richard avedon's portrait of dylan

[fate_faith_change_chains]

<p>It could do without the out of focus white ( light ) dot.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>

 

 

<p><em>"If you're not interested in seeing what the photographer wanted, you could just look at everything through a kaleidoscope."</em></p>

 

 

 

Sorry, but not everyone cares to think in a similar way, or the way you might. But that also doesn't mean the kaleidoscope is the alternative.

 

</p>

[cyanatic]

<p>Anyone who has ever used a real kaleidoscope would recognize that this is best viewed with a large format kaleidoscope. Unless, of course, you consider this to be a casual snap of a guy in the street, in which case any garden variety dimestore kaleidscope will suffice. </p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Many of the copies-of-copies of that Dylan photo appear to have been run through the unsharp mask/contrast mask or clarifying filter. When I run a good copy of that same photo through the clarifying filter in PSP 7 three or four times it exaggerates the differences between bright and dark zones until it resembles hamfisted dodging and burning from a rookie.</p>

<p>Most of the online versions of classic photos from Mortensen, Adams, Weston and others suffer from the same blunt force treatment. There's little resemblance between the JPEGs that appear on many blogs or fauxteauxboquet and the original prints I've seen in museums.</p>

<p>As for being "a snap of a guy on a street," I'd agree only if not for the fact that Avedon was able to consistently apply this seemingly offhand effect in many photos. The difference between a duffer like me and Avedon is that my feckless snaps occasionally produce a worthwhile photo by mere chance, while his body of work demonstrates intent and ability to consistently further his personal vision. It's the difference between a photo that captures a moment (with the implications of luck and/or timing) and one that communicates a moment (which implies intent and the ability to clarify that intent). He seemed to have a knack for communicating through photos something of the rapport he had with the subjects of those photos.</p>

[James G. Dainis]

One does not take snapshots with an 8x10 Deardorff. First one has to set up the tripod and then mount the camera. Then one has to open the shutter on "T" and compose the shot on the ground glass adjusting extensions, tilts and shifts. Then one has to meter the scene and set the lens aperture and shutter. I will assume the shutter release is already in place. Then one has to insert the film holder, remove the dark slide and release the shutter. Then one has to reinsert the dark slide and remove the film holder. Not exactly 6 fps. A lot of thought has to go into it.

 

A contact print is then made by laying the 8x10 inch negative on photo paper and exposing to light. All the subtle tonal qualities are there, not having been stretched out by enlarging a 24 x 36mm negative to 8x10 inches - 64 times in area. One could look at the print with an 8X loupe and see no more grain than one would see with an 8x10 enlargement made from 35mm. One would also see the fine cloth texture of his coat, brilliantly sharp. There is just no comparison between an 8x10 contact print and an 8x10 enlargement.

[luis_g]

<p>I am looking at a reproduction of the Dylan portrait in my copy of _An Autobiography Richard Avedon_ as I type this. This is a much clearer version than what has been shown in this thread so far. There does apear to be a slight halo, but it could be the rain/dew on the ground, except for a little bit showing around the (viewer's) left side of Dylan's jaw and hair.</p><p>That OOF traffic light on the right side looks pretty (9-bladed iris) round to me. Looks like it was done with a LF with the lens wide open. BTW, Avedon used unconventional (at the time, far more so later) methods of exposure and development, and we may be seeing some of them in this image.</p><p>It looks like it was done with the Deardorff, though one of his assistants at the time, who would later become studio mgr, has written that Avedon used the Rolleis and Mamiyaflex TLRs (Who had one first? Arbus or Avedon?) for location celeb portraits (and never mentioned 4x5 or press formats being used). Avedon also owned and used 35mm gear, though rarely for fashion work or Bazaar.</p><p> </p>

[luis_g]

<p><strong>James typed - "One </strong> does not take snapshots with an 8x10 Deardorff. First one has to set up the tripod and then mount the camera. Then one has to open the shutter on "T" and compose the shot on the ground glass adjusting extensions, tilts and shifts. Then one has to meter the scene and set the lens aperture and shutter. I will assume the shutter release is already in place. Then one has to insert the film holder, remove the dark slide and release the shutter. Then one has to reinsert the dark slide and remove the film holder. Not exactly 6 fps. A lot of thought has to go into it."</p>

<p> With a well-trained assistant, one can work a lot faster than many might think, at least after the framing, movements & focus are set.</p>

[James G. Dainis]

I believe it has been determined that a large format, specifically 8x10 was used. The guides in film holders whether 4x5 or 8x10 typically cover 1/8 inch of the film. Here is an 8x10 inch negative;<P>

 

<center><img src="http://jdainis.com/neg_pic1.jpg"></center><P>.<P>.<P>

 

The proportion of the 1/8 inch guides to the film appear to be the same as in the Dylan photo. If it had been 4x5 film, the guides would appear twice as wide in proportion. When shown as a positive they appear black as in the Dylan photo.<P>

 

<center><img src="http://jdainis.com/neg_pic2.jpg"><P></center>

 

An assistant is good to help carry the gear around (never buy a tripod that is too heavy for your wife to carry) but the actual mechanics associated with large format use is done by the photographer.

[jtk]

<p>Luis's point about Deardorff speed is spot-on. </p>

<p>IMO the main inherently slow thing about a non-rickety 8X10 camera vs any smaller tripod-mounted camera may be the struggle with the sail-like response to wind. </p>

<p>Ground glass composition is a delight, doesn't slow things vs any other careful photographic process, and camera movements become fairly intuitive ...The darkslide routine is simply procedural habit. </p>

<p>Some photographers shoot DSLR by viewing on laptops, perhaps unaware that they're simulating a huge view camera. </p>

 

[jtk]

<p>Fine post, above by James Dainis!</p>

[luis_g]

<p><strong>James typed - "</strong> An assistant is good to help carry the gear around (never buy a tripod that is too heavy for your wife to carry) but the actual mechanics associated with large format use is done by the photographer."</p>

<p> That may be so for many LF photographers, but Avedon (among many others) did not work that way. He used assistants to do the film-change/shutter cocking dynamics while he walked around with the shutter release.</p>

<p> That was a good illustrative post by James. The film guides were cropped out in the reproduction of the Dylan portrait (pl 137) in Avedon's _An Autobiography_, but as I remarked before, it really looks like LF, and the guide marks confirm it.</p>

<p>I think the halo might have been the result of dodging and/or... the Avedon studio practice of keeping a cup of hot hydroquinone in the darkroom and applying it to clear up the highlights.</p>

<p> Thanks for the kudos, <strong>JK.</strong></p>

[lovcom_photo]

<p>Can we really pass judgement on a bad scan of a print? I'd prefer to wait and see the an actual print...I suspect it would be stunning....this cheap jpg we see here can convey that portrait's greatness, but the limitations of our narrow DR monitors, and the narrow DR of the jpg and the narrow DR of the scanner used takes something magical away from some prints.</p>

<p>Regardless, I still like that port of Dylan.</p>