Avedon like effect

<p>Hi,</p>

<p>I am just really curious to know at what <strong>focal length </strong>these beautiful photographs are taken to get this feel. Last two images by Avedon. Is the focal length 50mm or more about 100mm? (Full Frame equivalent) <br /> And yes, I know that I will not get this look by buying the same focal length and clicking the shutter..<br /> I'm asking because there definitely seems to be some distortion going on, but I don't know what causes it. Thanks!<br /> Wave</p>

<p><a href="http://www.unique.dk/CropUp/580x-M/media/720791/Scandinavian_-17s.jpg" alt="" />One</a>

 

<a href="https://jointhebreed.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/bianca-jagger-woman-in-the-mirror-photo-richard-avedon.jpg" alt="" />Two</a></p>

 

Mod: Images changed to links. Per the photo.net Terms of Use, do not post images you did not take.

<p>Looks to me like longer than normal focal length, yeah more around 100mm. But then if these are cropped, could be around 50mm and framed loosely. Not sure how Avedon worked. </p>

<p>Avedon shot on a 360mm lens on 8x10 (52mm Full Frame equivalent).<br />And on a 75mm lens on Rolleiflex (also about 50mm Full Frame equivalent).<br />But I have no idea if he cropped these photos.<br /> The first picture I posted; I do not know who took it.<br /> You are right btw, a better question to ask might be <strong>at what distance to the subject these photographs were taken? </strong>(as focal length itself does not change the distortion..)<br /><a href="http://www.fluorodigital.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Image-X.jpg">Three</a><br /> Is it possible that all three photographs were taken from very up close, about 1 meter? To me it looks a bit likes this.<br />Photograph 'One' is taken from a slightly lower perspective, and the cheek looks exaggerated<br />Photograph 'Two' the forefront seems exaggerated, the hand looks quite big compared to the face<br />Photograph 'Three' the cheek looks almost circular so might also be exaggerated compared to the face<br /> I hope someone with a bit more experience can shine some light on this!</p>

<p>Anybody..?</p>

<p>I think the look here has more to do with lighting and expression than focal length. Both images take a minimalist approach where IMHO the viewer's attention is drawn more to the subject than the photographic technique.</p>

 

<p><a href="http://www.popphoto.com/how-to/2014/01/how-to-master-avedon-lighting">How To: Master Avedon Lighting</a><br /><a href="http://www.popphoto.com/how-to/2014/01/how-to-master-avedon-lighting">Try Avedon lighting for your next portrait</a><br>

Henry Posner<br /><strong>B&H Photo-Video</strong></p>

Yes ofcourse, much more important; in these photos and every other good portrait ever made. Anyways, any idea if he

was really close for these shots or not? Thanks!

<p>This might help make a judgement about distance.<p>

<b>Moderator: Do not post photos you did not take. This has already been an issue in this thread. Please pay attention to the photo.net Terms of Use.</b>

<p>Thanks! Great photos from his Into the American West project. But it seems to me that the three photos I posted are taken from a bit farther away than these? It is difficult to compare for me since the photos I posted are head-shoulders only/fashion images. They might be cropped or taken with another lens because there is no film border on them.</p>

<p>How do you detect the distortion going on? It said you definitely see a distortion effect, but when I look at it it looks normal to me. </p>

<p>My initial guess would have been 85-100 too, but I am not familiar much with the way avedon worked in technicals. </p>

<p>Yeah, there is a border. You can clearly see the sheet film borders from the film holders so these were not cropped at all. </p>

Wave Jumper, it is actually not too difficult to make estimates of the focal length, using a certain technique. (Actually it's really a "field of

view," which you have to convert to focal length for the film/imager size you are using.)

 

The technique just uses your eye and your visual judgment, along with a ruler or piece of string or whatever you feel like measuring with.

AND... it is necessary that the image have some "depth cues," which these images do.

