Why shoot wide-open?

[pippy]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

45 minutes ago, adan said:

The letters on 1960s Nikkor SLR prime lens designs (and a few of the 1950s RF designs) stood for the number of elements...

Ah! Thank you very much, Andy, for posting the list.

I knew about the element number code but didn't think about William's reference to the lens being an "O Model" as having to do with solely the optical formula. I was thinking more along the lines of a 'Null Serie' sort of thing. My error 100%.

My own Nikkor lenses (AFAICR) were all either Nikkor-Q / P / H or S - nothing more exotic - and I've never heard of them being called anything but Nikkor-H (etc). An 'O Model' should simply have been a 'Nikkor-O' but I can't remember coming in contact with the 35mm f2 which, it seems, might have been the only Nikkor to have carried the designation.

Thanks again!

Philip.

[pippy]

2 hours ago, Dennis said:

I'm sure there are plenty of photos. But I can't recall any at the moment. I took a note to find a few iconic ones taken wide open; I will let you know......More than anything, IMHO, the big difference is all about content together with context. And wide open most of the time is not enough...

Below, some samples.... because I love dogs......Iconic picture below by (of course) Elliott Erwitt....

Oh, Dennis; Elliott Erwitt!...Where to start! An absolute genius and one of my all-time favourite Photographers by a long way. With my very first week's pay as an assistant I bought two books by EE (each a signed copy no less!). 'Between The Sexes' and 'Personal Exposures'. Having just checked there is a 35-page section in the latter volume which features Dogs. 35 pages! The section opens with the Great Dane / Boots / Chihuahua pic and goes on from there but I've always really loved one of the lesser-celebrated ones;

https://content.magnumphotos.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/NYC6330-teaser-story-big.jpg

And also Thank You, Dennis, for having given me the nudge to do the 'One Lens / One Aperture / One Month' thing (mentioned here a bit earlier) which was a wonderful experience and which taught me quite a bit about my then-new-to-me 50mm f1.5 Summarit which is currently my most-used 50.

Philip.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[M Street Photographer]

I hope I can join in here: my two favorites are currently a 50 2.0 and a CZJ 58 2.0 with 17! Aperture slats. 

The Nikkor Kogaku was also "allegedly" used by Robert Frank at the time, but this statement is not reliable.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Edited January 16, 2023 by M Street Photographer

[henning]

i'm quite sure Monsieur N. Niepce did his most famous work wide open 😁. Intentionally, not that he had a diaphragm available on his lens.

[rsolomon]

12 hours ago, pippy said:

Yes; that's all very well and is understood completely and as I have already said a few times in this thread; I do shoot wide-open. Believe me; I understand the concept very well.

I can see that you have missed the point of the thread. The question asked in the OP (as opposed to the thread title) was;

"...how many of the genuinely 'Great' photographs taken over the last 190 years have been captured when the lenses were set wide-open?".

12 hours ago, pippy said:

Yes; that's all very well and is understood completely and as I have already said a few times in this thread; I do shoot wide-open. Believe me; I understand the concept very well.

I can see that you have missed the point of the thread. The question asked in the OP (as opposed to the thread title) was;

"...how many of the genuinely 'Great' photographs taken over the last 190 years have been captured when the lenses were set wide-open?".

Philip.

I have no clue on the number, I’m curious what you will do differently once you find the answer…or what is it you won’t be able to without the answer 

[pippy]

6 hours ago, rsolomon said:

I have no clue on the number, I’m curious what you will do differently once you find the answer…or what is it you won’t be able to without the answer 

Nothing at all and nothing at all; I don't need to 'do' anything with the answers. I'm merely curious.

Philip.

Edited January 16, 2023 by pippy

[pippy]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

8 hours ago, henning said:

i'm quite sure Monsieur N. Niepce did his most famous work wide open 😁. Intentionally, not that he had a diaphragm available on his lens.

Nice one, Henning! And Yes; I agree that this photograph can truly be termed 'Great' even allowing that it might not be for purely aesthetic reasons.

Thank-you!

Philip.

