Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Who will solve this one?

 

I have attached an interesting photo of Winogrand working, taken by photographer Tod Papageorge in 1967.

The problem is as follows:

Winogrand is using two Leicas (I assume) - up to his eye is one with a Canon 35mm f/1.8 attached. Down towards his left hip is another camera with a mystery lens. Which one is it?

 

As Papageorge took this picture, Winogrand had just finished taking one of his most famous photographs. Seemingly with a 35mm Canon (not the well known 28mm he often used, and perhaps even made famous).

 

Also of interest, I have actually seen his contact print. The roll starts off in London, then BOOM, first strike back in Central Park gives an iconic photo.

 

This should be fun!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All Silver Chrome, if from Canon, I bet for a Serenar 3.2/35 (as I have two of those

).

I think that the guessing is not easy (= accurate) from the small details from your picture.

 

But even if it's not that one He used, that's fine for me

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest tofu_man

 Just a guess....Canon 28mm LTM, either f/3.5 or f/2.8? 

 

There's an interesting Winogrand lens discussion on another forum....google 'Winogrand technique with the 28mm"

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for good suggestions...

 

Though, could it be something as simple as a Leitz Summarit f/1.5?

Added a close-up, then a few shots of the Summarit....

 

It would make sense for a professional photographer to have an ultra fast 50mm.

Either that or something wider - I don't think he'd be carrying two 35mm lenses?

 

Anyway, it's funny that none of these lenses were considered state of the art back in 1967. But apparently good enough for the master himself! And using these on digital today would give even more impressive results.

Edited by lefse

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think that could be Summarit 1.5/50.

It would be 1/3 th longer than the chrome lens in this more detailed picture.

 

...

:Dyour Summarit had lost some screws (in first pic).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Summicron 35/2 (SAWOO) i bet.

 

That would be two virtually identical lenses then (Canon 1.8/35 and Summicron 2/35). Does that make sense? Maybe, if he uses two bodies for different films and 35mm is his preferred focal length. But from the close up it seems that a Summicron 35 would have to be a little shorter, so me thinks it is not a Summicron 35.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Considering the length of the lens, it could very well be the Summicron 35 version 1.

At least the front rim, with the attachment groove for the hood seem to match...

 

It could be loaded with sharper-than-tri-x Kodachrome (that he did use), thus the better lens...? I doubt you'd see any difference between the two lenses on a print from grainy b&w film.

Edited by lefse

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have seen Winogrand print of these couple. The lens gave so-so results, in technical aspect. I doubt it was Summaron. Maybe f3.5.

Looking at Winogrand's exhibition prints and archive scans I was surprised to see how many were taken with so-so lens.

Earlier Winogrand used 50mm lens and even SLR. Arizona archives has his autoportrait in color and with SLR.   

I read what he used Canon 28 3.5 first and then switched to 2.8. In 1976 he has two 28mm lenses on two M. 

http://www.photogs.com/bwworld/winogrand.html

I read how he liked 21 as matching his view, but it was giving to mach lens rendering effect.

He did mention to use 35mm as well. But only late Winogrand seems to be able to afford Leitz glass, his Leica Ms were purchased used and at good price he was keeping some connections with folks at camera stores. 

Edited by Ko.Fe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another question: what brand cigarette is he holding between the fingers of his left hand?

 

None. It’s in his right hand.

 

Jeff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But only late Winogrand seems to be able to afford Leitz glass, his Leica Ms were purchased used and at good price he was keeping some connections with folks at camera stores.

 

Interesting. Where did you learn this?

 

I find the technical quality of his prints very good, but then again, I am used to shooting 400-speed film. That’s why I think it’s funny that the lenses he used were considered reasonably priced, even back then.

 

Today amateurs sweat about how much better the APO-Summicrons are, for photographing the moon and their cat....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I doubt strongly that a "user" photographer who only worked in B&W would bother to spend extra money on TWO 35mm lenses. Winogrand was not a GAS-afflicted LUF gear-head.

 

BTW - here is the actual photo Winogrand was taking at the moment he was captured by Papageorge. From The Animals.

 

http://www.americansuburbx.com/2013/01/theory-animals-and-their-keepers-garry.html

 

I had my doubts about whether GW ever used 50mm (his shots from Women are Beautiful, mostly 28mm, are what always spring to my mind) - but it's clear from some of the other Animals pictures that he was using something longer and with a narrower DoF than a 35 - including the "cover" photograph of the book (elephant trunk, hand and peanuts). Always good to reconsider one's assumptions.

