richard avedon's portrait of dylan

<p>i have been looking at portraits all over the web, especially the work of important portrait shooters from the past. of course, a lot of avedon has come up in my searches and i just can't take my eyes off this dylan photograph..<br>

http://www.lipsticktracez.com/guest/2009/07/06/avedonbob.jpg<br>

it is absolutely stunning. just wondered if this was on a rolleiflex. the bokeh is stunning.</p>

It was done in large format perhaps with a Speed/Crown Graphic.

<p>I'd bet it's sheet film, probably 8X10 (never heard of A bothering with 4X5, but considering the wet, a Gowlandflex or Graflex Super-D would have been a good bet for somebody else).<br /><br />Note the notches (from sheet film holders) in the corners of the frames.<br /><br />If 4X5 it might be a fast, maybe cheap press camera lens (eg Xenar or Wollensak)...notice the 6-sided glowing street light...that would suggest James D is right.</p>

<p>The wig and the almost hidden dodged light pattern around Dylan are the most stunning elements to me. The bokeh and the tree lined avenue centering of the subject are interesting, but less so for me. All this is very theatrical, very conceived, maybe too much so? He could have put anybody in the center of this interesting set-up, and it could convey the same, or, put in another way, it is really Avedon's portrait (via his set-up), not Dylans. Dylan's expression doesn't convey enough of anything for me. It doesn't depict the artist-composer that another less theatrical image might have done.</p>

<p>C'mon you guys.....it's a snap of a guy on a street.</p>

<p>If you don't know who it is, or who took it....that's all it is. And it could have been taken with pretty much <strong>any</strong> 35mm camera of the era......</p>

<p>And, as for "<em>absolutely stunning</em> " Starvy, ya gotta start buying your mushrooms at the store.....Robert</p>

<p> Mashroom outsourcing can be important factor indeed but this shot is known to be made w/ Rolleiflex TL and Kodak TX i think. No flash.</p>

<p>Rolleiflex? Don't they shoot square frames?</p>

<p>To John Kelly: Avedon exhibit in Detroit includes some 4x5 work by Avedon. IIRC, it was late in his career.</p>

<p>Correction. My above post suggesting this shot was taken by Rolleiflex may be erroneous but otherwise open for discussion. One thing is, many of Avedons photos had probably been heavy manipulated and edited in post processing towards various creative ends and goals to such a degree that today it is probably of no importance at all what camera he used at the occassion.</p>

<p>The guy had a workshop with numerous employees, assistents and what else: many cameras, lenses, run business of selling shots to publishers, shotting seccions organized by whom and whom, who owns shots at what point of time ... Can be he had never seen Dylan on that street that day.</p>

Anyone who has ever used a real camera would recognize that this was done in large format. The guides that the sheet film went under in the film holder are easily seen on the sides and bottom of the photo since they were not cropped out.

 

Speed and Crown Graphics using 4x5 inch negative film holders were still much in use by professional photographers at the time that this photo was taken.

<p>But, James.....The point I thought I made was that the camera used in this photograph is utterly immaterial. Any 35....or even Pony from ye olde of days could have taken this image, as far as we can tell by looking at it.</p>

<p>Other than, of course, the guide marks.....Robert</p>

<p>Avedon shot in the field with a Deardorff 8x10. He used a Rollei for a period of time, but it's obvious that this wasn't shot with one. </p>

<p>Now that you know that, you can buy one and shoot just like him, can't you?</p>

<p><em>C'mon you guys.....it's a snap of a guy on a street.</em></p>

<p>No, Bob, it's not. It's probably better than anything in your portfolio; it's certainly better than anything in mine. The [non] pose, and the subject's direct look, the [non] fashion statement of the hair and the belt, all combine with the soft recession of the background to make it an outstanding portrait. Remember, in a portrait of a known subject--whether a friend or a celebrity--it is impossible to separate identity from artifact; the two are inextricable.</p>

<p>I think Avedon used a 4x5 press camera with pack film for this one, but that's just a guess. And the format IS important, because the fine grain is part of the 'look'.</p>

<p>You didn't read my post Les. One of Avedon's long-time assistants has commented that he didn't use a 4x5 at all, he used the Deardorff 8x10 in the field and a Sinar 8x10 in the studio. He used a Rollei for a while, and a 35mm when he was young, probably before he was making money.</p>

<p>Les.....it certainly is <strong>not</strong> better than anything in my portfolio. It is a slightly contrived snap of a young man. And, in my opinion, that's all it is.</p>

<p>You can dress anything up with words:<br>

<em> Non-pose= Candid snap.........</em><br>

<em>Soft recession=Diminished depth of field........</em><br>

<em>Non Fashion statement=That's how he was dressed</em> .......<br>

And you absolutely<strong> CAN</strong> separate identity from artifact! The image in question does <strong>exactly</strong> that.<br>

<br /> And the fine grain being part of the look........we are looking at a a 4x5 (Maybe) <em><strong>contact print</strong> </em> on a computer screen. You can't know it's fine grain. It could be SuperXX for all we can tell.</p>

<p>If this photo had been submitted here, at PN, as a portrait for a contest, as an image of a person we don't know, and taken by a person we don't know ( obviously this cannot happen, but, if it could).....honestly how would it rate?</p>

The shots in a mental institutions do look like a 35mm work, made well long after he could be considered as a "young ..." We are talking about one very talented and creative individual here, he might just had conjured these pictures out of white air without any camera.

