keith,
You are quoting someone, but don't even say who it is. At any rate, the person admits that he doesn't know what lens Atget used and is just making a guess based on looking at the pictures. I would take a look at the pictures too.
Cheers,
Gary
Gary,
With all due respect, I am quite fmilar with Atget's work. I personally know the photo curator at the MET, who apprenticed with Maria Morris Hambourg who co-wrote the four volume set on Atget with John Szarkowski.
Aget had all of one lens and it wasn't a wide angle.
Keith
back alley
06-27-2008, 11:33
Gary,
I am quite fmilar with Atget's work and I personally know the photo curator at the MET, who apprenticed with Maria Morris Hambourg who co-wrote four volume books on Atget with John Szarkowski.
Aget had all of one lens.
Keith
damn, now i have sell all but one of my lenses...;)
Memphis,
Good luck with your photography. Good luck with your study of the masters - this is both food for your brain and a great pleasure.
However, I'd say, the main point is to go out start looking through the vf, shoting, and learning what works with this tool, and what works best for you.
My departure point in making photos is often my... gear lust- I start dreaming of a lens or a camera, then I buy it, then I start using it, and then I move intuitively towards what I like best as output. The key is, you have to be fond of what YOU do, not of how close what you do is to one master or another. BTW, I find it is more enjoyable this way.
WIth the 28mm, I tried all sorts of things:
-interiors
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2257/2112998217_de401c7041.jpg?v=0
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2240/2261501526_bbdf4c6e66.jpg?v=0
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2006/1969275768_d257594f85.jpg?v=0
street:
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1337/717899087_dded5aa8fc.jpg?v=0
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2108/1969285028_08a1d3a64e.jpg?v=0
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2134/1801048870_c8f1bea5c8.jpg?v=0
urban scenes:
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1055/730507962_de173847fd.jpg?v=0
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3225/2605312252_7514cedcdc.jpg?v=0
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3153/2577538301_b1b6aaf6d6.jpg?v=0
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3008/2598060241_4bd6bf3a86.jpg?v=0
but after some time, I've found I like it best for situations where there is a certain amount of space that creates a perspective beyond a main subject or theme, here are some examples:
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1091/763155147_d5fbbfee86.jpg?v=0
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2146/2112901191_51793a8edd.jpg?v=0
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3042/2593805724_3cdf19a3c2.jpg?v=0
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3001/2592966073_202440920a.jpg?v=0
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3082/2608387380_8482cd6dd4.jpg?v=0
I tend to prefer now the 35 and 50mm for the street or interiors. See what works for you, this way you will become your own master.
pesphoto
06-27-2008, 11:46
Yes, enjoy exploring with the wide angle:
http://www.paulshelaskyphotography.com/Photos/PhotoOfWeek/highrise1.jpg
Memphis,
Good luck with your photography. Good luck with your study of the masters - this is both food for your brain and a great pleasure.
However, I'd say, the main point is to go out start looking through the vf, shoting, and learning what works with this tool, and what works best for you.
My departure point in making photos is often my... gear lust- I start dreaming of a lens or a camera, then I buy it, then I start using it, and then I move intuitively towards what I like best as output. The key is, you have to be fond of what YOU do, not of how close what you do is to one master or another. BTW, I find it is more enjoyable this way.
I tend to prefer now the 35 and 50mm for the street or interiors. See what works for you, this way you will become your own master.
agreed --- I'm just finding a starting point with the wides --- I wish I had the 28 in hand last night, but that's another story ---
I'm shaking things up a bit so as not to become complacent and shoot another 5000 images of blues musicians --- so that I can recvisit the subject matter with the same enthusiasm and devotion that I did with the first 5000 images.
it keeps you fresh ---
Dont forget about Stieglitz: He brought attention to artists such as Atget at a time when photography wasnt considered art. We were lucky to have them both.
http://andrewhungaski.com/Stieglitz-Flatiron-cropped.jpg
Actually it was Man Ray who helped people become aware of Atget, even moreso was Berenice Abbott. Man Ray was a neighbor of Atget's for a time and collected his photographs. Some of Atget's photographs were published in the first official surrealist review.
Stieglitz was much more instrumental for bringing attention to the U.S. public the work of many "modernist" painters such as Arthur Dove, Picasso, John Marin, and Cezzane to name a few.
