How can i do this? [Lewis Hine]

C

CK Dexter Haven

Well-known
Local time
5:01 PM
Joined
Feb 9, 2005
Messages
1,443
33cuj41.jpg


http://www.shorpy.com/files/images/00887u.jpg

"The Girl," 1911, by Lewis Hine.

I'm assuming this is from a 4x5 negative. But, what is the smallest camera i could use for the same effect? What lens would offer this perspective, degree of bokeh, and sharpness at that plane?

I was hoping to be able to use a converted Polaroid, but is there some reason i'd have to use a much larger/bulkier Graflex or some such?

Should i even consider a Lensbaby on 35mm with fine-grained film?

I bought a print of this from Shorpy.com a couple of years back. Framed, on my desk, it's haunting....
 
Last edited:
You can try using a 135mm to 200mm lens at a large aperture on a 35mm SLR with PAN F film.
 
xayraa33 said:
You can try using a 135mm to 200mm lens at a large aperture on a 35mm SLR with PAN F film.
Click to expand...

This, to me, looks more like a 35/50mm perspective (considering 35mm film). I wouldn't want a 'telephoto' compression effect. I'm certain i could get this kind of bokeh with a 135/f2 L on a Canon or somesuch, but i don't want it 'flattened' that way.
 
The Nikon 105/2 DC could get you close. Plenty crisp like this on say PanF.

That is a 4x5 or 6x8 neg, but the DC can throw stuff out of focus like that. And there seems like plenty of compression there.
 
I assume it is "the girl working in a cannery", right? That looks as if shot with a slightly long focal length, against a distant background and with barely enough DOF for the subject itself. Pretty much the regular output of slightly long "portrait" focal lengths (i.e. the 75-135mm range on 24x36mm). Many portrait shots with the Nikkor 105mm have a similar subject/background relation and texture. That is, that does not need bigger formats, if you get enough space between subject and background, and pick a sharp longish lens with quiet OOF areas.
 
It has the classic Graflex SLR look, could have been 4x5 or 5x7. The 5x7 was common in that era. Slightly long lens, 165mm-190mm, but most lenses were not super fast, 4.5 or 3.5 Tessar types. You could do that. I bet something fairly fast in medium format will work, or be close. It's not always so easy to get something smaller to look like large format.
 
IMO you could try a tilt-shift lens (or lens with tilt-shift adapter) to get close to this effect and look, common and easier to achieve with a large format cameras.

Regards,

Boris
 
I think this was shot on orthochromatic film? You can still get Rollei Ortho 25. A short telephoto on 645 or 6x6 will get the look close enough, I think. The rest is up to light and setting.
 
taskoni said:
IMO you could try a tilt-shift lens (or lens with tilt-shift adapter) to get close to this effect and look, common and easier to achieve with a large format cameras.
Click to expand...

That image looks as if it were entirely free from shifts and tilts. The relative lack of DOF and the high detail needs a faster and sharper lens on 35mm than on large format (where any average 240mm Tessar at f/11 on 4x5" would do for that effect), but it is well within the limits of pretty average small format SLRs and their lenses (or a Leica - other than that the latter does not really shine when it comes to long lenses)...
 
sevo said:
That image looks as if it were entirely free from shifts and tilts. The relative lack of DOF and the high detail needs a faster and sharper lens on 35mm than on large format (where any average 240mm Tessar at f/11 on 4x5" would do for that effect), but it is well within the limits of pretty average small format SLRs and their lenses (or a Leica - other than that the latter does not really shine when it comes to long lenses)...
Click to expand...

You might be right as everything you said here sounds very reasonable to me now :)

Regards,

Boris
 
I'm a huge fan of Hine's work and read quite a lot about him. He shot almost exclusively with 5x7. You can get close with 4x5 but the bigger the neg and shooting wide open on you lens will give this look. The lenses at that time were uncoated and the rapid rectilinear, convertible Protar, Gundlach convertibles and the classic Tessar were the most common. There's really no way to say what lens but my guess would be a Tessar. He most likely was shooting a FL around 210mm / 8 inches. I seem to remember he did use a Graflex 5x7 slr and a view camera like a Korona. Film was slow so he probably shot wide open at f4.5.

Nine was a small man and not terribly tall. My guess from the point of view he used a view camera. With a Graflex you had to look down into the hood of the camera causing the pov to be lower. A view camera would be more at his eve level.
 
telenous said:
How about a Kodak Aero Ektar 178/2.5 on a 45 camera? This is obviously a later lens than what Hines must have used but some photos I've seen on the net do display the same heavy separation with the background as the photo of the girl.

(see for example http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=aero+ektar&s=int#page=0)


.
Click to expand...

Thanks. Yeah, i've seen stuff from the Aero Ektar. I was hoping i could get something smaller, though. I guess i should look to see if anyone's adapting that lens to a smaller body, but i'm sure it won't fit a Polaroid conversion.

These examples on flickr are not 'the same,' but are similar enough that i'd be pleased with results like this:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/byfer39/4800492312/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/kenny_ip/7003646433/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ulvo/4678601554/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/laurenrosenbaum/5706584613/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/micmojo/8284997774/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/kenny_ip/7113580151/
 
35mm won't give this effect. You'll never achieve the smoothness of tone and gradation that only LF can give.

Ortho film was all there was so a 4x5 or 5x7 with an uncoated Tessar 165mm for 4x5 or 210mm for 5x7 and ortho film like Ilfords processed in a classic pyro developer will get you really close.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom