Nick Brandt: lens selection?

[nick_brandt1]

A friend told me about this thread. Reading through it, I felt compelled to address some of

the questions and many innacuracies!

 

Firstly, 90% of my photos are taken from the safety of a vehicle. Only the chimps and one

special herd of giraffes are photographed on foot. Neither I nor anyone else could ever get

this close to wild animals any other way. Forget about safety - most of the animals would

run away (and a few would attack).

 

Secondly, the depth of field issue. I'll say it categorically - NONE of the depth of field thing

is done in Photoshop - it is all done in camera. You could not get those focal planes

shifting in focus in the same plane in the way that they do in Photoshop and expect it to

look like this. Don Satalic is soooo wrong. Oh, and I don't use soft focus lenses. Don't even

know what they are. The longest lens I own and use is a 200mm. Great lens. Tried the

300 once and hated it. Too conventional. So yes, I am close, but safe.

 

All anyone really needs to know is that I work in a very very impractical way - very

manually - and lose a crazy number of potentially great shots with all the faffing around I

do. But I do it because occasionally something great comes out of such impractical

methods. My friend Rocky Schenck taught me not to reveal my trade secrets some time

ago. As for my EX-SF dealer's comments, I don't know where that came from.

 

Grading - I nearly always use a heavy ND grad for the sky, and often a red filter, to get the

sky dark. But there is significant grading done in Photoshop - the vignetting is invariably

photoshop - I'm a sucker for it.

 

Okay, so if anyone is still reading this thread, there you go.

 

PS What is a 'bokeh'?

[jonas_yip1]

Thanks for weighing in. I think the whole question was initially raised precisely because of the unsual planes of focus which did not jive with what people know of the Pentax 67 system (i.e. no tilt lenses). So naturally some people automatically skip to "Photoshopped".... I get the same comments about my images made with homemade lenses which have an unusual quality to them (and therefore must be created with a photoshop filter!)

<p>

Bokeh is essentially the quality of the out-of-focus areas of an image. There's a lot of info about it on the web, but here's one link:

<p>

<a href="http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/bokeh.html">http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/bokeh.html</a>

<p>

BTW, was admiring the large prints of the Africa pics at photoLA... very rich and luminous quality to them. I'd ask, but I know... "no trade secrets" ;)

<p>

Actually, Rocky Schenck's large prints have a similar luminousness to them which I very much like...

<p>

ciao,<br>

<A href="http://www.underexposure.com">jonas</a>

<p>

[nick_brandt1]

Hi Jonas

 

Thanks for the compliments. And the explanation of 'bokeh'. Go ahead and ask whatever

you want. I'm glad you thought the prints looked 'rich and luminous'. Good. With matte

paper you always sacrifice some richness and luminosity, but I still much prefer it to

glossy paper.

 

Nick

[jonas_yip1]

Well, I'd love ask a couple questions specifically surrounding the "rich and luminous" issue (i.e. my matte prints are neither, and it's buggin' me), but this probably isn't the right place for that, nor is it the right place for you to answer. Perhaps off forum...

[david_carson]

Hey Nick, I thought you would eventually show up! Thanks for the info. For the record, I never thought you used photoshop; I got all my info from (obviously incorrect) print pieces about you. Love your work...

 

btw, click on the 'notify me of responses' link to get an email notification. Handiest thing about this site, in my opinion.

[timothy_hughes]

Absolutely magnificent photographs Nick. One term that comes to mind when I look at your

images is expert, precise craftsmanship. The photos are just perfectly processed. Congrats

on your success, and the photos in this month's Conde Nast Traveller look awesome.

 

-Timothy Hughes

[don_satalic2]

I just revisited this thread. Nick Brandt says I'm "soo wrong." Well, methinks he protests too much about no PS manipulation. I'm still spot on: Those images were PSed. Brandt does not cop to it because then NOBODY would be asking all these "How did he do it?" questions. Take one of your own images and play with the guassian blurs et al in various layers. Erase some areas. Then flatten it. You'll be surprised. Now, would anyone pay his prices if they thought he PSed them? There's your answer.

[lb-]

<i>I'm still spot on: Those images were PSed.</i><p>

 

ah yes, the opinion as fact approach. A hallmark of these forums. <p>

 

either provide proof that his images are in fact the result of photoshop manipulation or be a stand up fellow and present your opinion as such. <p>

 

cheers

[jonas_yip1]

Does anybody really care anymore if an image is photoshopped anyway? I guess some do....

[jonas_yip1]

Oh yeah: "Brandt does not cop to it because then NOBODY would be asking all these "How

did he do it?" questions."

<p>

I think people are (or were) asking "How did he do it?" because they know what camera he

shoots with (P67), yet know of no tilt-shift lenses in that system which allow for the

manipulation in the plane of focus that is present in the images.

