Nick Brandt: lens selection?

<p>Recently I have been intrigued by Nick Brandt's photo portraits of

animals in Africa (<a href="http://www.nickbrandt.com">link</a>). The

depth of field is very shallow on some, almost with a creamy signature

of a Noctilux or maybe a Canon 85mm f/1.2.

 

<p>Does anyone know what lenses he uses for his images? I know he uses

the Pentax 67 system and "normal" lenses, according the Dec issue of

Lenswork. I just don't see how he could make a 105mm f/2.4 or similar

look like that, but I have never used the Pentax 67 system.

 

<p>Below is an example from his site...I would link to it but his site

is in Flash and doesn't support deep linking. The way I am using this

image in an educational context should be considered "fair use," I

would think.

I've been wondering the same thing. In the Lenswork magazine interview he said that all effects were done in camera, and not in Adobe PS. Some of the photos appear to have some wild DOF like I've only ever been able to achieve using a view camera. I shoot a lot of shallow DOF portraits with my Pentax 67II, and typical lenses, and I can't get effects like he's getting.

My guess is he used P67 120mm soft focus lens. See one shot of mine using the soft focus lens.<div></div>

Hmmmm...Dave, can you show shots with the 120mm soft-focus with a lion sized subject 10-20-30 ft. away? I don't think Nick Brandt can get as close as you did with your flower without being eaten/gored.

With a 2x telconverter you don't need to be very close. He might have shot from a car/SUV which could bring him much closer to the animals. I won't think he was on foot to take these shots. The reason I guessed 120mm soft focus is because of the bokeh pattern shown in his photos. His images showed a softer trend and bokeh of that of soft focus lenses. If he used regular telephoto lens you probably would not have asked the question. I could be wrong. There are only a handful of P67 lenses longer than 200mm. Which one do you think he has used? I am familar to the kind of softness of the elephant image you posted. Images produced by my 120mm were all like that except I do not shoot animals. Invest in one or rent one to shoot some images you will see what I mean.

He might have used a soft focus filter (adapter) for a similar result. B&W Carl Zeiss Softar is made for this soft focus effect.

Interesting...However, the reason I know Nick was on foot and used a so-called "normal" lens is because, in the Lenswork article, that's what he said how he works. Thanks for the info anyway, Dave.

 

As a side note, I hope Nick has some sort of protection (gun? posse?) so he doesn't get gored like Peter Beard did (by an elephant). Ouch.

In the photo of the elephants above it looks like the plane of focus starts at the top of the front elephant's trunk, and extends back and downwards. I know how to do that with a view camera, but I am baffled at how he does it with a P67. Possibly it would be clearer if I saw an actual print instead of low res web photos, and small magazine photos.

David:

 

Thanks for calling attention to Brandt�s photography; I find them quite remarkable, in particular the arrangement of the subjects in many of the shots is perfect, e.g. Cheetah and Cubs, Sitting Lionesses, Elephant Herd, etc., etc. It�s as if they were carefully arranged and posed. The perspectives in many of his photographs have a slight compression (to my eye) and so my own nominee for a lens used might be the 300mm ED(IF) or the 200mm. Both are excellent portrait lenses and not really far from �normal� in the 67 format. The 300 in particular is very sharp wide open, but with a very shallow depth-of-field (especially with close focus) and a beautiful bokeh. There appears to be more than just a lens involved however. If the vignetting in his work is not added, then certainly some filter is used which has an irregular soft focus around the cirumference. Vaseline perhaps? However he does it, they are beautiful.

 

Tom

With the Elephants, it's almost as if he is hand holding a soft edge filter in front of the lens and moving it to sharpen what he wants, so your eye is directed toward the mother and small baby. My guess.

The flower shot I posted isn't one that resembles any of the animal shots of Nick's. I just want to show the bokeh that's typical from soft focus lenses. Again because I have the 120mm myself the lion shot (the first in Nick's Photography page) makes me recognize the bokeh immediately. I wasn't aware Nick was on foot. But many of this shots looked very close to the animals. So I guessed that he might be in a car. I don't think his used very long telephotos. Either he used the 120mm with a 2x or 1.4x or he used a 200 or 300 with a softar filter.

What else he could have used?

I'm glad my 67 photos don't look like those, but how about one of the Zoerk adapters, perhaps not with a 67 lens, as a possible cause of the phenomenon?

Update: I just received the latest issue of Amercian Photo, and in it Nick Brandt answers my question. He used a 105mm f2.4. And he also notes he sometimes shoots from a car (which the Lenswork article seemed to not mention, btw).

 

No mention of 300mm lenses, Zorki stuff, 2x/1.4x converters, etc. Hard to believe, but I guess true.

 

Does anyone have close of shot of, say, a person's face with the 105mm, or any 105mm shots that exhibit some of the "Brandt" bokeh/dof effects?

 

And heck, Dave Cheng, the 120mm soft focus looks interesting. If you have them, please post some less macro shots, perhaps people portraits, with that lens.

I should add that the article in AP didn't specifically exclude anything either.

Addendum to an addendum: after a re-read, the AP article DID rule out telephotos, I guess. And the Lenswork article ruled out photoshop blurring. But vaseline, soft-focus filters, and if one reads closely, other non-telephoto lenses were not excluded from Mr. Brandt's discussion of his technique.

This link is interesting. Appears Photoshop plays a role.

 

http://www.bowhaus.com/news/brandt.php4

In the Lenswork interview he specifically says that the blurring is not PS, and done in camera.

The darkening/burning around the edges of the images seems to follow the shape of the animals in some cases, indicating to me that it was done with controlled intention, after the image was captured. In the interview, Mr. Brandt states, "The level of control I have with dodging and burning the image, through curves and levels manipulation of localized areas - is wonderful."

75, 105 and 150mm according to the interview in this month's Black and White Photography.

Correction: make that 55, 105 and 200mm.

About a year ago I was talking with one of his reps in S.F. and she mentioned something about him taking the lens off its mount very slightly and moving it either up/down/left/right to achieve the selective DOF he wants. I don't get how he controls light leaks and gets the shutter to fire, but it makes some sense.

> taking the lens off its mount very slightly and moving it either up/down/left/right to achieve the selective DOF he wants.

 

OMG that's a great idea, and it totally works (I just whipped out the P67 to try it). I've been doing stuff like that with homemade lenses but for some reason never thought to try it that way...

 

For the record, this technique doesn't work with my Nikons because the mount is too narrow and you have to move the lens too far out to tilt it at all so you can no longer focus.

 

j

 

PS Hi David. Hope the Noct is working out.

Hey Jonas,

 

I'm glad we are all getting a bit closer in figuring out Mr. Brandt's technique.

 

And I absolutely love that Noct you sold me!

None of you are close because Brandt has not been forthcoming in these various interviews. Think about it: You're on the ground, close to the animals. Do you really believe you have time to bobble your lens around and focus and meter AND get a great shot all at the same time? He modified these images digitally, but because of the taint that is on digital manipulation, he states only that he adjusts curves and the like. No "manipulation." Ya...right. It's PhotoShop pure and simple.

So thats it ? PS ? Sure ?

Is it not possible that there are still photographers around who use the good old wet darkroom ? ;-)

Regards