Do you recognize this Library of Congress photograph?

[jsc1]

Great photo... TERRIFIC bokeh... who took it? when?

 

wooops...

 

resubmit...

[kbreak]

Well it's off CNN's frontpage in the gallery and the caption is <BR><BR>"Beverly Brannan, the library's curator of documentary photos, said a great deal of conservation and stabilization had to be done before the prints in the exhibit, "Bound for Glory: America in Color, 1939-1943," could be made and displayed.

 

In this image, a young boy stands on the streets of Cincinnati, Ohio, in 1942 or 1943."<BR><BR>So I would email BB at the L.o.C.

[kbreak]

... and then, using Google, I clicked, "I feel lucky"<BR><BR><a href="http://img199.imageshack.us/my.php?image=clipboard012vt.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://img199.imageshack.us/img199/8549/clipboard012vt.th.jpg" border="0" alt="Free Image Hosting at www.ImageShack.us" /></a><BR><BR>and google something?

[kbreak]

*aint

[oceanphysics]

Interesting photo, but nothing special about the bokeh as far as I can see.

[john_shriver]

<p>Well, according to <a href="http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/fsahtml/fachap02.html">this page at the Library of Congress</a>, John Vachon got started with a Leica camera when he first started taking pictures in DC.</p>

 

<p>The telephone pole at the left has quite the double image. But it doesn't distract from it being a very intimate portrait of the boy.</p>

 

<p>The lens is almost certainly being used at a very wide aperture, remember this is ASA 10 Kodachrome. I don't see any signs of astigmatism in the out-of-focus areas. So, if it is a Leica, and is a Leica lens, I would doubt it to be a Summar or Summitar, since they are both astigmatic wide open, and have circular swirlies in the blur. So, if Leica, I'll guess it's an Elmar. But we'll never know, Vachon died in 1975.</p>

 

<p>I bet he didn't intend to cut top of the kid's hat off. Parallax!</p>

 

<p>Here's the Library of Congress' straight scan from the slide:</p>

 

<img width =500 src="http://memory.loc.gov/service/pnp/fsac/1a34000/1a34200/1a34281v.jpg">

 

<p>The exhibit version is slightly cropped, less contrasty, and less saturated.</p>

 

<p>I haven't always agreed with some of the aesthetic decisions that the Library of Congress has made in preparing these early Kodachromes for exhibition. Of course, the JPEG's I see may not be color managed (my monitor is), so that could be part of it. But I've seen odd choices, like completely rebalancing interior shots to daylight color balance, which I think looked better with at least some of the warmth left in.</p>

[rjm photo]

The cropping and the out-of-focus is what makes this such a great photograph....rather than a snapshot which is all it would be if we saw all of the hat with the background in focus. I think the 3-D effect is outstanding. I think it was every intent of the photographer to make the picture just as you see it.

[rich815]

I find the bokeh kind of scattered and rough, not my idea of such nice, creamy bokeh....

[Nowhereman]

>>>I find the bokeh kind of scattered and rough, not my idea of such nice, creamy

bokeh....<<<

 

You're joking, right? If you're not, your statement finally makes me understand why so may

people are reluctant, or even antaginistic, to discussing bokeh: whether bokeh is good or

bad is an aesthetic judgment. In the picture above, the swirl of the bokeh complements

the portrait. On the other hand, in some photographs bad bokeh almost gives the viewer a

headache. The issue here is not creamy or sour-creamy; it's how the bokeh becomes part

of the general effect.

 

--Mitch/Bangkok

[Nowhereman]

>>>I bet he didn't intend to cut top of the kid's hat off. Parallax!<<<

 

I think the cutoff head looks better than having the whole hat in the picture.

[frank uhlig]

Sorry,

 

but all the self-doubling edges in the "bokeh" make me dizzy. I would not use such a bad-bokeh lens myself, but to each his/her own ...

[jack_lo_..._t_o]

Well it's a stunning picture and I thank John Shriver for the blow-up and the optical analysis.

 

I wonder if the original title wasn't "Negro boy"? Not that it matters.

[bobatkins]

Bokeh? The word didn't exist when this photograph was taken. I doubt the concept even entered the head of the photographer.

 

Some still do doubt that bokeh actually exists, but of course they are wrong.

[gabrielma]

The question is: "Do you recognize this Library of Congress photograph?". Bravo John, for reading the question.

[rjm photo]

Bob

 

I am sure the concept of an out-of-focus background has been on the table for discussion since the introduction of variable aperture lenses....sometime in the 20's, or 30's?

[dennis lee]

Nice shot, thank you Josiah and John.

[Brad_]

With respect to that photo's bokeh, I detect subtle overtones of fresh pinenuts and vanilla,

slightly counterbalanced with a harshness reminiscent of CDX plywood.

[matt_chamberlain]

lol CDX plywood!

[rich815]

Sorry Mitch. I guess this shows how subjective bokeh is. I see no "swirl" in the bokeh at all let alone how it's a compliment to the portrait. As I said I think its rough and scattered; gritty and distracting. I prefer a much smoother look to OOF areas myself.

 

That said I like the portrait itself very much.

[al_kaplan1]

...and maybe just a touch of ginger.

[Nowhereman]

Here's what I would consider bad, headache-inducing bokeh:

 

< http://www.photo.net/bboard/image?bboard_upload_id=26585884 >

 

...amd this is with the Summicron-50 ASPH.

[fjords]

thanx josiah & john, love the shirt, looks like he's left-handed. the felt crusher has a head

band. Mom scrubbed and ironed for that picture. Bet his daddy's bigger than yours, so ya

best keep your boke in yea'r pocket.

[jsc1]

FWIW... I agree with Mitch Alland... "the bokeh complements the portrait" and that is why I

think it is "terrific bokeh."

 

I suspect there really isn't a truly "bad-bokeh" lens... not even Reflex Nikkors, i.e. mirror

telephotos... A lens, with known characteristics, can be chosen to complement just about

any photograph. Unfortunately, the "right moment" doesn't wait for anyone and that is what

is makes photos like these all the more remarkable.

 

Thank you, John, for the scan... better!

[jsc1]

"Here's the Library of Congress' straight scan from the slide"

 

I looked and looked but I couldn't find a large scan/file of the photo.

 

So, John Shriver, if you don't mind, what's your source?

[john_r._fulton_jr.]

What I see is a very well done portrait of a young boy perhps ten years old. It appears his

mom has dressed him in clean corduroys and a freshly washed shirt. The shirt's buttoned

but the collar isn't exactly straight. He has on his hat that he probably wears to church on

Sunday. There are a few people in the background but doesn't appear to be any kind of

"event" that the photographer caught him at. The picture is taken during the depression

yet the boy has a look of hope on his face. There may be a bit of puzzlement mixed in as

to why this photographer is taking his picture? The boy's head is turned just slightly so we

only see one ear. The light is soft and coming low from one side--perhaps morning light.

The picture is taken in an area of town that seems to be bordering on a commercial area.

He may be carrying something in his right hand. Perhaps he's delivering it for a business?

Or, bringing some grocerys back to his family. Considering that the photographer was

shooting for the Farm Security Administration I'm sure they were happy with this

optomistic well-shot and cropped photograph of a young Afr Am boy.