[pgk]

On 1/14/2023 at 11:36 PM, pippy said:

I'd love to see some examples which show that the use of 'maximum aperture' was vital to the success of a world-famous image so, c'mon folks, let's see what we can find!

I've been reading and viewing the 1937 'My Leica and I" book (as commented on in the historica section). Back then fast lenses were used wide open in order to obtain usable shutter speeds and the book certainly contains examples. However the available lenses (such as the f/2 Summer) did not perform particularly brilliant at full aperture and there was, I suspect, a higher degree of tolerance of less sharp images than there appears to be today. Certainly in the movie world lenses were used at wide apertures too. 

Why mention this? Well because the real validity of an image is in what it contains and portrays and I'm not so sure that there is a vast historical relevance in thinking in terms of full aperture images until that is, that lens performance became good enough to allow full aperture to be used confidently and with specif image aims in mind. That said it depends on what you are considering. Most very long lenses used for sports and wildlife are routinely used wide open. Fast portrait lenses often are too. Standard and wide rather less so.

I would suggest that the 'Shallow DoF and bokeh heavy emphasis' genre is actually a relatively recent one for the most part and is why there are less examples which use these attributes. Personally I'm less convinced that fast wides (below 35mm) are at all easy to use at fast apertures because of the out of focus 'clutter' which they very easily create.

I can't personally think of any images that are 'famous' and which have been obviously and deliberately shot wide open for intentional specific effect. That said there are examples, going back to silent film days, of fast aperture lenses being used wide open when required. In the 1927 movie 'Napoleon' there was one sequence which showed the unmistakeable fingerprint of a Petzval lens at full aperture. Whether this was deliberate or simply required I have no idea?

[dem331]

I have this book published in the year 2000 called the Leica M6 – TTL, by Richard Hunecke. It is clearly a marketing book for Leica, 120 pages  or so long, but it does not mention the word or concept of bokeh or “quality of out of focus areas” anywhere. The closest it gets to it is as a kind of mitigating factor for the slim depth of field of the Noctilux. Yes, there won’t be much in focus, but this can also help making your subject standout, almost like using a telephoto lens, it seems to say. The emphasis of wide apertures is very much on low light photography.

I think it has been a very clever ploy by camera manufacturers, and especially by Leica, that in an era of ultrasensitive sensors, where we could effectively do most, if not all, of our photography with much smaller and cheaper f2.8 lenses people are buying 21mm summiluxes and 135mm f1.8 (not Leica) lenses  which I perhaps would categorise as “special effect” lenses. 

I really doubt that there are any great photographers whose body of work is defined by consistent use of the widest aperture. 
 

 

 

[lct]

1 hour ago, pgk said:

I can't personally think of any images that are 'famous' and which have been obviously and deliberately shot wide open for intentional specific effect.

+1

[pgk]

52 minutes ago, dem331 said:

..... it does not mention the word or concept of bokeh or “quality of out of focus areas” anywhere. The closest it gets to it is as a kind of mitigating factor for the slim depth of field of the Noctilux.

Many years ago I had an M & Noctilux with which I took some shots, subsequently published, wide open. I did so because I had to due to the low level of light (oddly enough it was of David Doubilet the Nat Geo underwater photographer at ascuba diving conference) and because I dared use no higher ISO film at the time. Minimal Dof was challenging and bokeh never came into my thoughts (it wasn't popular then). The Notilux never paid its way and was sold soon after and I had and still have no regrets at parting with it.

[pippy]

2 hours ago, pgk said:

...I would suggest that the 'Shallow DoF and bokeh heavy emphasis' genre is actually a relatively recent one for the most part and is why there are less examples which use these attributes...

I can't personally think of any images that are 'famous' and which have been obviously and deliberately shot wide open for intentional specific effect...In the 1927 movie 'Napoleon' there was one sequence which showed the unmistakeable fingerprint of a Petzval lens at full aperture. Whether this was deliberate or simply required I have no idea?

Thank you for the thoughtful reply, Paul.

The more I consider the question the more I think that much of the reason there appears to be a lack of such 'Classic' images shot in this manner is answered by the relatively short time-frame since the 'shoot wide-open' ethos has become so ubiquitous. Whether this will change in the years to come is anyone's guess.

