Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
<p>Hello. I was looking at some Steve McCurry images. I really like these style of deadpan portraits and I want to shoot a series of them. But, what equipment and combination lens do you think the linked imaged was taken with?<br /><br />https://stevemccurry.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/pakistan-10003.jpg?w=600&h=880<br /><br />Large format/Medium format?<br />Which lens could make this image? A standard or longer lens?<br /><br />I really like the shallow depth of field. I know the aperture must be pretty wide!<br /><br />Thanks for helping =]</p><p><i>Mod: Photo removed. Per photo.net Terms of Use, do not upload photos you did not take. Feel free to add a link to a legal source of the photo.</i></p>
Posted

<p>Hasselblad's website implies the photo, <a href="http://www.hasselbladusa.com/user-showcase/steve-mccurry.aspx">"Girl With Green Shawl, Peshawar, Pakistan, 2002"</a>, was taken with Hasselblad equipment. That would be a departure from his usual pre-digital era equipment - Nikon 35mm gear and fast primes to cope with the slow color slide films available at that time. McCurry has said he now also uses Hasselblad digital equipment in addition to his Nikon dSLRs, but I haven't found any specific info to corroborate which Hasselblad film gear he might have used in 2002.</p>

<p>The photo looks as if it could have been taken with any fast moderate length telephoto for a given format, film or digital, miniature format or medium format. Without specific corroboration we'd just be guessing. Theories about the equipment he used for the earlier Afghan girl photo were all over the place, including some anachronisms (claims for cameras that didn't exist at that time), and lenses ranging from an 85/1.4 to the 105/2.5. McCurry isn't obsessed with equipment and usually dodges gear-specific questions in interviews and workshops, other than general references to Nikon bodies and fast Nikkor primes, and, more recently, some mentions of Hasselblad digital gear.</p>

Posted
<p>I agree that the equipment is not the focal point here but rather the subject. The shot can be taken with any dslr with a fast lens. The length looks at about 85mm but a longer lens can work. Remember it is not the equipment but the combination of photographer and subject working together.</p>
Posted

Thanks, Henry, I've seen the 105/2.5

corroborated, but claims for the camera have been

pretty diverse. I suppose McCurry himself finally

cleared up the mystery after endless online

speculation.

 

I once saw an eBay auction (not by McCurry

himself) for an N90 claimed to have been 'the'

camera used by McCurry for the Afghan Girl photo.

Impossible since the N90 wasn't made until

several years after the first photo of Sharbat

Gula.

Posted
<p>Know idea what McCurry actually used but the 85 or 105 -- I have both -- would have been the standard Nikon portrait-length lens at the time of the Afghan girl picture. That was before most of the TTL/matrix, etc. fancy metering we have today so it wouldn't really have made much difference which Nikon body he had it on.</p>
  • 2 weeks later...
Posted
<p>Actually, moving through Afghanistan and the region, it is a wise thing to carry an inexpensive camera. This just proves again that gear means nothing. I am actually sick of seeing this portrait everywhere, but this is all to the credit of McCurry to have shot such a powerful image.</p>
  • 3 weeks later...
Posted

<blockquote>

<p>"If you knew what brushes Rembrandt Van Rijn used would it help you to paint like him ?"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Couldn't hurt for any student to have a working knowledge of equipment and materials. There are many types of brushes used by oil painters, ranging from stiff hog bristle suitable for thick paints and impasto techniques, to sable for fine glazes and more subtle techniques.</p>

<p> </p>

Posted
<p>Having a Stradivarius makes you a Stradivarius owner, it doesn't make you a violinist, if anybody could do what Mccurry does by owning the same equipment he uses his work wouldn't be so remarkable.</p>
Posted

Seems like the sun or a flash was used. Notice the white spots in the center of the eyes. Based on the darker

face it looks like some adjustments were done to the eyes. Photoshopped or a really good retoucher from the film

days. It's hard to say for sure.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...