How do I achieve this look? Lens or movement?

[wallpaperviking]

Just putting it out there to see if anybody can give some insights into how this image was achieved?

It goes back as far as 2006 and was shot on 8x10 polaroid by Paolo Roversi.

As far as I know, he uses a 12 inch Goerz Dagor 6.8 but I could be wrong..

Leaving aside the background, which could be real or it could maybe be projected or even a blurred projection somehow, how do I get the separation from (relatively) sharp eyes to a very blurred rear shoulder, considering it is a reasonably wide/normal F.O.V?

Is it the shallow D.O.F that comes with shooting on the 8 x 10 format or have movements been used to achieve this?

Thanks in advance! :)

[Ulophot]

I would say that the photo was made with the lens wide open, probably little or no lens tilt, possibly a slight lens swing the left. The lens, which is equivalent to 300 mm, has only about 3" DOF wide open at something like 6 ft., which I am guess is the average subject distance.

[Jim Noel]

Wide open, yes. It appears the sharpest focus is not on the tip of the nose but the front of the dress on the right shoulder. minimal DOF produces the soft focus on face, ear,etc.

[Bernice Loui]

Lens alone will not achieve this look. Gander closely at the catchlights in the subject's eyes and consider the lighting ratio, lighting type between subject to background and color and color of the subject.

This is a lighting question more than just a "lens" question.


Bernice

[paulbarden]

Lens alone will not achieve this look. Gander closely at the catchlights in the subject's eyes and consider the lighting ratio, lighting type between subject to background and color and color of the subject.

This is a lighting question more than just a "lens" question.


Bernice

Agreed. This is much more a lighting question and not so much about a particular lens. I believe that on 8x10 Polaroid you could use any one of at least a dozen lenses (aperture wide open) that would give a similar result.

[Peter Mounier]

I am impressed with Ulophot's work and don't doubt his skills with large format movements, but my thoughts on this are contrary to his. I think the photographer used the plane her face is in to loosely dictate the swing and tilt. I believe the front standard was slightly swung to the right. If it were swung to the left her left shoulders probably wouldn't be so far out of focus. Additionally, the model's right sleeve is in pretty good focus from front to back, indicating a right swing. I also think there was some downward tilt to the lens, but very slightly. Her elbow to her hair on her forehead are fairly sharp, but everything fore and aft of that plane fall out of focus. The hair on her forehead seems to be slightly sharper than her eyes, which are apparently beyond the plane of focus. The hair on her forehead seems to be the sharpest part of her face, with her eyes slightly less, and her lips and chin even less so as they recede from the plane. My thoughts on the forward tilt are bolstered by the focus on her right sleeve, between her forehead and elbow, which are also fairly sharp.

[wallpaperviking]

Awesome! Some very interesting ideas here...

Peter, when you say a front right swing, does that mean the right side of the lens panel is closer to the film plane?

I realise that there is a whole lot more going on in this image with regards to lighting, was just really specifically asking about the lens' D.O.F and/or movements... I should have been clearer in the post.



Thanks so much to everybody who contributed... :)

[Peter Mounier]

Yes, that’s what I meant.

[wallpaperviking]

I am impressed with Ulophot's work and don't doubt his skills with large format movements, but my thoughts on this are contrary to his. I think the photographer used the plane her face is in to loosely dictate the swing and tilt. I believe the front standard was slightly swung to the right. If it were swung to the left her left shoulders probably wouldn't be so far out of focus. Additionally, the model's right sleeve is in pretty good focus from front to back, indicating a right swing. I also think there was some downward tilt to the lens, but very slightly. Her elbow to her hair on her forehead are fairly sharp, but everything fore and aft of that plane fall out of focus. The hair on her forehead seems to be slightly sharper than her eyes, which are apparently beyond the plane of focus. The hair on her forehead seems to be the sharpest part of her face, with her eyes slightly less, and her lips and chin even less so as they recede from the plane. My thoughts on the forward tilt are bolstered by the focus on her right sleeve, between her forehead and elbow, which are also fairly sharp.

That is a really awesome description, cheers Peter! :)

[Ulophot]

With thanks to Peter for the compliment, his analysis trumps my quick one and he is undoubtedly more practiced than I.

As suggested by Bernice, there are, it seems to me, some apparent anomalies here in addition to lens orientation. I am no expert on lenses and their drawing characteristics, but the somewhat hard-edge appearance of the out-of-focus areas of the dress and background do not look entirely optical to me; rather, I wonder if these edges are artifacts of digital post-processing, either from compression or some sort of edge-emphasis the photographer desired to impart something of a brush-stroke appearance.

In any case, it is indeed an arresting image.

[wallpaperviking]

Yes, his lighting techniques are anything but conventional, that and the use of a 8 x 10 Deardorff and 809 polaroid gave his images a very unique look in the fashion world... Since switching to digital (due to Polaroid becoming unavailable) I am less of a fan of his work unfortunately...

I would like to think that there really was not that much digital manipulation occurring but who knows.... It was also shot in 2006, so was not as common to be messing with images as much as today...

I have tried blurring parts of an image before and it is extremely hard to do. I am no heavyweight in digital manipulation but even other friends of mine who are say it is very hard to do and make the image look natural.

Here are the other shots in the series...

http://infashionswetrust.blogspot.com/2013/09/freja-beha-erichsen-in-vogue-italia-2006.html

I originally thought that this was shot on location but after looking at the backgrounds again, it could easily have been shot in his studio, which is where he still does the bulk of his work...

What do you think about the backgrounds? A projected image? Or maybe a fabric with these cathedral type images as the image?

Thanks! :)

[Ulophot]

Perhaps it's possible that the poster on the linked page created some of that look himself. It's a kind of posterization in parts of the image, which can be caused by limiting the color pallete as a mean of compression.

[wallpaperviking]

Very possible, as it could have been scanned from a magazine or simply rephotographed....

I don't see the issue you are talking about but could also just be a limit of the Polaroid 809 itself...

[Ray Marrero]

It's my understanding Paolo used long exposures, besides the Deardorff/lens combo.

[wallpaperviking]

He quite often did, as stated in this portrait of Peter Lindbergh....

"Peter has been asking me forever why all my pictures are out of focus" :)206037