How did they do this shot ?

[raytoei@gmail.com]

There is a deep DOF, people movement without any being blurry. No flash. Lighting is good but not uniform. The film has markings "Kodak Safety Film 5063" A bit washed out with high contrast, perhaps pushed but grain isn't obvious.

I am genuinely curious. So, how exactly did the photographer do this shot in terms of Exposure and Focus ?

 

[ChrisN]

Lit the scene very, very brightly, took the photo with a small aperture, and printed it down to give the appearance shown?

 

[greyelm]

They look posed to me. I've not done any wet processing for 40 years so I'm only guessing that a bit of dodging amd burning took place.

 

[Keith]

There's nothing in that photo that indicates real movement IMO ... it actually looks very static!

All the subjects have both feet firmly planted ...a heel off the floor at most!

 

[Sparrow]

Lit the scene very, very brightly, took the photo with a small aperture, and printed it down to give the appearance shown?

looks that way to me, a 1970s TV studio would need to be very bright

PS I can see 2 or 3 Kw of lighting at the top of the frame

 

[Sparrow]

There's nothing in that photo that indicates real movement IMO ... it actually looks very static!

All the subjects have both feet firmly planted ...a heel off the floor at most!

What about the girl in the hippy-hat?

 

[sevo]

That is Tri-X. In classic TV studio lighting you needed ND filters to be able to use it at all. That picture seems to have been shot in the seventies - at that time, TV studio lighting mostly still was brighter than summer noon sunshine (that's why early TV personalities usually sported a bizarre tan), so that may have been shot at above f/16@1/500 without running out of light. Obviously with a 28mm or even wider lens.

 

[raytoei@gmail.com]

hang on...

1. the link is http://community.livejournal.com/everyday_i_show/46292.html

2. What if the photographer used ultra-wides, say, 28mm/f4, focusing at 6m gives a clear dof from 3.3m all the way to 69m ?

3. This is 1970s, I wonder how fast were fast films ? 400 iso ? if 400iso gives around 1/60 and f/4 under the bright light, then going to 1/120s to reduce movement and f/4 while pushing to 800 iso makes the above shot possible, after cropping ?

raytoei

 

[raytoei@gmail.com]

sevo, i would agree with you about the bright lights but there are shadows on the ground so maybe the light isn't uniform, no ?

 

[malcD]

the lamp in the back ground is a 5kw fesnel that should give you an idea of how much light there is --- i useto do it for a living --- i useto push triX to 2000

 

[Pickett Wilson]

I shot stuff with Tri-X in local TV studios back in the 1970's. As someone pointed out, you had to use ND filters to shoot with Tri-X at all. Getting narrow DOF was at best difficult. Stopping action was easy. I would have killed for that much light when shooting basketball in a high school gym! 😉

 

[Pickett Wilson]

malcD, I used a lot of Acufine back in those days. Loved the stuff for Tri-X at 1600.

 

[Keith]

What about the girl in the hippy-hat?

She has a toe on the floor ... and her left foot is araldited down! 😀

 

[Moriturii]

hang on...

1. the link is http://community.livejournal.com/everyday_i_show/46292.html

I am amazed at these negatives, I just started photography and wish to one day be able to "weigh light" (as HCB said) and develop negatives that look like that.

 

[Sparrow]

She has a toe on the floor ... and her left foot is araldited down! 😀

well I think she's be rolling down the hillside in her hippie hat any second 😀

 

[Sparrow]

actually ... it could well be an x100 that inadvertently fallen into a black hole and warped back to 1972 and been in use ever since ... only to disappear in a small puff of paradox ...

 

[codester80]

This is obviously photoshopped. There is no way this could be made without super ISO with a razor-sharp G lens with image stabilization on a D3. Who would believe that someone with a Nikon F with a "soft" manual focus 28mm lens and grainy film could produce a sharp image with amazing depth of field in mixed lighting? 🙄

 

[charjohncarter]

Is that Dick Clark in the back on stage?

 

[charjohncarter]

I am amazed at these negatives, I just started photography and wish to one day be able to "weigh light" (as HCB said) and develop negatives that look like that.

Yes no matter how it was done, they are very good.

 

[dfoo]

Great pictures. Lots of those are 4x5.