Keith is always full of suprises ---
as far as 28 specifically -- to get some of the grittier landscapes in this town means going into some not so savory areas ----- more than a little dangerous here ---
I was thinking also of doing some city scapes in 28, from the rooftops of some of the higher buildings in town ---
pesphoto
06-27-2008, 12:03
Actually it was Man Ray who helped people become aware of Atget, even moreso was Berenice Abbott. Man Ray was a neighbor of Atget's for a time and collected his photographs. Some of Atget's photographs were published in the first official surrealist review.
Stieglitz was much more instrumental for bringing attention to the U.S. public the work of many "modernist" painters such as Arthur Dove, Picasso, John Marin, and Cezzane to name a few.
So Stieglitz didnt bring photography to America in his gallery and publications?
I'm pretty sure there was photography in America before Stieglitz (e.g., Brady). He was instrumental in popularizing/legitimizing non-Pictorialist photography as well as other modern art (as kbg32 wrote), though.
So Stieglitz didnt bring photography to America in his gallery and publications?
pesphoto
06-27-2008, 12:24
He was instrumental in popularizing/legitimizing non-Pictorialist photography as well as other modern art (as kbg32 wrote), though.
I know there was photography here before him, I think you just said what I was attempting to say, only you did it much more articulately than I can.
...anyhoo...he was one hell of an artist and photographer himself.....
I know, sorry I was just being a little sarcastic. I think Keith/kbg32 was just correcting you in that Atget wasn't part of Stieglitz's "stable" as he was pretty much unknown outside of Paris when Stieglitz was doing his thing w/Camera Work, etc. You may have been thinking of Paul Strand, who did work w/Stieglitz & is 1 of my favorites, along w/Charles Sheeler.
I know there was photography here before him, I think you just said what I was attempting to say, only you did it much more articulately than I can.
pesphoto
06-27-2008, 12:35
I know, sorry I was just being a little sarcastic. I think Keith/kbg32 was just correcting you in that Atget wasn't part of Stieglitz's "stable" as he was pretty much unknown outside of Paris when Stieglitz was doing his thing w/Camera Work, etc. You may have been thinking of Paul Strand, who did work w/Stieglitz & is 1 of my favorites, along w/Charles Sheeler.
yup, youre right. Im not sure if this is where Memphis meant for this all to go, but nice to learn something.
wow, we're talking about gear and great photographers and art history in one big happy thread --- so, are there any appreciable differences between the canon ltm 28's, the leica, the cv, zeiss and others ---
now that I'm sitting here looking through a few of the copies of my book , I could not tell you which lens I used for each picture -- much less which body -- I can say it was all done with a variety of m bodies- -- the final image is what matters, not which gear- -- with that said, the gear was all instrumental in creating the images ---- but that's not important, you see only the final product ----
I like bokeh / texture / oof areas and so forth ---- and can't reasonably justify the difference in cost between a top notch vintage canon ltm 28 and a leica elmarit 28 or other ---
i've gotten some great ideas from this thread
Well, Strand & Sheeler are both masters worth learning from, especially since they're not too French (though Strand did exile himself to France). ;)
yup, youre right. Im not sure if this is where Memphis meant for this all to go, but nice to learn something.
pesphoto
06-27-2008, 12:42
Whne one talks Strand it of course brings this photo to mind.....
...i think I remember reading he used a "false" lens so the subject didnt know he was taking a photo.
http://anuvuestudio.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/image.jpeg
keith / furcafe / pesphoto --- I appreciate the diversion -- not a biggie --- you can never neglect your roots and inspirations....
The blues started with Robert Johnson, but there were thousands of people that were doing it before him and at the same time --- many lived and sharecropped on the Leatherman Abbay plantation as well as the Stovall plantation -- much of this is lost to all but a few....
and somewhere in town is a lost gibson guitar that got sold to a pawnshop for $20 by a wayward grandson for crack --- nobody knows where that guitar has ended up since.
http://www.aaa-copywriter.it/Deposito/07-09-10/johnson.jpg
side note : Just because I'm a contemporary blues historian, doesn't mean I know it all, there's always a story to hear --- a lot of rumours, a lot of myth, a lot of lies....
just because you don't believe in the devil doesn't mean that robert johnson didn't sell his soul to him.
Even though my next project may or may not involve blues music in no way demeans the musicians and their legacy.
These guys are artists as much as anybody we've mentioned and their stories and place in history are even more fiercely debated, contested, and disputed than any of the photographers we could name
pesphoto
06-27-2008, 12:50
I love this kinda stuff......