Clearly there are many examples of well-known photographs which have been taken at the wide end of the aperture scale and it would be interesting to be able to ask - to take one example - Julia Margaret Cameron whether she captured her portraits in the fashion which she did out of aesthetic considerations or thechnical ones. Perhaps it was a mix of both? It could be that having had, by neccessity, to shoot with shallow D-o-F she was delighted with the rather Painterly quality this approach delivered and it became a useful 'tool' to have as and when she considered the subject-matter would benefit from such a technique.

When I was undertaking research into Victorian-era photographic processes for my Historical Studies thesis the photographic publications and minutes of Camera Club meetings from c. 1840 to 1880 were chock-full of debates centred around Wet-collodion v's Dry-collodion / Talbotypes / Calotypes / Salt Prints / Carbon Prints (etc) until the development (Ho!Ho!) of the Gelatin-Silver emulsion in the late 1870's which revolutionised the whole craft / Art / industry. Being able to read accurate records of some of these differences of opinion was fascinating. The (sometimes very heated!) exchanges between Wet- and Dry-Collodion practitioners were particularly illuminating!

Philip.

Edited January 16, 2023 by pippy

[pgk]

12 minutes ago, pippy said:

Clearly there are many examples of well-known photographs which have been taken at the wide end of the aperture scale and it would be interesting to be able to ask - to take one example - Julia Margaret Cameron whether she captured her portraits in the fashion which she did out of aesthetic considerations or technical ones.

I think that the fastest lenses available in JMC's time would have been f/3.3 Petzvals, although I haven't looked into what leses she actually used (if known), so they would hardly be 'fast' by todays standards and with film 'speeds' of less than 1 ISO I would have though that technical considerations were pretty constraining. My guess is that she worked with aesthetics which were managable within the state of contemporary photographic technology rather than specifically considering such vaguely understood concepts such as DoF (and bokeh probably wasn't an existent idea as such). All that said, since prints were contact prints and lenses were relatively long focal length ones for the large formats used, bokeh would have been inevitable although compromised by the poor correction of lenses such as Petzvals.

[pippy]

31 minutes ago, pgk said:

...I think that the fastest lenses available in JMC's time would have been f/3.3 Petzvals......My guess is that she worked with aesthetics which were managable within the state of contemporary photographic technology rather than specifically considering such vaguely understood concepts such as DoF...

Agreed. One of the reasons I chose to mention JMC was that - even having to use relatively slow lenses with very slow emulsions - in general she eschewed the rigid 'Head & Neck Brace' style of approach in favour of what was almost a Candid Snapshot more naturalistic manner of shooting. Some of her most celebrated images are of her friend Sir John Herschel(*) and these are wonderful examples of images where Sharpness Isn't Everything. One photograph by way of illustration - which I consider to be truly a beautiful portrait - for those who might be unfamiliar with her work;

https://images.metmuseum.org/CRDImages/ph/original/DT2539.jpg

Philip.

* It was Sir John who was responsible for introducing Photography to JMC. Having informed Cameron, in 1839, about the invention of the medium the two kept in touch and (according to Wiki) in 1842 Herschel sent two dozen photographs - a mix of Calotypes and Daguerrrotypes - to Cameron. These were the first photographs Cameron had ever seen in person.

Edited January 16, 2023 by pippy

[pippy]

55 minutes ago, DOJ said:

...Speaking of Elliot Erwitt, the only successful bokeh shot I remember of his was done on purpose and was a set up shot, a commercial photo I’m sure he was commissioned for something; and it was an aesthetic choice and he nailed it...

Odd that you should mention the 'Santa Monica, California, 1955' photograph because according to Elliott Erwitt himself that isn't how it came about. In a written interview he said he was simply 'in the right place at the right time' but even then he went on to add;

"Sometimes you know you have a good shot but usually you don't. I never knew that I had that picture until 25 years after I took it..."

My earliest publication of his dates to 1988 so I have no reference to verify whether the photograph might have been published any earlier than he suggests (which, obviously, would be 1980) and I must say that it came as a bit of a surprise when I read his own account of the situation but if he says that's how it happened I suppose we must accept him at his word!

