Robert Frank's Nikkor

[thompsonks]

According to l'Oeil, A Swiss museum has acquired a Leica used by Robert Frank to photograph The Americans – a model III, aka F, equipped with a 50mm 1.4 Nikkor.

http://www.loeildelaphotographie.com/en/2013/11/20/sotheby-s-leica

I'd often wondered what lens he'd relied on, and from a good look at his prints I'd figured it was a 1.5 Sonnar or Summarit. I'm pleased to see it was a LTM Nikkor!

The link has a picture of the camera and lens, but the info may not be accurate in its details – it says 1932 model III, but they weren't made 'til '33. I guess he used a case, because it shows so little wear . I thought it would look more like Winogrand's M4!

(Perhaps everyone else knew about this lens, but it's news to me!)

 

[sjones]

I had read that he used the Nikkor, and I knew he used one or two Leica iii's, but I had assumed that he was using the then new iiif, or at least a iiic. Surprised that at least one of his cameras was an early iii; a roughly 20-year-old camera at the time he used it for "The Americans."

 

[Ansel]

He had lots of cameras, even a T3 later on. One of his cameras is known to have had a misaligned lens... didnt stop him creating those lovely images.

Robert Frank, thank god, is the opposite to Ansel Adams in terms of worry about gear and technique.

 

[xayraa33]

Robert Frank appears to also have used an 85mm Nikkor lens on a second Leica or Leica copy body while photographing for his "The Americans" book.

http://erickimphotography.com/blog/...s-can-learn-from-robert-franks-the-americans/

 

[jsrockit]

Interesting...

 

[mynikonf2]

... Surprised that at least one of his cameras was an early iii; a roughly 20-year-old camera at the time he used it for "The Americans."

Yes, those were the days when a camera was not considered to be obsolete in 6 months. This extended lifetime allowed the photographer to become familiar & comfortable with his camera, where it's use was second nature to him/her. :bang:😡 🙄🙂

 

[jsrockit]

Yes, those were the days when a camera was not considered to be obsolete in 6 months.

What were they going to add back then without a huge innovation? and also, people didn't have as much throw away money back then or the huge credit lines they have now. Still leica, even in the 30s, had times where it introduced new models within a year or two of each other.

 

[semi-ambivalent]

OT Film Rant

OT Film Rant

It is so ironic that the link places Frank's Leica next to the one-off by Ives. With all the hand wringing that goes on about the future of film you'd think that our cameras wouldn't even work unless they were loaded with the latest high-tech tabular grain film. But look what images were produced with old mechanics, old formulas, old emulsions.

Time for the damn hand wringing to stop.

Now back to our regularly scheduled programming...

 

[Elmar Lang]

"...those were the days when a camera was not considered to be obsolete in 6 months...".

Amen, amen!

This is exactly what I'm thinking while loading a film into my late grandfather's Contax-II, bought back in 1937 and still perfectly working...

Best wishes,

Enzo (E.L.)

 

[daveleo]

"Obselescence" - it's all in your mind.

(did I spell that correctly?)

 

[L Collins]

If you look at the pictures he took in London and Wales in the early 50s, you'll see the results of the misaligned Nikkor he used on his IIIf. The imafe intrudes onto the sprocket holes of the Ilford film he was using.

what i love about Frank is he didn't care; he printed the prints full frame with the sprocket holes visible.

 

[Highway 61]

If you look at the pictures he took in London and Wales in the early 50s, you'll see the results of the misaligned Nikkor he used on his IIIf. The image intrudes onto the sprocket holes of the Ilford film he was using.

What i love about Frank is he didn't care; he printed the prints full frame with the sprocket holes visible.

Image intruding into the sprocket holes of the films are the result of more modern films, sold in smaller cartridges, being used in less modern cameras.

Some 2mm plumbing spacers glued around the camera bottom plate cartridges seats solve this pretty well known problem.

I wonder where you got that visible sprocket holes have to do with a misaligned lens.

Optical alignment problems would cause vignetting, certainly not this. And LTM Nikkors never were "misaligned".

 

[enasniearth]

Franks camera

Franks camera

Actually he started photographing with a detrola camera before he was introduced to Leica ,
There are some old photos of a parade taken with the detrola .


Frank was brilliant in many ways ,
It is almost a snapshot reality / quality that speaks from the heart and mind
At the same time .

 

[L Collins]

Image intruding into the sprocket holes of the films are the result of more modern films, sold in smaller cartridges, being used in less modern cameras.

Some 2mm plumbing spacers glued around the camera bottom plate cartridges seats solve this pretty well known problem.

