Multiple exposure with change of focus

[Mike Crawford]

Now my question is... Suppose he got the camera in 1945... when was this photograph taken, how long had he used the camera by that point (was he still getting used to its depth of field or had he already gotten a good feel for it by then)?

Right, after this I'm out of here! It was shot in 1955 and while people can't seem to accept it was all shot in camera, (being the simple explanation), no one seems to notice it's not a photograph of a boy! :confused:
http://www.moma.org/collection/object.php?object_id=48388
Your Moma doesn't lie!

Google Citizen Kane Deep Focus for more examples of wide angle work or just look at other Bill Brandt work from that time. I have studied Brandt's work quite a bit over the years and the aesthetic of the Nudes of this time is directly linked to the equipment used as well as the contrast of the paper he used. The article on the BB site doesn't say he used a pinhole, but that the aperture in the lens was as small as a pinhole though I expect this is more a figure of speech than an accurate description. And as has been pointed out, the girl would have to be dead if shot with a pinhole!

Don't take my word for it. Here's it from the man himself. Look at the paragraph titled 'Most frequently reproduced of all my photographs.......' Which I think is referring to the photo in question. He admits a possible reference to Kane. Dead Link Removed

Happy Christmas all. Time for a beer!

 

[Bill Burk]

Cheers Mike Crawford and Happy Christmas to you too!

A little late for me to add to my Santa's list for tomorrow, but I'll be on the lookout for an 85 or 86mm lens for 4x5 in the coming year. I may be able to illustrate the point... but more importantly I have for a long time looked forward to experimenting with wide-angle perspectives - it's just something I never got around to doing.

What's the 35mm camera equivalent? If it's 24mm, then I'm all set because I've got that.


OK found a comparison...
http://www.toyoview.com/LensSelection/lensselect.html

Looks like 24mm would be close - so I've got something to start with.

 

[AgX]

Concerning pinhole photography, I am in the belief that it's resurection is something quite recent. And in Brand's period no photographer thought of it.

 

[Bill Burk]

Looked closer at the similar camera Mike Crawford shows... as I suspected the film isn't 4x5, it's bigger - 6 1/2 x 8 1/2 inches... so a 35mm equivalent lens would have to be wider.

Or maybe I'll find one of those Protars and make a box camera to fit...

 

[Kirks518]

Five words - In Camera; depth of field

 

[Kirks518]

I've recently discovered Brandt, and have become a huge fan of his works. I have been thinking about his methods for some time, although I haven't tried any until today (because of this thread, which explains the model used). I literally just took this picture to show that the image being discussed (as well as many others of his) is all about wide angle lenses and huge depth of field that is inherent in UWA lenses.

This was shot handheld on my Canon 50D, with a Rokinon 8mm fisheye. ISO 100, f/22, 1/6th second. Focus was set at roughly 1.2 feet. The swing in the background is about 26 feet away, and the elephant (which would have been my daughter, but she's at a friend's house) was about 6" away from the front of the lens.

The first is an uncropped RAW to jpeg conversion, and the second is cropped to eliminate the 'fisheye effect' that can be seen at the bottom. Notice how the roofline has minimal fisheye effect.

Enjoy....

 

[Mike Crawford]

Enjoy....

Nice one!

 

[Kirks518]

Just call me Mr Brandtwannabe.