Elliot Erwitt at Republican Convention: What did he use?

Hello,

 

I am looking at the Magnum website and the pictures that Elliot

Erwitt took during the Republican convention 2004. Some pictures show

some deformation, just like some kind of fish eye or very wide lens

was used. I am just curious about this, does anyone have any idea or

guess? My guess for the moment is that he was using a 15mm lens, but

maybe I am totally off. You can see a sample here:

http://www.magnumphotos.com/cf/htm/CDocZ_MAG.aspx?

Stat=DocThumb_DocZoom&o=&DT=ALB&E=2K7O3RJE2XHG&Pass=&Total=197&Pic=1&S

ubE=2K7O3RJQU2BD

 

 

By the way, as I am looking at these shots, I am impressed at how he

brillantly manages these "deformations".

Happy shooting to you all!

Steph-

<a href="http://www.magnumphotos.com/c/htm/FramerT_MAG.aspx?V=CDocT&E=2K7O3RJE2XHG&DT=ALB"><b>Link to Erwitt's photos</b></a>

<I>

By the way, as I am looking at these shots, I am impressed at how he brillantly

manages these "deformations". Happy shooting to you all! Steph-

</I><P>Listen I like Elliott Erwitt's work as much as the next person. Probably

more. However, could you explain how he "brilliantly manages" the

deformations? The picture you link us to has a man with a very distorted head

due to the lens. Help me understand the appeal to this look.

Those are some of the most frightening photos I've ever seen.

"Those are some of the most frightening photos I've ever seen."

 

Because of the distortion, or the support of Bush?

The distortion is due to how close Erwitt is to the people being photographed with a very

wide angle lens. Distortion in a photograph is not per se a bad thing. You might not like it

John but everyone has their own taste. I suspect Erwitt used a 21mm lens on a 35mm Leica

M rangefinder camera. Perhaps what Stephane means is the overall composition as there is

almost no wasted space in the frame.

Ellis I respect your opinion. But, I own two Leica 21mm lenses. I'm pretty sure

you can place somebody in that part of the frame without much distortion.

Stephane's guess of a 15mm is probably closer. Maybe a 14mm. EE use to

use Canon relexes for his commercial/advertising work, so I would suspect he

probably didn't use Leica rangefinder for this work.

BTW, Ellis, do you like the distortion in that vertical of the man? Do you think

that is okay? We aren't talking about distortion that effects the planes of the

picture. This is distortion that bends the man's head. Please explain to me

how that is a proper way to show a fellow human being. Again, educate me as

to what I'm missing?

My first thought is that he's making a political statement by distorting the people with his lens choice.

EE has shown over the years an amazing sense of humor in his photographs.

He may be the best at what is the most difficult thing to do in photography---

visual humor. He didn't need to resort to a cheap lens trick to make a political

statement.

What Jim said.

SLR/21mm. I think the compositions are too exact to have been done with a RF camera and accessory viewfinders. And I agree, he was making a statement. (BTW, ever see David Douglas Duncan's legendary coverage of the GOP 1964(?) convention?)

Basil, I couldn't agree more.

 

Jim, that's probably exactly it.

 

If McLuhan was right about the medium being the message, how many messages do we

have here, what with the pictures of the messages and the message of the pictures!

Between the "Save the world" signs and the distorded faces, what statements!

 

I suspect Erwitt to be a Democrat, or "worse", in the words of our friend Eliot, a goddam

"liberal". I like him.

<I>Please explain to me how that is a proper way to show a fellow human being. Again,

educate me as to what I'm missing?</I><P>Is there a proper way to always depict fellow

human beings? if so, should we dismiss most of literature as being "improper" too? Don't

all lens distort when they render 3 dimensional space into 2 diminsions?

1) It is not a Leica.

 

2) I would bet a lot of money it is a digital camera. The images

were up on magnum's website way too quick for it to be film.

And they look like hell technically.

 

3) I understand it is Magnum but there isn't a photo from the

RNC that most professional photographers couldn't take. And

don't take this the wrong way. I just think it is very very difficult to

take different amazing protest photographs. Even Nachtwey's

pictures from a protest in the US last year that were in Time

weren't very special and we all know how amazing he is.

 

That's my two cents.

I think that's how republicans really look.

Wide-angle distortion? Pshaw! I heard Zell Miller's speech, that was enough to scare me.

hey i know it is hard to keep politics out of these types of discussions --I was just

tempted too myself-- but let's try. Whether you are strongly pro Bush or pro Kerry you

aren't going to change anybody's mind saying things like "I think that's how republicans

really look". It is just like wrestling a pig: It just makes the pig mad and you end up

looking stupid and covered with mud.

It's strongly reminiscent of the film adaptation of Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas which makes extensive use of wide angle lenses to distort people who Thompson finds inhuman.

 

I can't look at these pix without thinking that Erwitt is doing the same.

Personally, I feel that the lens which EE used is too wide, not on account of the distortion but because some of the details are too small to notice, and there does seem to be some wasted space at the edges. It is also remarkable that none of the participants,(with the exception of the burly man with the badges on his suspender's) seem to notice his presence, and he must have been awfully close for some of those shots. I read in a magazine, years ago, that Erwitt once used an 8 X 10 in. view camera to photograph a political convention with, so here is a man who has been there and done it all. And he's only 76 years old!

Plenty of guessing. I guess an EOS SLR with a 16-35mm zoom. It's all good.

Cool! The photos look like Ralph Steadman drawings.

There's no reason these "exact composition" photos couldn't have been shot with a rangefinder Leica. With experience you learn to raise the camera just a tad to put the lens where your eye had been.

I agree with Andrew, these pictures probably reflect the way he sees Republicans, which is from a distorted point of view, in black and white. There were about as many anti-Bush protest pictures as pictures at the convention, but most of those were in color and without the distortion. The pictures to me seem like z political statement, and a crude one at that. Has anyone seen his pictures at the Democratic Convention?

Why can't the guy have a little fun? Don't forget, the whole point of Magnum is to SELL pictures. There are a gazillion standard shots of the RNC Convention. Why should EE take the same damn ones?