I think the big differences are between vintage & modern lenses, w/the modern glass being faster, sharper wide-open, more color accurate, & more flare-resistant. As far as the various brands of modern glass, there isn't really that much of a performance difference between lenses of similar specs, IMHO, @ least to the extent that the general viewing public (i.e., anybody who's not a photo geek) is concerned.
wow, we're talking about gear and great photographers and art history in one big happy thread --- so, are there any appreciable differences between the canon ltm 28's, the leica, the cv, zeiss and others ---
now that I'm sitting here looking through a few of the copies of my book , I could not tell you which lens I used for each picture -- much less which body -- I can say it was all done with a variety of m bodies- -- the final image is what matters, not which gear- -- with that said, the gear was all instrumental in creating the images ---- but that's not important, you see only the final product ----
I like bokeh / texture / oof areas and so forth ---- and can't reasonably justify the difference in cost between a top notch vintage canon ltm 28 and a leica elmarit 28 or other ---
i've gotten some great ideas from this thread
thanks for cleaning the thread, mods!
I am even more eager about 28mm than I was before --- There's many paths to enlightenment ---- This should be fun --- i think I'll try some city scapes from tall buildings first
pesphoto
06-27-2008, 13:44
thanks for cleaning the thread, mods!
I am even more eager about 28mm than I was before --- There's many paths to enlightenment ---- This should be fun --- i think I'll try some city scapes from tall buildings first
Ive found the top floor of parking garages to be a great vantage point if you can sneak in to one. Usually on the top floor of one you'll get 360 views of your city. Late day sun, shadows playing off buildings.....
...that's how I got the photo that I posted earlier(though that day it was mostly overcast)
our parking garages tend to only be 4 or 5 stories surrounded by much taller buildings --- there are plenty of accessible vantage points for me
thanks
willie_901
06-27-2008, 13:54
I believe I read that the Winogrand photo (taken in Austin TX) that started this thread may be the first in modern football where all the players for both teams are in the frame.
Imagine what the other sports photographers with their SLRs and telephotos thought when they saw Winogrand roaming the sidelines with his puny Leica with a 28 attached.
Also, Winogrand was badly injured while photographing at a Univ. of Texas game. I guess he got to close to the action with his wide-angle lens.
crawdiddy
06-27-2008, 14:50
Bill is a great guy - I appreciate his work much more after having had a few conversations with him. One day, I'm going to see if he'll have a sit down with me.
I understand Bill and he is definitely one of those artists who's work is enhanced by his personality - he's a rock star - he has the typical indulgences of a rock star, he's rowdy, wild, likes to drink and lvoes his music- - He can often be found playing one of his steinway pianos - He's a hard core leica shooter, opinionated, and often mis understood -- I didn't really appreciate his work until AFTER our phone conversation
Cool. So you're hanging out with William Eggleston? Next time I'm in Memphis, please introduce me to your artsy and bluesey friends. OK?
Keith,
Here is a pair of photos, the more recent (on the right) done by Christopher Rauschenberg as part of his Atget Rephotographic project. He claims to have used a 28mm lens on a 35mm camera for this project and as you can see, the perspective is very close in these images. What do you make of this? I'm not trying have a pissing war over this. Just genuinely interested in learning.
You can hear Rauschenberg talk about this here...http://www.lensculture.com/rauschenberg.html#
Cheers,
Gary
Here is Szarkowski from page 54 of his Book, "Atget", Museum of Modern Art/Callaway, 2000...
"Ategt's lens was informally called a Trousse, a word with many meanings, including "a case of instruments", "a quiver of arrows", or in photography a set of various lenses that can be screwed into the front and back of the brass lens mount in various configurations to provide lenses of longer or shorter focal length....Atget normally used his lens in a configuration that was, for the time, an unusually short (or wide-angle) lens".
Here is the photograph he is discussing on that page....
Winogrand, man that guy would shoot fast!
funny that few people here ever talk at length about man ray, steiglitz, and many other photographers named in this thread --- it all seems to be hcb --- very little eggelston, very little of many of the other acknowledged greats in the field
petronius
06-28-2008, 12:25
I´d like to mention André Kertész, a (my) master who used all the gear he needed to realise his vision; from plate cameras over Leica to Zoom-SLRs and Polaroids. (Also Walker Evans)
I am making a project to explore the 28mm focal length as I'm exceedingly comfortable with 50's and 90's -- I never cared much for the wide / superwide perspective - 35 always reminded me of the cheap p&s cameras... I decided to really experiment and look at quality work from a few photographers who relied on wides.This sounds like a fun challenge. I bet you'll learn a lot by examining your results.
