Depth of field and focal plane

[dasBlute]

lots of people can chime in; for focus, always swing the front
towards the plane of interest, i.e. if you're looking down
at a creek and want the water in focus tilt the front forward,
doesn't take a lot; here, swing the front towards the line of golfers...

[zx9]

Girls 6 and 8 (counting from the camera) moved their heads during the exposure, I would go for swing front on a tripod mounted LF camera.

[al olson]

Girls 6 and 8 (counting from the camera) moved their heads during the exposure, I would go for swing front on a tripod mounted LF camera.

I count to ladies 7 and 9 where the head movement occurs. Hmmmm...

I would also add that in addition to the swing (note that the building behind the girls is sharp as is the cabin on the ridge whereas the foreground grass gets blurry near each edge), it appears that a wide angle lens was also used, say 180 or 210 on 8x10 or a 90 on 4x5, which would give additional depth of field.

I would guess that these are models for a fashion shot of sports apparel, since each grouping is wearing identical sweaters and skirts. A lovely image nevertheless.

[zx9]

I count to ladies 7 and 9 where the head movement occurs. Hmmmm...

Sorry I was viewing the left side of the large image and missed counting the first girl!
The WA lens works for me too, given the great difference in apparent height down the line.

[ic-racer]

I think the camera movements are pretty standard, but what I don't know is the lighting. I'm a nearly 100% available light shooter, so I can't figure it out based on my experience. I'm very fascinated by the vintage look to the fill lighting.

Any thoughts? Battery of flashes?, Reflectors? Other??

[jp]

I would have to guess there at least two extra light sources that are pretty diffuse (such as light boxes, big umbrellas or big reflectors. The added light sources are probably at ground level as they are not casting shadows downwards like the sun. On the first girl, you can see a slight shadow cast from her left glove onto her right wrist. There also a soft shadow cast by her right arm onto the lower part of the sweater. The second girl casts a slight shadow onto shoulder of the third girl. The motion blur on the third girl's right leg and skirt indicates the use of a flash. The long exposure would have blurred the leg motion, but it was also frozen by the bright flash. You also see two different light sources in the first girl's eye.



I doubt it's a digital image, as it has a big piece of lint in the scan and a big scratch over the first girl's skirt and send girl's leg.

[Brian Ellis]

You can't really judge sharpness of a photograph on a computer monitor so it's hard to figure out what's blurred and what isn't in the original print. FWIW (not much) my guess is the photographer used a little front swing clockwise. I wouldn't think back swing because of the distortion that can create.

To me it's more fun to try to figure out the reason for making the photograph and when it was made. It doesn't look to me like a professional model/clothing photograph because of the different tops they're wearing. I first thought it might be members of a womens golf association or possibly the women playing in a golf tournament but I've played a lot of golf and I've never seen this many good looking women on a golf course at the same time. It's also interesting that four of the women are wearing identical tops that are different from all the others and they're grouped together but they haven't been placed at the front of the photograph, which tends to rule out a fashion shot. Then again, there's those identical skirts. So I don't know, anyone else have any ideas?

As for time, based on the club head designs that can be made out, I'd guess 1950s. But then some of the club shafts appear to be steel and some graphite. Graphite irons didn't start appearing until the 1970s IIRC. So I don't know about that either.

[Mike Anderson]

To me it's more fun to try to figure out the reason for making the photograph and when it was made. It doesn't look to me like a professional model/clothing photograph because of the different tops they're wearing...

I know as little about golf as I do about women's attire.

I've no answers just clues:
- The first 4 (from left) have the same outfit.
- the 2nd 4 have the same outfit.
- could be 2 more groups of 4 each with same outfit.
So I'm assuming 4 groups of 4.
- they all have ribbons in their hair with bows.
- they all have the same shoes - are those golf shoes?
- they all have fluffy bracelet things that match their skirts - was this ever common women's golfing attire?

...Mike

[Brian Ellis]

I know as little about golf as I do about women's attire.

I've no answers just clues:
- The first 4 (from left) have the same outfit.
- the 2nd 4 have the same outfit.
- could be 2 more groups of 4 each with same outfit.
So I'm assuming 4 groups of 4.
- they all have ribbons in their hair with bows.
- they all have the same shoes - are those golf shoes?
- they all have fluffy bracelet things that match their skirts - was this ever common women's golfing attire?

...Mike

Looks like you and I are the only ones more interested in the women than the fstops and movements Mike. : - )

Good point about the tops, I hadn't noticed that. I can't tell for sure whether the shoes are golf shoes or not. The fluffy bracelet things were never common to my knowledge in golf attire. Also, I just noticed that the second woman from the right has an unusable grip with her right hand way too far under the shaft so she probably isn't a golfer. I guess it's looking more and more like a fashion shot, contrary to my original thought.

[ic-racer]

Based on the lighting technique and that it is LF B&W my first thought was 50s but I was under the impression the miniskirts were not around until the late 60s. I'm guessing 66 to 72 or so. College yearbook shot of the women's golf team? In the 70s most yearbooks were still done in B&W, whereas most commercial imagery was color.