Elliot Erwitt at Republican Convention: What did he use?

[andrew_somerset1]

Well, Eliot, you don't agree with me entirely, because I don't think his point of view is distorted. But I'm gamely trying to make this a discussion of the images themselves -- neither your point of view nor mine re the political aspect really has anything to do with their merit.

 

Carey's saying they're reminiscent of Ralph Steadman is on the money, and of course Steadman's drawings informed the movie version of FLLV. My second point above was worded inanely; what I really meant is that when I look at the pix I can't help but think that Erwitt is consciously using Steadman's vocabulary and alluding to Thompson's view of the Republican party since Nixon. But that's probably more my frame of reference speaking than Erwitt's images.

[larry h-l]

A couple of them look really wide and "bent." I'm guessing those particular

ones were done with a fisheye on a digital SLR, using the center portion out

of the fisheye full frame, because of the 1.5x or 1.6x magnification factor on

small CCD/CMOS chip.

[markci]

The first one is a fisheye. Others just look wide. There's nothing even close to the distortion of a 15mm here, at least not full-frame. If you want to know what that looks like, <a href="http://www.photo.net/philip-greenspun/photos/pcd1253/gay-pride-dogs-63">here's</a> a shot with Canon's 14.

[ellis_vener_photography]

I'm not so sure about "how distorted" Erwitt's viion of Republicans is. he's been

photographing them since Nixon was vice-president and telling Khruschev, face to face, to

stick where the sun don't shine. Erwitt was the only photographer to get pictures of that

event. My take on Erwitt is that he doesn't think much of ANY politician, political party or

ideology. I know that he doesn't think much of pomposity or any rah-rah stuff.

[dean_g]

Hey Ellis,

 

Relax. "That's how Republicans look" is funny. To me anyway, if you don't like it that's too bad, but your reaction was at least as political as my remark.

 

Also just how does one avoid political comment on political photographs? Thanks but I'll say whatever I darn well please.

[agf]

Those pictures are probably not taken with a digital camera. To me, it feels rather like

a Canon SLR (as far as I know, Erwitt endorsed Canon material a long time ago

already) with something like a 14mm or 16-35 zoom at the widest length.

In the "Image reference" of any photo in any specific portfolio on the Magnum site

you can somehow deduct that W is for B/W neg (example from Eliott Erwitt:

ERE2004001 W00086/26), K for chromes, Z for color negs, G for digital and E for

panoramic.

[claudia__]

<b><a href="http://www.magnumphotos.com/c/htm/CDocZ_MAG.aspx?Stat=DocThumb_DocZoom&o=&DT=ALB&E=2K7O3RJE2XHG&Pass=&Total=197&Pic=22&SubE=2K7O3RJEAKXC">my

very favorite!</b></a>

 

<p>excellent editorial use of wide angle lens</p>

[stephane camus]

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.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Hi John,

I do not feel that the deformation is some kind of cheap visual trick in this case, but it is a constructive element of the whole picture. First time I looked at them, I felt like it was a great superposition of two technics, one being press photography -show the event with the most information possible- and the other one being the visual impact, thanks to the lens deformation. To me, achieving this kind of balance means a brillant technic. Hence my statement "he brillantly manages these deformation.

 

Also, all the pictures of conventions are usually a little bit the same... Change the names on the boards, remove the Texans and use a donkey instead of an elephant, then you have it... so here, I think Elliot Erwitt found something new, at least new to me!

 

In a word, I am impressed.

 

Happy shooting!

 

Steph-

[stephane camus]

By the way, we are still not sure what lens and/or camera he used.. :P

 

Anyway, interesting thread I think, thanks to you all.

 

Steph-

[Tony Rowlett]

Dean G, Ellis is right on the mark here and he wasn't overreacting. I'm afraid you are not free to say "anything" you "darn well please," at least not without getting it deleted, because that's not the purpose for this forum.

[james_ogara1]

Dean wrote: "Relax. 'That's how Republicans look' is funny."

 

If you do say so yourself.

[michael_j._kravit1]

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

"Because of the distortion, or the support of Bush?"

 

No, because Michael Moore was there.

[james_ogara1]

Michael Moore fairly cries out for the use of the 21 mm.

[eliot_rosen]

Michael Moore and distortion go hand in hand. I'm not sure even a 15 mm lens would be enough to get him all in. :-)

[ellis_vener_photography]

Dean,

please feel free to write what ever you want. Writing humor is a difficult task, It is best to

practice in private first. before submitting to public scrutiny via the written word, try

saying out loud in a flat monotone whatever joke you are about to commit in writing for

public scrutiny. often what sounds funny in one's head just dies on the page. For what it

is worth i was trying to keep this thread flame free. but you have an exellent point: how

do you write about (or photograph) an overtly political eventthat is essentially just an

exercise in public relations, free of comment? I don't think you can or even should.

[jack_lo_..._t_o]

There's a Robert Frank quality to these images for me.

[ellis_vener_photography]

<I> (as far as I know, Erwitt endorsed Canon material a long time ago already)

</I><P>Just because he endorsed Canon sometime in the past doesn't mean he doesn't

use

other cameras. The photographers of VII Photo recently were featured in a Canon ad and I

know that some of those

guys use Leicas and other cameras as well.

[cindy_h.]

After looking at the Magnum photos, I have to say that I prefer

Eliot Shepard's series on the RNC.

 

http://www.slower.net/books/11/

 

Not Leica-related though. He uses a Nikon D70.

[john_r._fulton_jr.]

After spewing out a lot of gibberish yesterday morning I had another cup of

coffee and looked at the whole series again. The series is really good and I'm

glad it provoked a conversation. I'm still not crazy about the vertical that

concentrates on the one man (& really bends his head), but as a whole it's a

really nice series of photographs.

[john_r._fulton_jr.]

Clarification: I re-read my above note. I am referring to ME spewing out a lot of

gibberish. I meant that I & only I spewed out gibberish. <grin>

[dean_g]

>James O'Gara , sep 09, 2004; 07:09 p.m.

>Dean wrote: "Relax. 'That's how Republicans look' is funny."

>If you do say so yourself.

 

You're pretty witty yourself James.

 

from this thread..

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

 

>..Because of the distortion, or the support of Bush?.

 

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

 

>..I suspect Erwitt to be a Democrat, or "worse", in the words of our >friend Eliot, a goddam "liberal". I like him..

 

>.. these pictures probably reflect the way he sees Republicans, >which is from a distorted point of view, in black and white. .

 

>...Michael Moore and distortion go hand in hand. >I'm not sure even >a 15 mm lens would be enough to get him all in. :-)

 

 

Perhaps all the above should be deleted or criticized for overt political content. Why pick on me for my little quip?

 

 

>Tony Rowlett wrote: I'm afraid you are not free to say "anything" >you "darn well please,"

 

I didn't say I could say "anything" I darn well please. I said, I'll say "whatever" I darn well please.

 

We can't know exactly what Erwitt intended, unless he tells us. I assume he intended the photo to look as it does. For me, Erwitt is making a statement depicting the Republicans as the masters of deception, their forte is the distortion of the truth, ERwitt is in turn, distorting the "photographic truth" with his lens choice, and we are compelled to ask, "do they really look like that?", "who are they, really?" Is the convention itself a distortion?

 

And if I accept the premise that photo journalism is truthful, I have to assume that's what Erwitt's camera saw, and indeed that's what republicans look like (when you remove their cloaking devices). (no joke intended of course, as I've been informed it's not funny) . The current crop of Republicans are distortionists. They distort patriotism, distort 911, distort the flag, distort our democratic system, distort God, distort humanity, .. you name it they distort it.

 

Delete away.

[ellis_vener_photography]

<I>And if I accept the premise that photo journalism is truthful,</I><P>You are

starting from a false premise. What a photographer shows is true to what his views of

thing being shown is, nothing more.

[eliot_rosen]

Perhaps Dean's view is consistent with Stephen Shore's philosophy about how the mental image informs the depictive level image and vice versa. He sees all Republicans as being distorted which makes the pictures look even more distorted and vice versa. I think I now understand what Shore was trying to say, having seen it in action on this thread.

[dean_g]

Well you all seem quite sure of your own objectivity, and I congratulate you on that. Yes of course the premise is "false" Ellis. My point is that Erwitt, to me and a few others judging from the other posts, is playing with that premise of truth, and in this case relative to the subjects of his photos. The idea of photographic truth, whether it exists or not, that concept is a pivotal element in his distorted rendering, and it in turn calls up the general case of truth. Where is it? Here, he's toying with the notion of truth at the Republican National Convention. Or perhaps there's the suggestion that the absolute and authoritarian "values" that the Bush league harp on are not so immutable as they would have everyone believe. Humor is another motivation, as has been suggested, and I rather enjoy seeing the Republicans squeezed and bent. In any case it is what the photo conveys to me that's important .. to me. Your welcome to your viewpoint, I'm only sharing mine.

[preston_merchant]

If you take a "true" picture at the RNC, you have only captured a bit of the propaganda the party wanted you to have. Can you imagine what Diane Arbus would have done with those freaks?