Similarly a few years ago I started concentrating on environmental portraits with wide angle lenses. The idea was to be at the usual conversational/head'n'shoulders portrait distance for a pleasant facial perspective but include more of what the person was doing and where.
For this, a 28mm lens was just about right for 35mm film, and 45mm for 645 format. The main thing with these wide angle lenses is to fill the frame with interesting stuff; see "wide" in your mind's eye, stay in close and get involved with the subject. For me the personal interaction turned out to be important. The wide lens emphasizes the sense of involvement in the scene.
Have fun!
Keith,
Here is a pair of photos, the more recent (on the right) done by Christopher Rauschenberg as part of his Atget Rephotographic project. He claims to have used a 28mm lens on a 35mm camera for this project and as you can see, the perspective is very close in these images. What do you make of this? I'm not trying have a pissing war over this. Just genuinely interested in learning.
You can hear Rauschenberg talk about this here...http://www.lensculture.com/rauschenberg.html#
Cheers,
Gary
Interesting. The perspective does look close, but it would be hard to compare because of the nature of large format equipment that Atget used, and the small format that Rauschenberg used. Rauschenberg would have had to use a wide angle lens on his 35mm format to mimic Atget's perspective. I have used a "normal" 150mm on 4x5, and with sufficient stopping down, one could swear it was a wide angle. Remember, the equipment Atget used was quite antiquated, even for his day. Lenses were not "corrected" as they are in modern optics. Atget was at the limits of his equipment that can be seen in many of his images. His lens did not cover the shift that his view camera provided, hence the darken corners at the top of his vertical images.
Keith,
Yes, Rauschenberg would have had to use a wide angle lens on his 35mm camera to mimic Atget's persective...with a wide angle lens on his view camera! Perspective is a function of where you stand, not film size. Film size combined with lens focal length determines the angle of view. For Rauschenberg to mimic Atget's photos he would need a lens of the same length proportionally to negative size as Atget. Wide angle/wide angle.
Look, your statement, "Atget had all of one lens and it was not a wide angle", contradicts what we know from Szarkowski (who probably studied Atget's work as closely as anyone), Berenice Abbott (who knew Ategt personally), and Rauschenberg (who stood in Atget's footsteps to rephotograph 500 of his images). If they are all wrong then I'm sure we would all like to know. So if you have any evidence to support your claim, please post up. So far you have quoted one anonymous source. Excuse me if I give a little more weight to the words of Szarkowski, Abbott and Rauschenberg for now.
Cheers,
Gary
Gary,
Here is a link to better understand what I am talking about.
http://dpanswers.com/crop.html#fov
And quote from the page.
"Some people believe that “perspective” in photography is determined by the focal length of the lens used. They will argue that cer tain focal lengths have a certain, inherent perspective or “look” that will be present irrespective of the size of the sensor. In other words, they will argue that a 135 mm lens will always give the “compressed” look normally associated with telephoto lenses, and a 28 mm lens will always give the “expanded” look normally associated with wide-angle lenses.
This is wrong. Perspective in a photograph is determined by one thing: the position of the photographer relative to the scene. (To be precise, perspective is dermined by the distance from the front nodal point to the scene).
Focal length doesn't enter into it. The reason people believe that a specific focal length effect a certain look is because the narrow FOV of telephoto lenses forces the photographer to take up a position far away from the scene, and the large FOV of wide-angle lenses allows the photographer to move closer. It is these differences in position, and not the focal length as such, that effect the difference in perspective.
It follows that as long as you stay in the same postion, you get the same perspective no matter what focal length lens you put on the camera."
Keith.
Isn't that what I said?
nikonhswebmaster
06-29-2008, 20:48
Keith,
Here is a pair of photos, the more recent (on the right) done by Christopher Rauschenberg as part of his Atget Rephotographic project. He claims to have used a 28mm lens on a 35mm camera for this project and as you can see, the perspective is very close in these images. What do you make of this? I'm not trying have a pissing war over this. Just genuinely interested in learning.
You can hear Rauschenberg talk about this here...http://www.lensculture.com/rauschenberg.html#
Cheers,
Gary
It sure does not look close to me the one on the right is much wider angle. OK just kidding...
And really the best evidence of all is of course, the work itself...
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.