 

https://fraenkelgallery.com/portfolios/the-animals

 

I think there is a camera strap hiding part of the length of the mystery lens, so it might well be a 50 of some kind. I'd spring for a 28 Canon S Serenar otherwise.

 

I absolutely owe a debt to GW as an inspiration to look for photographs everywhere. A couple of my own zoo attempts (and no mysteries here: man with lorikeet, 35 v.4, TX film, and a couple of years later, when I was using a 35 Summilux ASPH v.1 instead, girl and komodo dragon, PanF film.

 

 

Edited by adan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I doubt strongly that a "user" photographer who only worked in B&W would bother to spend extra money on TWO 35mm lenses. Winogrand was not a GAS-afflicted LUF gear-head.

 

BTW - here is the actual photo Winogrand was taking at the moment he was captured by Papageorge. From The Animals.

 

http://www.americansuburbx.com/2013/01/theory-animals-and-their-keepers-garry.html

 

I had my doubts about whether GW ever used 50mm (his shots from Women are Beautiful, mostly 28mm, are what always spring to my mind) - but it's clear from some of the other Animals pictures that he was using something longer and with a narrower DoF than a 35 - including the "cover" photograph of the book (elephant trunk, hand and peanuts). Always good to reconsider one's assumptions.

 

https://fraenkelgallery.com/portfolios/the-animals

 

I think there is a camera strap hiding part of the length of the mystery lens, so it might well be a 50 of some kind. I'd spring for a 28 Canon S Serenar otherwise.

 

I absolutely owe a debt to GW as an inspiration to look for photographs everywhere. A couple of my own zoo attempts (and no mysteries here: man with lorikeet, 35 v.4, TX film, and a couple of years later, when I was using a 35 Summilux ASPH v.1 instead, girl and komodo dragon, PanF film.

 

GWhomage1.jpg

 

GWhomage2.jpg
Comodo picture is brilliant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest tofu_man

I doubt strongly that a "user" photographer who only worked in B&W would bother to spend extra money on TWO 35mm lenses. Winogrand was not a GAS-afflicted LUF gear-head.

 

 

 

Garry Winogrand shot colour as well as black & white which is why he often used two cameras with the same focal  length lenses....one loaded with B&W film and the other with transparency film. His archive contains around 45,000 colour transparencies according to the NYT

 

(https://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/05/13/garry-winogrands-nonstop-and-unedited/)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting. Where did you learn this?

 

I find the technical quality of his prints very good, but then again, I am used to shooting 400-speed film. That’s why I think it’s funny that the lenses he used were considered reasonably priced, even back then.

 

Today amateurs sweat about how much better the APO-Summicrons are, for photographing the moon and their cat....

 

I translated (with author permission, from English to Russian) two articles of two GW students. Different courses in different States. They knew which lenses he used. They have seen it.

I also studied GW Arizona State archive and as photog I get sense which focal lens he used.

And I googled and went trough many forums threads were people who knew him told about his lenses.

And where are videos on youtube with him talking about lenses at different time.

 

GW was very advanced printer by himself. In his earlier years while still in NYC he and George Zimbel were printing almost every night together. I forgot how they called themselves. Zimbel printed by himself not so long time ago for his exhibition in Montreal.

I have seen Zimbel's own prints where and in Toronto. 

All his prints are good, as darkroom prints. I knew, because I print as well. But on many of GW prints I could see how lens was not good enough.  

 

Moon and Cat folks enjoy their APO just like they might enjoy their stroll in expensive cars. I see no reason to mock them on that.

But for large exhibition prints like GW did ASHP lens would make difference, I believe. 

 

In one of the articles it was how GW told student about PJ work. As low paid, but interesting.  And then he told in interview about him as surviving or then he told same for people on the streets he was not making it up. I understand completely why he used used Leica cameras and non-Leica lenses. 

 

UPD, I read the article in provided above link. One thing which they missed in article. Winogrand has two types of prints. One was "working prints" (those he kept) and another was if print was ordered (paid for). Again, as printer by myself I realize the difference in effort

.   Edited by Ko.Fe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue., Read more about our Privacy Policy