Robert Frank Lenses in London shots

[httpwww.flickr.comandr]

Hi.

 

I love this guy and his vision and sensibility of the world.

I want to know, if you guys know the leica lenses he used in the london series.

From the shoots that I saw, it seems to be a 35mm and occasionaly a 50mm, but

I�m guessing here.

 

Somebody knows ?.

[jim_francis]

Andres, I know it can be hard to put concept like "vision" and "sensibility" into words, but what exactly is it that makes you like Frank? I find his stuff quite mundane as photography, and tedious as social commentary.

[christoph_hammann]

To the original poster: would it matter? I'm sure even Robert Frank doesn't remember

which lenses he used. From the <a

href="http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2008/04/frank200804">Vanity Fair

article</a> about him I get the impression he wouldn't spend a second's thought on

it today. They were adequate for his purposes then.<br>

Jim, for me his work represents a turning point in documentary and street

photography, but it can't be repeated today. The world has changed and only at

times a glimpse of "The Americans" makes itself available to our contemporary

eyes.<br>

Best regards, Christoph

[michael j hoffman]

Jim opined:<p>"<i>Andres, I know it can be hard to put concept like "vision" and "sensibility" into words, but what exactly is it that makes you like Frank? I find his stuff quite mundane as photography, and tedious as social commentary.</i>"<p>I disagree, but I also kinda know what you mean. All I have to offer is this thought...imagine seeing such a body of work before the concept had been done to death. In its time it was surely cutting edge social commentary! I happen to find it still relevant as a student of history and American pop culture and photography.<p>Some won't take to it as well.<p>Michael J Hoffman

[leigh_marrin]

Andres, I can't answer your question directly, but you might be interested in a newer

Frank book titled Story Lines. It reproduces contact sheets from shots used in The

Americans. I noticed the frames of many of them had a very narrow gap between

them, probably indicating a wide-angle lens. Other frames had a slightly wider gap,

probably from a 50mm.

 

Christoph, while today Frank is reported to be using a cheap Russian Lomo, but in the

1960s and '70s when he was tutoring the poet Allen Ginsberg in photography, he

advised Ginsberg to use a Leica camera with a Zeiss lens, (According to a recent bio

of Ginsberg.) One photo of Ginsberg in his later years shows him holding a screw-

mount Leica with an external viewfinder, and what -might- be a Zeiss 35mm lens.

(Can't say for sure on the latter.)

 

So evidently hardware brands did matter to Frank, at least for part of his

long career.

[User_503771]

I like Frank's photographs because they exhibit a high degree of craftsmanship. Looking through my copy of "The Americans", I'm always struck by his compositions and by the good exposures.

 

His expertise was sufficient to communicate mood, and the compositions really hit. I like his work for the same reasons I like Cartier Bresson's.

[orvillerobertson]

Sometimes when you make a seminal statement that causes a huge sensation I can

understand why so many photographers in that position spend the rest of their lives

unraveling and fleeing that "myth-maker". I happen to still love most of Frank's work but only

from the Americans and his London work. I'm not too familiar with his critically acclaimed video

work. Andres, I know this doesn't answer your original question, but to me questions about

lenses are often not as relelvant as those concerning the photographer's objectives and

results.

[httpwww.flickr.comandr]

I agree with you Orville. My concern about the focal length at this moment, is because It�s been a while that I�m studying Franks�s photos, and the way he compose the images, the way he resolves the content and convert them to a latent image with such precision blows me away. You have to think and feel what you are trying to communicate in a very different way when you changes the focal length.

I read some time ago from Cartier Bresson, when he said that photography didn�t matter at all to him, what he really matter is life. Then , my concept really changes and I understand deeply what he tried to means.

Sorry about my spanish english.

[Uhooru]

Franks stuff is pretty amazing to me. It helps to understand the mileau and the context of the photographic history of where his anti-modernest vision of America grew out of. Seeing that, you can recognize him for the giant he is. Look at his work in contrast to the "Family of Man" project that preceeded it. Also, if you study the sequencing of the Americans and how he came by it, it adds a whole other level of appreciation for what he achieved. He basically changed the landscape of documentary photography and street photography since that time.

As far as lenses, I thought I read he used used wide.. 35 or 28 mostly. Do some more reserarch.