Philip.

Edited January 16, 2023 by pippy

[pippy]

1 minute ago, DOJ said:

Maybe he knew them then 

Very possibly!

I was actually adding a little bit more to my earlier post which might put a slightly different interpretation on the circumstances under which it was snapped. It would be nice to find a more concrete understanding as the quote posted earlier does leave itself open to a bit of interpretation.

Regardless of how the photograph was captured it is a fantastic image!

Strangely enough; the pic is featured on the 1988 book 'Personal Exposures' (as mentioned earlier) but it also was used by the band Fairground Attraction for their album 'The First of a Million Kisses' which was released in...1988.

Philip.

[Guest]

6 hours ago, DOJ said:

Maybe he knew them then? Love to know the story behind it.

I like his personal photos the most. 

Can you recommend a particulsr book with his personal photos? Would love to dive into these. Thank you 🙏🏻

[pippy]

49 minutes ago, mcpallesen said:

Can you recommend a particulsr book with his personal photos? Would love to dive into these. Thank you 🙏🏻

I would suggest his (aforementioned) book titled 'Personal Exposures' might, for obvious reasons, be a very good place to start but I don't know much about any volumes he has had published in the last decade or so. It might be that there is a more comprehensive tome to be found with an even more encyclopaedic collection of his output contained within one volume.

Philip.

Edited January 16, 2023 by pippy

[rsolomon]

15 hours ago, pippy said:

Nothing at all and nothing at all; I don't need to 'do' anything with the answers. I'm merely curious.

Philip.

Given all, an interesting question, I'll follow the thread out of curiosity 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[adan]

On 1/14/2023 at 4:36 PM, pippy said:

(H)ow many of the genuinely 'Great' photographs taken over the last 190 years have been captured when the lenses were set wide-open? Off-hand, so help me, I can't think of one.

I'd love to see some examples which show that the use of 'maximum aperture' was vital to the success of a world-famous image so, c'mon folks, let's see what we can find!

I've been thinking about these questions for three days now, and I see some basic conceptual problems.

1. What is a "Great" or world-famous picture?

2. How does one know if a picture was made "at maximum aperture?" Without knowing the lens and aperture used?

3. Should pictures shot wide-open that would not exist at all otherwise (poor lighting) count the same as pictures shot wide-open for some visual effect?

Here are links to the work of some photographers.

They worked for weekly magazines in their heyday, so their viewership was something like 5-15 million views a week at one point. Does that contribute to whether they are famous or great? In addition they published books and have been published elsewhere (sometimes in photo history compilations).

By comparison, how many pairs eyes see any potentially great photo at, say, MOMA or the Tate in any given week? - Not 15 million! Does "number of views" count at all? If you take one of their best pictures to a village in, say, Uganda, and the first 10 people you show it to say "Never seen that before - why you bother me, man?" - does that mean it is not world-famous?

Or is quantity irrelevant - in which case, what is the standard for photographic greatness? Influenced human behavior? Ended wars? Raised money for this or that? Informed people (and again, how many?)? Titillated the hobby-geoisie?

Circumstantial evidence (lighting, time of day - or night, DoF (maybe)) suggest some, and perhaps many, of these pictures were shot at max. aperture. But since the photographers in cases worked with lenses from 21mm to telephotos, with max apertures from f/4 to f/1.4, can anyone swear with any certainty they were NOT made at max. aperture? Blurry backgrounds and subject separation - yes. But actual aperture (even within two stops)?

Each link contains sub-links to different projects. I recommend Smith-Minamata and Fusco-La Causa in particular. Tell me which pictures were shot at which apertures.

https://www.magnumphotos.com/photographer/w-eugene-smith/

https://www.magnumphotos.com/photographer/paul-fusco/

https://www.magnumphotos.com/photographer/henri-cartier-bresson/

https://www.magnumphotos.com/photographer/robert-capa/

How about 

Cartier-Bresson > The Europeans > Man at the sliding doors of the Valencia Bull Arena?

What lens, which aperture, was that wide-open?