I wonder where you got that visible sprocket holes have to do with a misaligned lens.

Optical alignment problems would cause vignetting, certainly not this. And LTM Nikkors never were "misaligned".

I'm looking at a Contact sheet of Frank's Valencia pictures. The film used is Kodak Super XX. The camera was a leica IIIF with Nikkor. the image intrudes into the sprocket holes. So, while you may be correct that "more modern films in smaller cartridges" may be a reason for this, the facts in this instance certainly don't fit as SuperXX is not a "more modern film".

while i can't give you a cite, because I'm not willing to waste the time wading through every book i have on or about Frank, I remember very clearly an interview with him where he talked of his misaligned lens and how it exposed the sprocket holes of his negatives.

so that would be where I got that visible sprocket holes have to do with misaligned lenses. I got it from Robert Frank. He could be wrong. I assume, knowing a lot about Frank, that he probably really didn't give a sh!t why, just as he didn't give a Sh!t about much of anything photographically except the photo itself.

 

[Canyongazer]

"...allowed the photographer to become familiar..."
Mike, Ralph Gibson has said he practiced setting SS, aperture and estimated focus fast and without looking, almost everyday.
That's after having used Leica Ms for over 20 years.

 

[Pablito]

Image extending onto the sprocket holes was very common with old screw mount Leicas. Happened with Leica lenses, any lenses (very common).

 

[Highway 61]

While i can't give you a cite, because I'm not willing to waste the time wading through every book i have on or about Frank, I remember very clearly an interview with him where he talked of his misaligned lens and how it exposed the sprocket holes of his negatives.

So that would be where I got that visible sprocket holes have to do with misaligned lenses. I got it from Robert Frank. He could be wrong. I assume, knowing a lot about Frank, that he probably really didn't give a sh!t why, just as he didn't give a Sh!t about much of anything photographically except the photo itself.

The image intruding into the sprocket holes is a consequence of a vertical misalignment of the negative strip in front of the 24x36 shutter gate. The film gets placed too low. Hence the sprocket holes visible on the upper side of the negative frames, thus on the lower side of the positive horizontal photographs. By no means can it be a consequence of an optical problem with the lens. If the lens was misaligned it would project its image circle either too low, too high, too far left or too far right, and the only possible result would be some dramatic light fall-off somewhere on the photograph. Decenter to its maximum extent a PC-lens and you get the idea of what's happening then.

If the sprocket holes are visible on the photos its because the sprocket holes are within the 24x36 shutter gate and not outside of it as they ought to be.

Basically this happens with every prewar/wartime/very early 1950's 24x36 camera being used after the film makers changed their 135 cartridges axle size for ~2mm shorter ones.

The easy DIY remedy is to glue 2mm thick plumbing spacers on the film cartridge and take-up spool seats on the inside of the camera bottom plate.

Frank was of course wrong with is "misaligned lens" story. Yet he was probably liking it because he might think that this would make talk.

 

[Jan Van Laethem]

"...those were the days when a camera was not considered to be obsolete in 6 months...".

Amen, amen!

This is exactly what I'm thinking while loading a film into my late grandfather's Contax-II, bought back in 1937 and still perfectly working...

Best wishes,

Enzo (E.L.)

Not only were cameras not considered obsolete in 6 months, they were also finished products when they were available at the dealer.

My father had only one camera and lens, a Futura S with 50mm. It's all he needed. He gave it to me when he was no longer interested. I run a film through it every now and then and still enjoy the experience.

 

[MISH]

lenses produce a round image, the only reason you are getting that nice little rectangle of exposed area on your film is the camera is constructed with a internal mask that keeps the edges of the film from being exposed to light. Thus no matter what is wrong with your lens or even with no lens on the body the only way a unaltered Leica is going to get exposure in the sprocket hole area is if the film has slipped and is not being covered by the mask like Leica intended. Definitely a camera and film problem that has nothing to do with a lens.

(I am so slow at typing that Highway 61 has already answered this)

 

[sjones]

Yeah, I should clarify, since my points were misleadingly compressed.

I was surprised that he used a iii, simply because I had read that he primarily used a iiif for the book, irrespective of what he used before and after.

I actually pointed out the 20-year age to in fact implicitly underscore how things have changed with camera consumption.

To note, I recently picked up a 1962 Leica M2, and for the past few years, my primary camera has been a iiif with a 1934 Summar. If a law was implemented requiring that I only use the M2 and iiif for the remaining years of my life (CLAs and such included), I would be more than happy with the arrangement.

I also own a Nikon FM2, which I believe was in production with few modifications for about two decades.