 

Here's how to do it. View the image at some appreciable size - enlarging on your monitor is fine. Then simply change viewing distance until

the image appears most natural, or realistic. Also, move too close and too far to make sure the sense of realism is lost; if it's not, either the

depth cues aren't there or you're not getting the technique (some people, I think, just don't have a sense of this). Note: only view with one

eye unless the image is very large. When you find an ideal viewing distance, measure it (a piece of string, from your eye to the image is

helpful). Finally compare your "ideal" viewing distance to the diagonal measurement of the image - since a "normal" focal length is defined

as equivalent to the diagonal of the imager, this gives you a ratio compared to the "normal" focal length.

 

I did this for your images "one" and "three," and estimate, as full-frame 35mm equivalent lenses, about 35mm and 80mm focal length,

respectively. I'd guess these are within about 10%, more or less.

 

For the second image, my system won't d/l for larger viewing, but my VERY rough estimate is about 45mm, roughly a "normal" focal length.

 

As an example with image "one," I viewed from about about 10 inches with an image diagonal of about 13 inches. So this angular view is

equivalent to about 10/13 of the "normal" focal length. (The image is roughly 5x7 format, so "normal" for this, on 35mm film, would be about

44mm fl, same as the image diagonal.) So 10/13 X 44mm is about 34mm focal length. Given the approximate nature of the test, anything

from roughly 30 - 40mm fl is probably close. I just said 35mm as that is a commonly available fl.

 

I expect the usual naysayers to chime in; I would suggest to ignore them if they haven't tried this test. (You supplied the image; it only takes

a half minute or so to find a "correct" viewing distance, then 5 seconds for the image diagonal.) (If one doesn't have a string to measure

with, even a camera strap will suffice.) It's simply a ratio of your ideal viewing distance compared to the image diagonal. It would be interesting to

see what ratio other people come up with, but it should really be a blind test - so many people will tend to "agree" with the common

consensus.

<p>For me, the power of Avedon's portraits, especially those in his "In the American West" series, comes not from his focal length choices, but how he engages and poses his subjects, and, his meticulous processing afterwards. Yes, focal length enters into that, but there are other factors that are very important.</p>

<p>For a great behind the scenes accounting of his epic photographic road trip through the "West," take a look at Laura Wilson's "Avedon at Work: In the American West." Wilson was one of his assistants during the making of the series. And an excellent photographer who was able to capture Avedon engaging and photographing his subjects. As one who likes to make portraits of strangers I meet on the street, it is one of my most valued books. Also check out the Avedon documentary "Darkness and Light."</p>

<p>Thanks for your thorough response Bill! I have been trying the method you preached and I think I come quite near your results (although I'm not sure if I have an accurate sense of this);<br />1. 40mm<br />2. 50mm<br />3. 100mm<br />Really happy to know about this 'technique'!!</p>

Hi, you're welcome.

 

The numbers I gave are just approximate; if you get the sense of "realism" at some distance, then you're doing fine. It's kind of amazing

how good our eye/brain is at picking up on these very subtle little cues; even though we can't specifically describe what these cues are, we

can see that something looks "real" or not.

 

Although I called it a technique, it's just using an understanding of what they call "correct perspective." I'm sure Avedon understood it

thoroughly; on photonet, not so much.

<p>Focal length is about 5% of the battle on those shots. Somewhere between 50 and 75 I would say.<br>

The other 95% is model, pose, lighting, mood, processing, moment, framing etc.</p>

<p>There's no way the first one was shot with 35mm.</p>

<p>So, after a bit of research I got through to the photog who took that photo. His name's Rasmus Linaa, and he's a Danish fashion photographer. You can see his work here, it's well worth a look if I do say so myself: http://www.rasmuslinaa.com/<br>

The model's name is Fie Fenneberg.<br>

No relation to Avedon.<br>

I asked the photographer, and he said the photo was shot with 85mm.<br>

So much for the secret photo voodoo techniques, eh? </p>

<p>@Marcin, thanks for the research and link. Yes, well worth visiting.</p>