"I am still struggling with how this guy actually takes photos. Presumably the above process takes at least 10-20 seconds"
Answer: it does
http://www.largeformatphotography.in...o-operate.html
"I am still struggling with how this guy actually takes photos. Presumably the above process takes at least 10-20 seconds"
Answer: it does
http://www.largeformatphotography.in...o-operate.html
circa 1840 - current; Petzval Lens which resurged as a popular portrait lens for full frame & Medium format recently
Unless I'm mixing up the cameras? Maybe he uses the view camera when he has everything in focus and a different type for these shallow DOF shots.
Remarkable!
I assure you, he does just that. Fortunately, at a certain level of photography, your subjects start to give you a little more time to really get it right. Check out his portrait of Elizabeth Taylor in that 50 Portraits book. She moved during the exposure, but it's still the one he picked. Which is interesting for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that random events can actually produce improved results.
Nope. By definition, only view cameras and tilt-shift lenses have movements, and the tech specs at the back of the book specify exactly which film and camera he used for each shot. With the exception of two (of the Pope, I believe), he used nothing but film cameras. The cover photo is one of those rare ones where he used a conventional camera with no movements. I believe it was 35mm, actually.
That lens is famous for the quality of its bokeh. A shallow depth of field is a separate phenomenon. For instance, you could stop down the Petzval and effectively eliminate any bokeh, and it lacks the movements one would need to really control focal plane placement. That said, it's definitely an interesting lens.Originally Posted by dragon76
Last edited by RustBeltRaw; 20th March 2014 at 01:55 PM.