gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 p.4 #7 · Are Fast Lenses becoming boring? | |
Jack Flesher wrote:
You obviously like to argue, evidenced throughout this and other threads... Don't know why you chose to with me as I'm not arguing with anybody about anything here, I was simply pointing out that good images with mundane, slower glass can still be made.
Now I will engage with your rather arrogant and asinine point. That image could not have been made from the same distance with a 50/1.2 (or of any aperture) unless it was significantly cropped after the fact -- which was not regularly done in 35mm transparency film days; and to that point, this image would have been cropped 2x, or to roughly a 12x18mm panel to render as such. So to avoid that nonsense, the photographer would have needed to be a bit less than half the distance, and used, wait for it, about the same aperture that he used with the 105 for an equivalent DoF rendering... And to a minor point, IF the 105/2.5 was stopped down, it was likely not much beyond f2.8 based on actual DoF shown. This we can argue until the cows come home, and McCurry himself may not be certain -- but he's still alive so please feel free to reach out ask him, then you can argue with whatever he claims to your heart's desire...
...Show more →
There is quite a bit of information about McCurry’s famous photography online. One source says this:
“McCurry shot the portrait using a Nikon FM2 camera with a 105mm Nikkor lens, loaded with Kodachrome 64 film.(2) The lighting? Entirely natural. The tent's opening provided soft, directional illumination that wrapped around Gula's face, creating dimensional modeling without harsh shadows. This wasn't studio perfection—it was available light photography executed with extraordinary precision.
The aperture setting was likely around f/5.6, providing sufficient depth of field to keep her face sharp while allowing the background to fall into a complementary blur. That background color—a rich, oxidized green-brown—wasn't accidental. McCurry positioned Gula against a worn chalkboard, creating a color harmony that makes those green eyes explode from the frame.3 The composition follows classical portrait conventions: eyes positioned in the upper third, direct eye contact with the lens, triangular face shape leading the viewer's gaze upward.”
The (long) article goes into many other fascinating aspects of the photo and its history.
I learned a few things from the article — and it confirmed a few things I suspected.
Indeed, he used a 105mm focal length lens, stopped down, probably to f/5.6. I had not realized that it was made in a tent nor that it was made with natural light — quite effectively. I had thought about the color contrasts between her skin tones, the color of her clothing, and that green background — but I had entirely overlooked the color relationship between those eyes and that background.
Does all of this imply that using a 105mm lens at f/5.6 is the “best” way to shoot portraits? No. Not remotely. It does seem likely that it was the best way to shoot this portrait, though.
- - -
Nifty Fifty wrote:
You're right. I was misled by the difference in compression. My post (p. 3, #20) is therefore nonsense, and I apologize.
Around here, apologizing when you are wrong is a sign of ethical strength… and it can be somewhat rare.
|
?)... It is difficult to describe the pleasure with which I look forward to receiving regular moral instruction from you, Bg Fella. I'll give it all due consideration.
