ABOUT CAMERAS
Checking out the hits on this blog, I notice that one recurring question asked of Google (and other search engines) is "What Cameras Did Avedon Use?" Well, I can answer that as far as the periods 1952 through '56 and '60 through '65 are concerned. And I doubt that his choice of cameras was significantly different at any other time in his nearly 60-year career.
But first, a little observation. A camera does not a photographer make. Avedon's genius had little if anything to do with his choice of cameras; instead it centered around his ability to manipulate subjects into revealing their true personalities in the case of his portraiture, and his sense of design and fantasy in the case of his fashion photographs.
Nevertheless, he was most comfortable with just a few specific cameras. They were:
The 2.8 Rolleiflex. The one pictured above is almost identical to the ones Avedon used, except for the selenium cell above the top lens. Dick never used built-in exposure meters. Some of his had Zeiss Planar lenses, others had Schneider Xenotars. The actual lens didn't matter as long as it was f/2.8 for easier focusing and 80mm for just the right perspective. He frequently used closeup lenses, in which case the top one had some correction for parallax.
The photo on the left shows Avedon holding a Rollei, with me standing by. It was taken in 1955 at the Hearst Castle in California.
As a touch of elegance, he at that time used a camera case that was custom made for him by Louis Vuitton in Paris. It was solid black and did not have those silly LV emblems. It held two Rolleis, a meter, sunshades, and several rolls of 120 film.
The 8"x10" Deardorff. This wooden field view camera was relatively light in weight and folded up compactly. Its swings and tilts were somewhat limited, but Avedon rarely made use of that feature. It was equipped with a 12" lens, probably a Goerz-Dagor in an Ilex shutter, but my memory is a bit foggy on that little detail, so don't quote me.
Dick at the time always used a bulb release for shooting — this consisted of a rubber bulb connected by tubing to a plunger on the shutter. I, or another assistant, had to cock the shutter, close down the f/stop, put in the film holder, and withdraw the slide as fast as he could squeeze that bulb! And he was lightning fast! In fact, his favorite expression to me while shooting was "Quick as the Wind." We usually shot at least a dozen (or many more) sheets of film for every picture.
In the studio, the Deardorff was mounted on a Saltzman stand on wheels. That's me in the photo on the right with the monster in 1953, taken in the studio at 640 Madison Avenue in New York. This stand was actually easy to use as it had a counterbalance inside the upright column, linked by chains to the part that went up and down. Turning the crank up front locked the whole thing in place by lowering grips to the floor.
Notice the black focusing cloth. This was fairly heavy so it would stay in place, and was lined with dark red cloth.
The front standard of the first Deardorff had the fancy script letters "RA" in gold, another little touch of elegance. Later replacement Deardorffs lacked this feature.
On location, the Deardorff was mounted on a Majestic tripod, which was made of lightweight aluminum and could be easily carried. That's it in the photo on the right, which shows Dick at work while I kept the film coming, in San Francisco in 1955.
The Deardorff traveled in its own custom-made case, but that was not always up to rough handling by airlines — as I once found out. After that incident I always packed spare ground glasses and a tool kit. We usually carried about 20 or more film holders, each loaded with 2 sheets of film. These were loaded into the holders in whatever really dark room we could find, often a hotel closet. The sheets of film had a notched code in the upper right corner so they could be identified in the dark.
The 8"x10" Sinar. In 1964 I convinced Avedon into purchasing a much more advanced camera that would speed up his photography. This was the Sinar modular monorail view camera, which cost thousands of dollars but was well worth it. Its operation was highly automated in that the closing and cocking of the shutter and the predetermined closing of the aperture occurred automatically as the film holder was inserted. Also, all of the controls could be operated from the rear of the camera, and another clever gadget eliminated the need for a focusing cloth. This magnificent piece of engineering was made in Switzerland to the very highest standards. It was equipped with a 300mm f/5.6 Schneider Symmar lens and a Sinar automatic shutter. Avedon must have loved it as pictures from just a few years ago show him with it, or with a similar one.
The Mamiyaflex TLR. A Mamiyaflex for Avedon? Yes. Although not nearly as rugged as a Rollei, the twin-lens Mamiya had certain advantages for closeup head shots as it focused much closer, had a clumsy but very effective method of parallax control, and allowed the use of longer lenses. He probably didn't much care for it, but used it for cosmetic and hairstyle photos where a Rollei would have introduced too much distortion. Its downside was its vulnerability to rough handling and its overall clumsiness.
The Pentax 35mm SLR. Avedon very rarely worked in 35mm other than for personal snapshots, but his Pentax was used for some "paparazzi" shots during the 1963 Paris collections, and for the opening and closing photos of his book "Nothing Personal" in 1964. Why not a Nikon? I don't know, he just wasn't interested in getting serious about 35mm work.
That's about it. I've never known him to use any camera other than those above. In coming entries I'll discuss such matters as film, darkroom procedures, lighting, studio design, and so on. Stay tuned.
RETURN to the Avedon Years Index.
Click here to continue on this thread.
Hello.
I'm really enjoying reading this information. Avedon was my original photographic hero.
Regarding your comments on the Rolleiflex, i have a comment:
"The actual lens didn't matter as long as it was f/2.8 for easier focusing and 80mm for just the right perspective."
I believe all the VIEWING lenses for both 2.8 and 3.5 Rolleiflexes were 2.8, so there should be no difference (apples to apples) between focusing a 2.8 versus 3.5 camera. The 2.8, though, would give you a bit shallower DOF at the widest aperture. And, because lenses are usually better when stopped down a bit, a 2.8 should be sharper at f3.5 than a 3.5 camera at 3.5. But, as you seemed to prefer small apertures, that's probably not relevant.
Also, the 2.8 Rolleiflex didn't come into play until about 1949, so Avedon's earlier work must have been done with a 3.5, and likely a Tessar lens rather than a Planar or Xenotar.
I just saw the Avedon/Fashion exhibition at ICP, and took particular note of the imaging characteristics of the older (pre-1950s) street images. The Tessars are a bit different in the handling of out of focus areas.
Posted by: derek stanton | September 17, 2009 at 08:38 PM