<p>Ilia, Avedon's mental institution photos were made with a 16mm Minox "spy camera" (the images can be seen in "Nothing Personal", his book with James Baldwin). His sister was "insane," institutionalized, and he was concerned.</p>

<p>Some of the the "inmates" in Peter Brook's disturbing movie version of Peter Weiss's "<strong>Marat Sade</strong>" play may have been developed indirectly from Avedon's Minox photos via Max Waldman's 35mm 2475 Recording Film photographs of the Peter Brook cast. One of the Waldman photos was very popular among some of us as a poster. Don't think I've seen a reference by Avedon to his sister's situation or to those photos, which are ultra-grainy B&W, moving and fine. Perhaps it says something that his insane asylum photo essay is virtually never mentioned in commentary. Maybe Avedon didn't want to talk much about his sister.<br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YPtGmBo1mHk">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YPtGmBo1mHk</a></p>

<p>John. Thank you for interesting information and link.</p>

<p>I used to think of Avedon as utterly curious and fearless investigator of human nature. These pictures from MI and his more commonly known shots, like of his father and Stravinsky, or even country trip photos of coal miners and classic snake folks on 8X10, actually do have much in common, spirit wise.</p>

<p>My point is: Avedons photos are objects with enormous cteative momentum, creations of his personality. To look at them judging grain and compos, like the belt is just fine or what camera was it, is irrelevant IMO.</p>

<p>Ilia, I agree with you on all counts, especially about "spirit wise" and "creative momentum."</p>

<p>...I do think the Dylan photo comes across poorly online, though I've never seen it as a print or litho so can't compare. </p>

<p>For me as a longtime fairly-OK printmaker, it's hard to believe the crude dodging/burning was something Avedon wanted...looks like a student's attempt at dramatic effect. He famously demanded exquisitely accurate dodging/burning from his darkroom, so maybe the Dylan image is just a work-print, something he would have marked up with grease-penciled printing diagrams.</p>

<p>The evidence of a cheap shutter (only 6 blades in the iris) is also odd. I doubt he ever used the trendy Japanese/Leica term "bokeh," but maybe he selected that lens/shutter combination for that effect. Again, check the street light: a "better" iris wouldn't have produced that hexagon.</p>

<p>Speaking of "creative momentum," see how Avedon died:<br>

<a href="http://www.mysanantonio.com/entertainment/MYSA101004_1P_avedon_f85bd0b5_html12886.html">http://www.mysanantonio.com/entertainment/MYSA101004_1P_avedon_f85bd0b5_html12886.html</a></p>

<blockquote>

<p>it's hard to believe the crude dodging/burning was something Avedon wanted.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It's the result of a bad scan (this is an unauthorized use and should not be considered as representative of what Avedon presented to the world) along with a look that Avedon probably wanted. Some of what looks like dodging is actually hair that is lighter in the version that Avedon has used in multiple books. Some of what looks like both dodging and burning comes from a loss of detail due to the contrasty scan. It does have what looks like some noticeable dodging, nothing like the scan here, but this was probably representative of what was going on at the time. After all, Avedon also did things like <a href="http://blogs.phillynews.com/inquirer/flickgrrl/2007/09/something_in_the_way_he_moves_1.html">this.</a></p>

<p>"For me as a longtime fairly-OK printmaker, it's hard to believe the crude dodging/burning was something Avedon wanted...looks like a student's attempt at dramatic effect. He famously demanded exquisitely accurate dodging/burning from his darkroom, so maybe the Dylan image is just a work-print, something he would have marked up with grease-penciled printing diagrams." (John K.)</p>

<p>...............................................</p>

<p>When I referred to the wig and the "apparent" oval dodging about Dylan in my post above, I had thought that this was an intentional artistic creation. If the dodging is that of a work print or due to scanning, it is a PITY in my mind. While I admire the beauty of some of Avedon's photos as well made prints (whether he made them or not) this is not always needed in great photography. The (purposely inaccurate?) dodging creates a sort of "halo" or "container" or "aura" about the subject. For me, that is (or could be) ART, and not just crude or inaccurate dodging and burning.</p>

<p>And therein lies one of the great problems with photography as an art form. Many want the image or print always (or almost always) to be perfect, a sort of Karsh or Adams technically impeccable image. The moment someone creates fuzziness, or out of focus on a principal part, or modified lighting effects, or "halos", or wild chiaroscuro effects, it is criticized by the f64 and the technical printmaking crowds.</p>

<p>A pity.....</p>

<p>Jeff's fundamentally right.</p>

<p>As I commented, the lousy look ("effect"...ecch) surely wasn't Avedon's. </p>

<p>It's not just a bad scan: more likely a multi-generation theft from somebody's blog. Nobody's made a flatbed photo scanner that bad since Thomas Edison. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>This one shows it less. But I also still think it's something inherent to the photograph, and not only because of scanning,...</p>

<p><a href="http://nova100.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/04/10/bob_dylan_avedon.jpg">http://nova100.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/04/10/bob_dylan_avedon.jpg</a></p>

<p>Good scan, bad scan, who cares? It looks more interesting in John's initial post. </p>

<p>Without the halo, it sort of looks like the photo Bresson (I think) took of Giacometti on a rainy day in Paris, but fortunately it is not a banal head on shot of the artist, but one in which the stride of the subject through the image elongated his body and made him look like one of his sculpted portraits. And that is a memorable celebrity photo. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Good scan, bad scan, who cares?</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br /> <br /> Anyone who cares about what Avedon wanted people to see. If you're not interested in seeing what the photographer wanted, you could just look at everything through a kaleidoscope.</p>