Very cool, I'm going to check my local newsstand to see if the issue has made it this far North yet. Here's an on-line teaser with some BTS and a few sample images:
http://www.vanityfair.com/vf-hollywo...ortfolio-shoot
Very cool, I'm going to check my local newsstand to see if the issue has made it this far North yet. Here's an on-line teaser with some BTS and a few sample images:
http://www.vanityfair.com/vf-hollywo...ortfolio-shoot
He did the same thing for President Obama a little while ago. Personally I think he needs a longer lens.
I want his jumpsuit/warmups. Sweet.
Longer lens, more bellows for 20 x 24 which I've found to be problematic in shooting my 20 x 24 work. I use as short of lens as will cover, most often 550 mm, to compensate when I want one to one portraits or bigger. My longer lenses ( Dallmeyer 30 inch RR and Dallmeyer 8D) i use for 3/4 body and full body portraits. Not sure what lens he has on the Polaroid. What did you find disagreeable if that is the right word about them?
Monty
In the Sept/Oct issue of Photo technique magazine, his portrait of President Obama was profiled. There it was noted that a Rodenstock 800mm, a 600mm Fujinon A and a 360mm Fujinon SW were available, but by changing elements a 450 mm lens was used.Originally Posted by Monty McCutchen
http://phototechmag.com/anatomy-of-a-photo-shoot/
I know there are no more rules about composition and photography and I recognize my idea of portraits is firmly rooted in the first 100 years of photography. I also know that people say you don't need as long a lens as an equivalent to 80mm for 35mm film would be.
Nevertheless I think the choice of lens there made the president look like a big nosed clown.
I expect it would be possible to figure out the lens length from the Vanity Fair setup. one to one enlargement and a lens to subject distance of about 30 inches. The extension looks abut 4 feet at one to one that makes the lens about 24 inches or 600 mm.
Poor Julia Roberts and Scarlet Johansson. Even George Clooney looks not quite as handsome.
Still I realize that lots of people like this look; there was a thread re ideal lens length for portraiture and there were choices for everybody. And I get the cool factor of a Chuck Close 20x24 Polaroid for Vanity Fair.
I just don't like exaggerated noses.
I agree with the comments about preferring a longer lens, but I also feel quite ridiculous for critiquing Chuck Close! I also wonder if he has an infinite supply of Polaroid, since the rest of us ran out a long time ago. Still, very happy that the link was posted, it's fun to see both the portraits and some scenes of how they were made.
20x24 studios still has a large supply of raw Polaroid materials. More than they can hope to use in the 20x24 cameras, AFAIK.
http://www.20x24studio.com/?page_id=1653
Nice, I wish we all could afford to do this. I will settle for my project which is very similar in 11x14, using my infamous friends.
Infamous?
Peter - lots of people have used 20x24 Polaroids. They were routinely rented in several major cities for quite awhile, including in the West here (SF). Tons of work
out there. I agree with what you are saying, but still have a big question mark from a different standpoint. For example, I look at the conspicuously
pre-Raphelite Victorian work of Julia Cameron and most of those prints really move me, each in a different way, despite her stereotyped poses and sets. She took
pictures of some very famous people, and those shots are indeed highly collectible today. But her photographs of otherwise total unknowns - domestic servants,
neighborhood girls - have fetched even higher prices based upon their inherent beauty as images. But since some of Close's self-portraits are being plastered
everywhere, redundantly, and are even being laser-engraved onto big granite slabs, I wonder if archaeologists two millennia hence will surmise that he was some
kind of Pharaoh. "Archival" is an understatement in this case.
I'm not familiar with his work at all. I think what others are referring to is some of the shots (scarlett johanssen) look distorted like they were shot on a wide angle lens. Hers looks awful btw. It appears that he uses the same lighting setup for each person which we almost never do when lighting actors for motion picture work. Every face is different. Showing actors "as they are" without makeup or retouching is one thing, awful lighting just to get exposure is another. I hate to be so negative but I calls em as I sees em.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks