Iconic james dean photo by Dennis Stock. Which lens he used?

It does look very wide, enough so to include both the tall building in the background and quite a lot of sidewalk in the foreground. If you told me it was a 24mm or even a 21mm, i'd believe it. So I certainly think it was no less wide than a 28.
 
In the movie with Robert Pattinson, he's using a Leica M3 with a collapsible Summicron. Sounds about right to me.
 
My curiosity was born Just from the film and the search for news on the cameras used. There are those who say that in those days he used a contax and not a leica, but there is no evidence. What interested me was about the study of FOV. That is, can it be that a 50mm manages to have this depth of field, which is usually possible with wider lenses such as a 28mm?
 
While certainly what is captured from foreground to background covers a huge FOV but there is no distortion to speak of especially in the vertical fence to the right. OK if the camera has been perfectly vertical and not tilted at all that might be possible but typically a 24 or 21 will show visible distortion. So I won't be surprised if the image has been shot with a 35 or even 50 in case we ever find out reliable info on this shot.
Anyway it has become an iconic image no matter what lens has been used.
 
Looking again, I agree it could be the 50mm stopped down to f8, as DOF is pretty good for a 50. Taken at a nice low angle it appears wider than normal. Assuming though it wasn't cropped, and that it was taken vertically, the frame is not wide at all close in nor is the No Parking sign crisp to read as would be with the wider lenses.

David
 
Hard to imagine a 50 can cover that much depth of field on a rainy day with a at least 1/60 shutter speed, unless Dean was pretending to walk. How fast were black and white films in the 1950s?
 
gaheris said:
Hard to imagine a 50 can cover that much depth of field on a rainy day with a at least 1/60 shutter speed, unless Dean was pretending to walk. How fast were black and white films in the 1950s?
Click to expand...

TriX was called 200. BTW i agree the photograph was more likely taken with a 50 or maybe a 35mm. I also notice the proportion of the shadow is very similar in size to James D.... not exaggerated as it would be with a super-wide.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

J
  • Article Article
The Golden Age of American Photo Magazines: 1949-1989
Replies
16
Views
5K
Pál_K
Pál_K
jan normandale
Dennis Stock of Magnum
Replies
9
Views
3K
kbg32
kbg32
Back
Top Bottom