Richard Avedon and tilting

[leo]

Hi,

 

I'd like to apologize in advance if this question is too naive. Anyway, I have recently

started doing lf (and have been using a canon 24tse lens for a while) and have

become quite interested in tilting the film plane. Looking at Richard Avedon's early

work (i.e., portraits of Lew Alcindor, Bob Dylan...etc) I am amazed by how his shots

are brought to life through this procedure. So I was wondering, did Avedon originate

this particular look (like Man-Ray with his rayograms, and perhaps Mark Tucker with

his images), or have there been others before him that have worked in a similar style?

Thanks.

[geoffrey_james]

Leonid,

 

Have you seen Thomas Struth's portrait of Gerhard Richter, which really is a

radical example of what you are talking about ?

[ellis_vener_photography]

Irecentluy saw (i n The New Yorker magazine) a self portrait of Cecil Beaton that was

acrude example of this. In the self-portrait, Beaton i sitting down; his head is in focus

but his body is increasingly out of focus as you eye tracvels from head to hips and

legs while the the wall behind his body is increasingly in focus at least to his hips. It

is hard to tell if the effect results from the front and rear standards being out of

parallel with each other or if Beaton is netrely using a large aperture setting o nthe

lens. I am pretty sure Avedon's portraits of Alcindor and Dylan (which date to the

early 1960s are done with a medium format Rolleiflex camera ) so use of a large

aperture (f/2.8? f/4?) is likely what you are seeing in those photographs and not the

anti-Schiempflug approach.

 

You might also want to look at Edward Steichen's early twentieth century portait of JP

Morgan.

[colin carron]

The victorian portrait photographer Julia Margaret Cameron used this technique in some of her portraits. She worked in the mid 19th century with wet plate technology.

[michael_briggs2]

There is a difference between a shallow depth-of-field from using a large aperture and a plane of best focus that is not perpendicular to the optical axis caused by tilting the front or rear of a view camera. The plane of best-focus can also run in an unexpected way if the camera is pointed at the subject in an unexpected way, so an unusual plane of best-focus isn't sufficient evidence that the photographer used front or back tilts.

 

A shallow depth-of-field is common in portraiture; an altered plane of focus is not. The photos of Julia Margaret Cameron that I remember tend to have shallow depths-of-field, but I don't remember any evidence of lens or back tilts. Shallow depth-of-field is especially common in 19th Century portraiture because of the slowness of the photosensitive materials then available.

 

A shallow depth-of-field can be used to highlight the subject's face, or even portions of their face, in comparison to the blurry rest of the photograph. A few photographers have used lens tilts to gain more control over this effect.

[stevenbarall]

Every question is valuble and interesting. Arnold Newman was creativly using view camera movements by the early 1940's and before him there was Steiglitz and others. And don't forget classic Hollywood portraits from the past 90 years. There is a rich tradition of creativity in photography. It goes to show you that you can take a technique that has been around for a while an make it all your own. Always be curious and never worry about people thinking that you are stealing someone elses style or techniques.

[ole_tjugen]

As far as I know, most of Julia Margaret Cameron's "special effects" were unintentional. She used "Petzval"-type lenses, which are very soft in the edges with only a small central sharp area. She was also notoriously sloppy when coating the plates, so the emulsion is frequently uneven and full of dust.

 

With all those technical "faults", it took a very good photographer to produce memorable images - which she certainly did.