<p>

However, that does not automatically mean that PS is the only other option. Here's a pic

taken with a P67 and the 90/2.8 that has strange focus effects, but involved no PS. I know,

because I took it just to try one of the techniques suggested earlier in the thread (later

rejected by Nick Brandt):

<p>

(<a href="http://www.underexposure.com/pixel/index.php?showimage=48">link</a>)

<p>

Point is, just because you can do something in PS doesn't mean you do. Anyway, in the

end I think it's just another tool on the way to making the image you want to make.

<p>

j

[lramoth]

LOL, he's using a Lens Baby :)! Just kidding!

 

Either way, PS or not, the images are just amazing. I just got the 'On This Earth' book today and of course led to a google search to see what kind of cam and lenses he was using. If anything I learned from reading this thread (and others) is that photography can be an artform if you just use your imagination.

 

Lastly, the fact that Nick doesn't know what 'bokeh' is means he's out there doing it and not spending his time on a thread like this wondering how someone else did. I don't know about you, but that gets me inspired!

[vincent_zeng]

I wouldn't generalize this for all of his photographs, but just looking through his book 'On This Earth', I can easily tell there's at least been a sort of scratchy texture applied to two or more of his images in the book (I don't have them off the top of my head, but I can point them out if anybody asks), and the texture is identical. This proves that Mr. Brandt is at least not below using Photoshop filters.

 

I've never seen a higher-resolution version of 'Lion in the Storm', but on a close examination of the copies I've seen floating around on the internet, it looks like there's some pretty generous application of gaussian blur and the smudge brush. I've done it myself enough times to kind of know what it looks like, at least. I can't think of any situation where that would be possible without post-processing.

 

Not to say that they're not stunning photos in every way; I love them to death, I just wouldn't doubt that they've been digitally manipulated at all. And not to say there's anything wrong with artful use of digital manipulation, either. It's just as valid a medium as anything else.

[bobschell]

<p>Please stop asking, "How did he do it?" Please find you own voice, folks. Jimi Hendrix & Mark Knopfler both use(d) Stratocasters with quite different results. We don't need Jimi, Mark, or Nick copies - be inspired by them and then take it in whatever direction you are capable (& Lord willing, even further).</p>

[bobschell]

<p>Please stop asking, "How did he do it?" Please find you own voice, folks. Jimi Hendrix & Mark Knopfler both use(d) Stratocasters with quite different results. We don't need Jimi, Mark, or Nick copies - be inspired by them and then take it in whatever direction you are capable (& Lord wiiling, even further).</p>

[gt1]

<p>Yes, excellent advice Robert! Derivative work is boring and unnecessary <strong>no matter how technically good it is.</strong></p>

[paddler_b]

<p>For most part these are printing techniques, either he printed them himself or directed a print maker to do so. That, just adds to his vision and art. If you read his book he talks about some of it.</p>

[russ_butner___portland__or]

<p> Nick Brandt and Peter Beard are the real deal.</p>

[satoru_murata]

<p>I just wanted to note that there is, in fact, one tilt-shift lens that was designed specifically for the P67 system:</p>

<p>http://www.flickr.com/photos/moorewebstuff/2798168363/</p>

<p>Now, I know my Hartbleis, and Nick's photos don't quite have the same look IMHO.</p>

<p>I thought that the "free-lensing" suggestion made the most sense, but got the denial from the horse's mouth so that's that. </p>

<p>Whatever technique was involved, I'm inspired as hell. Need to go out and shoot some more with my P67II :-) </p>

[satoru_murata]

<p>[double post deleted]</p>

[donbright]

<p>Nick Brandt uses lenses, 105 f2.5, and 200 f4.</p>

[john_wood3]

<p>I had two 55mm's, one shimmed with a 1mm spacer and one with a 3mm spacer...got the tilt/swing look, but not the swirly, soft-focus/petzval/single meniscus look out to the corners. The corners were nice and soft and creamy, but straight out of focus, not distorted. Adding tilt to a few of the lenses in the 67 lineup is actually fairly straight-forward.</p>

[willy_boots]

<p>Old thread I know, but I've just been looking through Nick's photos lately. Somebody mentioned how there must absolutely be blurring done on photoshop on the lion looking into the storm photo because just his face and nose area is in focus. To me it's very obvious that there's a narrow depth of field with the focus bang on his nose and the reason his mane is out of focus is because it's a slow shutter speed with a strong wind blowing it out of focus.</p>

[oliver_smith1]

<p>Another latecomer to the party- Satoru, Nick didn't deny that he used a free lensing technique at all. He states that the focal plane effects were done in-camera, and that:<br>

"All anyone really needs to know is that I work in a very very impractical way - very manually - and lose a crazy number of potentially great shots with all the faffing around I do."<br>

Understandably he doesn't want to give away his secrets, but free lensing (to get the focal plane effects) hasn't been ruled out.</p>