 

I dare say that anyone who simply dismisses Frank's work as uninteresting, doesn't know shinola about photography. That last is just an opinon, and not better than anyone elses it's just mine.:)

[orvillerobertson]

I totally agree with Barry. I can understand reacting negatively to Frank's work since it

pressented the first negative and probing view of post-war America from a foreign perspective

(for what it's worth I am also foreign born). He really skewered the idea of the perfect American

Dream and showed the cynicism at the time. I must admit that there are images in there I

could do without, and I'm still not sure about the legendary sequebcing to which he's often

credited, but the book is still a major work of art and one of my favorite books to inform and

inspire me each time I study it.

[rod g.]

(Trivia) Does it help to know that Frank shot around 58,000 pictures to arrive at the

80 or so that comprise 'The Americans'? And, by the way, Frank re-cropped various

images in various editions over the years. It could be said that 'The Americans' is

as much a masterpiece of editing and sequencing as it is of the actual photographs.

 

(And more trivia) Not until the 1978 third edition by Aperture, 20 years after the book

was first published in 1959, that it caught on as a classic, and then mainly due to a

new generation of students and practitioners. During his working career Robert

Frank was by and large highly regarded as an artist/photographer but his work has

not always been widely accepted.

 

The old axiom of shoot, shoot, shoot if you want to find your voice is still true. Or if

you want to learn more about R.F. go to the Steidl web site and search for the

'Robert Frank Project'. Good luck!

[john sypal]

For what it's worth, the Vanity Fair article shows him with a Konica Big Mini 301 in

hand.

[bobtodrick]

Jim, the fact that you have no portfolio on photo.net (nor anywhere else I can find) leaves you ill-equipped to comment as you have on Frank.

 

Just sounds like a case of "I can't do...so I'll crap on others".

 

M Hoffman has it right. Show people today without a background in the history of photography and they'll likely tell you that there is nothing great about 'Gathering Storm' (Ansel Adams)...

[michael s.]

Rod wrote:<p>

 

<< ... <i>Does it help to know that Frank shot around 58,000 pictures to arrive at the 80 or so </i>...>><p>

 

That helps only a little, Rod. :-)<p>

 

I've checked "The Americans" out of the library many, many times, and while I'm at a point where I recognize a good many of the photos, I certainly haven't tired of seeing them. <p>

 

Devoid of pizazz or any identifiable schtick, with no fancy technique that announces itself in the photos, all you have are the darn pictures.<p>

 

But what pictures they are.

[larry_kincaid2]

Some responses are hard to understand. Of course, lenses matter; you cannot use your camera without one. Which means you have to choose one. If someone wants to achieve that same kind of photographic effect as someone else, such as Robert Frank, then you need to know what angle lens he/she was using to get it. The Brand may not matter to some, but to anyone on the Leica forum it matters if the lens used was made by Leica because then you need to ask the date it was manufactured (generation or era), if it was coated, and so forth. This is the Leica/RF forum.

[fred_obturateur]

Frank burnt on Charlie during the Stones 72 Tour? D'oh!

[httpwww.flickr.comandr]

Thanks guys. I rechecked "The Americans" and the "London" series, and found indeed a lot of images probably shooted with a 35 mm lens. You can tell by the apparent little wide opening angle in the backgrounds, especially when he shoot close to subjects. The 50mm lenses, definitely has another look. Hope it help to someone, as it help me.

[httpwww.flickr.comandr]

And Rod, he didn�t shot 58000 pictures, it was 28000. I know that maybe no one cares about this issue, but still was hell of lot of images.

[josephwalsh]

I've always believed the editing and evaluating of our own work is perhaps the most informative part of our photo education.

Of course, to get it, you have to shoot a lot. (Maybe not 28,000 !, but a lot)

This is why the digital camera is so helpful. "Shoot, look, think" shoot as much as you like...it's free and results are quick.

 

When Gary Winogrand died they reportedly found 9,000 rolls of exposed Tri-X---undeveloped.

[lol1]

Frank used an f2.8 35mm Zeiss Biogon (in LTM mount, since he was using a Leica).

 

"Anybody doesnt like these pitchers dont like potry, see? Anybody dont like potry go home see Television shots of big hatted cowboys being tolerated by kind horses" (Kerouac).

[fred_obturateur]

Roughly 600 films during several trips for "The Americans" = slightly less than 28000. And 1000 proof-prints.

[httpwww.flickr.comandr]

Answering to Joe, I think that my phrase would be: "Look, Shoot, feel " .