How did Alfred Eisenstaedt do this shot ?

raytoei@gmail.com

raytoei@gmail.com

Veteran
Local time
6:32 AM
Joined
Dec 27, 2009
Messages
2,022
Hi,

i am reading up on a relatively new book on Life photographers, came across a photo by Alfred Eisenstaedt, titled La Scalan Milan, I am thinking to myself, how did he do this shot ?

281226.jpg


I know that he did this in 1933, and he used a variety of cameras, eg, [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Miroflex, Rolleiflex, Leica M3.

Looking at this link, we can make out the 35mm negative sprocket, there are 3 frames with different exposure, presumably bracketing.

My specific questions are:
* what speed film was available in 1933 ?
* what could be the exposure settings ?
* Any clue on the camera ? perhaps a Leica II or Leica A ?

thanks


[/FONT]
 
Last edited:
Kodak Panchromatic (normal speed) -- about ISO 4-8 equivalent (18 Scheiner)
Agfa Superpan, Selo Hyper Panchromatic (ultra fast) -- about ISO 25-50 equivalent (30 Scheiner)

Cheers,

R.
 
He was using a Leica at this time. It looks like a 35mm wide angle perspective and the wide aperture still allows some detail of the background, in keeping with a wide angle lens. I understand this is from 1934 and was one of his favourite photos. The wide angle lens would also have allowed a slow shutter speed. I have later books of his with some inventory of his equipment, but I have not seen anything definitive on the equipment for this shot. I don't know if anything wider than 35 was available or used at that time.
 
Roger Hicks said:
Kodak Panchromatic (normal speed) -- about ISO 4-8 equivalent (18 Scheiner)
Agfa Superpan, Selo Hyper Panchromatic (ultra fast) -- about ISO 25-50 equivalent (30 Scheiner)
Click to expand...

Speeds from that time are hard to translate to modern ratings - before the advent of small format, films and plates had their speed defined to deliver the dense, contrasty negatives used for contact copies on POP. For 35mm enlargements, weaker and softer negatives were desirable. Many film speeds doubled or quadrupled over the adjustments from former to latter standards, without a change to the emulsion - most Kodak and Agfa films had gained a stop or two by 1940, and smart photographers followed the better books of the time and underexposed.

In any case, he may have used a tripod or put the camera on the balcony sill, so he did not need hand-holdable speeds - and hence no fast lens or film.
 
Last edited:
sevo said:
Speeds from that time are hard to translate to modern ratings - before the advent of small format, films and plates had their speed defined to deliver the dense, contrasty negatives used for contact copies on POP. For 35mm enlargements, weaker and softer negatives were desirable. Many film speeds doubled or quadrupled over the adjustments from former to latter standards, without a change to the emulsion - most Kodak and Agfa films had gained a stop or two by 1940, and smart photographers followed the better books of the time and underexposed.

In any case, he may have used a tripod or put the camera on the balcony sill, so he did not need hand-holdable speeds - and hence no fast lens or film.
Click to expand...

Very difficult indeed, which is why I gave the range. But contrast and density are not the same thing, and the Scheiner ratings were recommended speeds for 35mm films. Pre-Kodak film speeds (Kodak speeds were the antecedents to ASA) were not normally based on 'dense, contrasty negatives' but on theoretical considerations such as threshold or (produced) average slope. Or of course on the fantasies of the marketing department. Kodak film speeds (late 1930s) were based on the 'first excellent print' and a fractional gradient. The original DIN (mid-30s) was based on gamma infinity and a minimum density.

In 'My Leica and I' (1937) Dr. Kurt Libora says, "only the ultra wide aperture lenses (F/1.5-F/2) with the most sensitive films are used" and on pp 92-93 both shots are 1/20 at f/2 on Agfa Isopan ISS and F respectively.

Stage lighting is generally quite a bit brighter than domestic lighting so this ties in well with the 1934 film speeds I quoted.

You are of course quite right that the camera may have been supported but the absence of subject movement (insofar as one can tell from a small on-screen picture) argues that it was 1/5 second at least. Besides, I was merely listing the range of film speeds available, not speculating on how that particular picture was achieved.

Cheers,

R.
 
He says in an interview that he shot it with a Leica (but he doesn't mentioned the model), on a very sturdy tripod and exposure at least half a second as far he remembers.
Regards,
b.
 
Based on my own experience, timing is also key: taking notice of the subjects closest to you, and anticipating their movements (the woman in the foreground of "Eisie's" photo) can make a big difference. Clearly, h was expert at this.

One of my all-time favorite photos of his.


- Barrett
 
Just following up with everybody else: He stated he shot this using a 35 F3.5 (Elmar?) lens. Said he exposed for one second, and had the luck to have the lady stay still for that long. I believe he said this wad his favorite photo.
 
taskoni said:
He says in an interview that he shot it with a Leica (but he doesn't mentioned the model), on a very sturdy tripod and exposure at least half a second as far he remembers.
Regards,
b.
Click to expand...

In the Interview which ooze (thanks a bunch, very much worth watching, ooze!) linked to he actually stresses it was a very un-sturdy (his expression) tripod.
This interview is priceless... shortly after the Scala picture he talks about photographing a "skating waiter"-training program at St. Moritz... hilarious. Check out his "sophisticated" focus-trap in the skating waiter shot ;-)
Lesson: Never complain about not being able to achieve focus with action shots... Just bring a chair!

Greetings, Ljós
 
amateriat said:
Based on my own experience, timing is also key: taking notice of the subjects closest to you, and anticipating their movements (the woman in the foreground of "Eisie's" photo) can make a big difference. Clearly, h was expert at this.
Click to expand...


It was also during an era where ushers weren't harassing you to put away your camera, not even if you explained that you don't have a flash, because there are lots of m*r*ns out there that will take their d@mned P&S in the middle of a performance and let the flash fire.

I was at Opera Garnier a few months ago, and the ushers and the announcer made it very very very very very very very very very clear that any kind of photography was not allowed during the performance. I took a few shots before the lights went out. So, what happened during the performance? Some idiot started using his P&S with his LCD turned on and fired about 10 shots before I saw someone go her way to make her stop.

I tells ya.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom