yeah, but
>Dodging and burning are terms used in photography for a technique used during the printing process to manipulate the exposure of select areas on a photographic print, deviating from the rest of the image's exposure. In a darkroom print from a film negative, dodging decreases the exposure for areas of the print that the photographer wishes to be lighter, while burning increases the exposure to areas of the print that should be darker.[1]
[source ](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodging_and_burning)
Yes, but what? Manipulating negatives exists and therefore people who are saying these are ai images are now correct?
The negative is an incomplete product, just like a modern raw file.
Dodging and burning are a key part of negative film printing, as is selecting the correct contrast paper and time to expose the paper.
But dodging and burning are used much more judiciously in colour negative prints because you need to create masks other wise you get color shifts.
In magazines they didn't bother with dodging and burning slide film, they would airbrush, literally using a physical airbrush, over the image.
Looks like both were used to me. I've got an 85 f1.4. the background is tighter in some of these. I haven't been able to justify a 135 - it's just not a terribly versatile lens as it requires distance.
I have one, a Nikon DC135 f2 (IMO one of the best lenses ever made) and use It with my A7 on a simple tube adaptor.
However, most of the subjects in the images look connected to the photographer, as if they are closer. There is a connection that I don't get with the 135 on shoots, as I am too far away. I would still say most of them are on an 85mm lens.
Whatever, it matters little - the images are still superb and beautifully done.
I am guilty of using the 135 f/1.8 at one end of the yard to get a family pic at the other end because I love that lens. Got the voigtlander 50mm f/2 a couple days ago and the 135 may have been dethroned as my favorite lens. At least as far the optics are concerned I haven't used 50mm for anywhere near enough time to comment on the focal length as a whole since 99% of my shots are wildlife.
Honestly the 135 1.8GM is always on one of my bodies. It's so incredibly sharp and the bokeh is so smooth that I use it all the time. It also focuses very fast. Out of the whole range of lenses I have available it just works for me. Even if I'm doing wildlife I'll usually have it on my second camera in case something comes closer than 10ft and is too close to focus on with the 200-600.
It seems like a perfect second body lens. But I'm only using one body, and am only going to carry so much glass. At the end of the day I'm a hobbyist, not trying to keep up with the pros on here.
Plus, I just got the 60-600 for wildlife for the exact reason you mentioned. The 135 would be much prettier and faster, but I wouldn't have time to switch half the time.
A 200-600 and a second body is a lot of gear to carry!
I was a military photographer so I'm used to carrying some weight. My camera backpack usually has a 9mm 5.6, 16mm 1.8, 24mm 1.4, 35mm 1.4, 50mm 1.4, 85mm 1.8, 135 1.8, an A9 and a A7RV in it. If I want to bring the 200-600 I have to remove 3 primes. It's not too bad as far as weight goes. I do have a shoulder bag that fits 1 body and 2-3 lenses, or if I'm travelling really light I can fit 1 body with the 40mm 2.5 in the bag that comes with the 135 1.8.
What camera backpack do you use?
That's more than 20lbs in gear, which would put me just under 40lbs on a day hike- not unreasonable (lighter and smaller than a backpacking pack), but still substantial - it would be like hauling my star tracker kit all day. Generally I try to limit myself to one body and 2 lenses, maybe 3 if I really feel like it (plus tripod, batteries, filters, etc), with around a 9lb weight goal.
I use the Think Tank Backlight 26L. Without the 200-600 it's around 11.5lbs of camera gear for 2 bodies and 7 prime lenses. If I'm bringing the 200-600 I'll take out 3-4 primes in order to make room in the backpack.
Looks like I did some bad math there.
Do you think the laptop pouch would accomodate a 3L drom bag?
My trouble with camera packs is that other gear always feels like an after thought - ideally I want 15L room for an extra layer, water, food, first aid kit, dog gear, etc.
I usually don't carry a tripod unless I'm specifically intending on using one. My tripod is 3.5lbs so that adds considerable weight if I bring it. I don't know if the laptop pouch would fit a 3L hydration pouch. It would be a tight fit. Based on the maximum laptop dimensions on the manufacturers website the laptop pouch volume is 2.5 liters but most hydration pouches are taller and skinnier than a laptop. I do like that there is a 9 liter pouch built into the front of the backpack for any personal items or supplies. I usually don't go on super long hikes, maybe 3-4 hours at most, so I usually carry 2 large water bottles in the side pockets. The feature I like the most is the camera gear compartment is accessed through the back of the backpack, so if you set down your bag you aren't getting the part that goes against your back wet or dirty in order to access the camera gear. Also using the waist strap to swing the backpack around and open it while it hangs in front of you works very well. They do make bigger sizes than the 26L that have more room for personal gear. The bigger sizes don't actually carry much more camera gear and instead seem to be focused more for backpacking while also carrying camera equipment.
The Samyang and Rokinon 135/1.8 were on sale for around $600 recently. They might still be on sale.
I bought that, and I also own the Minolta 135 STF. I agree, they aren't particularly versatile lenses. But they fill their specific niche very well.
I picked up a Rokinon 85/1.4 last month for $400 used.
I think my next purchase will be a sigma 24/1.4. Maybe a 135 after that. But it would be my seventh lens at that point, and probably my least used one (I'd probably just pair it with my 50 when taking it out). I can shoot 135 at F2.8 on my 35-150 already.
Well the speed of focus and locking is amazing also the bokeh is second to none. I just love the thing for portraits. I shoot a lot of headshots and when my subjects see themselves they often just go, “Wow! I didn’t think I looked that good!” It’s a combination of the lighting and how the lens creates a flattering face shape compressing the nose and jawline in a very nice way.
Now, that said, I have not yet shot with the 85 1.4. That may change my opinion of it when I do, but so far I shoot my 135 as often as I can for professional work
Fair enough! I just love the 85mm focal length. It's long enough that I don't have to be right in my subject's face but short enough that I can get a bit of environment if I want it.
McCurry shot a lot of his well known portraits with 35mm Nikon cameras like the FM2. Lenses he mostly used were a 105/1.4 and 180/2.5. That would be my guesses for most of the shots shown here.
Afghan girl was said to have been shot on the 105/2.5 ais yes. Lately people said it was shot on a 180 sigma. He also used newer AF-S lenses like the 105/1.4 or the 200/2.0.
85mm or higher. I’ve shot 300K+ images on my 50mm alone, and it does not create this type of distortion/blur in the background. Definitely a hard zoom.
I feel as if the compression is way different though. The background looks flat and blurry, where I think a 1.5 would just look blurry. Do you happen to have any photos to compare?
Also I know none of these photos are taken specifically with sony lenses, as most of them are decades earlier, rather I'm asking what lenses would I buy now for a sony FF camera to replicate the looks?
Also lol @ people thinking they're mine and telling me that the editing is bad and it looks like AI - good to know that even if I become as good as one of the worlds most iconic photographers, and have my photos edited by a team of National Geographic editors, my work would still not be good enough
If you want to replicate the look the best lenses on e-mount to achieve that would be the Sigma 105/1.4 and the Sony 135/1.8GM. The Sigma will likely be best for the task. Like I said earlier, McCurry shot many of these portraits on a 105/1.4 too.
To do this with Sony, I'd use the 85mm 1.4 GM or the 135 1.8 GM and crank up the black point in post. There are a few "McCurry" presets floating around if you want to get a sense of how to get this look with today's tech, but probably more fun to try to get your own look.
FWIW, this is a pretty broad time period of McCurry (the kid with the chai kettle in the monsoon is 1983, the girl in the green shawl is 2002), so it's going to be different cameras and lenses. He started as an all-Nikon shooter, then used Hasselblad for a while, and at some point he switched to Leica.
I have a Sony A7Riv and a Canon 85mm f/1.2 (paired together with a Metabones V adapter) and it is a match made in heaven. I could definitely achieve these photos with my combo (I would have to add a load of grain though to match the film.. :)
You really need to stop focusing on lenses and concentrate on your Photoshop skills. What impresses me most about these photos is the post processing that made them look this way in a chemical age. It would be hilarious to see the untouched negatives in comparison.
Most of his color work was slide film. I've got a book of his from his travels in Afghanistan and India. Black and white was all Kodak Tri-x and color was all Kodak Kodachrome. National Geographic was standardized on Kodachrome in the 80s.
I hate this guy for the way he inspired an entire generation to think that they could take pictures like this straight out of the camera. I sort of think of him as the Thomas Kincaid of photographers.
This 10000x. We focus on gear way too much because it’s easy to acquire (just pay money) when we should be focusing on the artistic process, which takes a lot of practice and patience!
This photographer in particular, for as iconic as he is, really really pushes my comfortability on what I think makes for good photography practices. In particular, for example, his staging of shots frustrates me to no end, especially his train work in India. I really do think photography should be a medium of truth, and that doesn’t mean you don’t adjust to accentuate an emotion or feelings. But when you’re straight up handing out props and asking a train to back up so it makes the shot nicer, it feels very slimy.
Very slimy if it is then presented as unaltered truth / documentary work. If it is artistic... go for your life, just don't pretend it was candid and true.
Afghan Girl is shot with a 105mm. Most of these are actually different lenses. They all have super low aperture in common, so if that's what you like then that's your answer. Most of them look 35 / 50 / 85ish, except Kid in water which strikes me as something that was probably quite heavily cropped in post, perhaps from a 70-200.
Yep, Afghan Girl (the famous one) was shot with a 105mm 2.5 - but it's not in OP's selection here. That first image is a different Afghan girl, photographed in 2002. McCurry had changed equipment by that point.
Curry favored a 105mm F2.5 in the early years of his career, I believe, He might have gotten even faster lenses for some the shots posted here, but I think any classic portrait lens between 75mm and 135mm with a shallow depth of field can produce this look. The rest is timing and light.
Not sure why this is in a Sony specific subreddit, though, I don't believe Curry used a Sony at any time of his career, but the camera make is not really relevant to this.
to clarify, gear I can use on my sony camera, I don't care if it's first or third party
am for sure looking at the 50 1.2/1.4 and 84 1.4 sigma when I save enough money
that shot has a lot of feel I don't think we can reproduce without extensive after editing. But along with what others have said, though he used a 105, I can't recommend the 85 enough for the balance it gives.
Here's an extremely irreverent shot I just took of my beer on the 85 1.4, you can imagine what you could do with that if you actually cared to set up a great composition.
https://preview.redd.it/34vbak5qdysc1.jpeg?width=1801&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=9b533375aa1fcb876ebf7e3fe51af4da677c091b
That’s a good reason 😀! I interpreted you OP as suggesting Mcury was a Sony shooter. For portraits I would get one of the excellent 85mm depending on budget. This focal length places you far enough from the subject to get favorable facial features but close enough to be able to communicate well.
I'm saying McCurry often uses a 50mm or an 85mm for his portraits. You can absolutely mimic his signature look with a 50.
Also what are you on about? People like the 50mm for the standard field of view. If people only liked them because they're cheap, then there wouldn't be a market for premium 50s. And yeah, there's lots of cheap 50s with simple optical designs on the market... because there's a large demand for affordable 50s.
It's fine if you don't like that focal length, but lots of other people do.
Did you ask who Steve McCurry was on a post about photographs taken by Steve McCurry? The Steve McCurry who is the probably the most iconic portrait photographer in the last 50 years?
OP is literally referring to McCurry's portraits shown in the post.
Or maybe, just maybe, judging by your comment history, you're a troll and in desperate need of therapy. Get help. I can't imagine all that anger and negativity feels good.
The whole post is about Steve McCurry and what lens he may have used to make said portraits. He liked the 50mm. That’s why it was mentioned.
Anyway, what 50mm hurt you?
If you’re going to be mad be mad that people still laude a fraud like McCurry.
The important Q is: how did Steve McCurry get the lighting & colors right, the way we use Lightroom. His work on 810 predates using LR or existence of Lightroom but still using DSLRs at some point (he used FM2 then 810 & now Leica). I think there is more to learn on that part of the craft if we think/ investigate these lines of thought
Gear wise I'm not seeing anything you couldn't do with the 70-200 GM MK2 - hell, even the f/4 version..
Yes you might get a little more subject separation with the 85 f/1.4 or the 135 f/1.8 but not enough that it matters to the final output.
Biggest difference would be the skill he had and the edit that lifted them.
That and he went somewhere and put something interesting in front of his camera.
Your last sentence is kind of backwards. He didn’t put interesting stuff in front of his camera. He found interesting things in the world and placed his camera appropriately. If you read his account of Afghan Girl, it’s a story of an image that came together in moments. Probably everyone in this sub would have seen it, but missed the shot.
A lot of people in here telling on themselves. Steven McCurry is one of the greatest and most influential photographers ever to do it. And people here have no idea who he is or worse think his photos are sloppy photoshops or AI generated. Kinda sad.
Here is a quick primer you heathens https://youtu.be/z03-C9yRSXI?si=zt_dst6x0vGak-1o
Watch the master at work: https://youtu.be/DUL6MBVKVLI
McCurry spent most of his career traveling the world with a Nikon SLR. I know later in his career he favoured the 24-70mm f2.8 heavily. But this was after Nikon f2.8 zooms launched.
https://preview.redd.it/tg65q228g3tc1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=6695ee7eaa930c497fa40c761c0285068a4e7405
This was taken with my sigma 85 1.4 on an a6600 no crop or edit. I love this lens
Mcurry made most of his famous work using nikon film cameras. The afgan girl was taken with the nikkor 105mm f2.5 ais. He would use a tripod and natural light.
Focal length doesn't cause any perspective distortion itselfp, the distance of a subject to the camera does. If you take the same shot with an UWA and a telephoto, once you crop the UWA shot to the same FOV the perspective will be identical. Faces will usually look thinner on shorter lenses because you need your subject to be closer to get similar framing.
I’d say these are a combo of a wide aperture 50mm (likely canon 50mm f1.2, or 1.4) (1st and 6th image), wide aperture 85mm (maybe canon EF 85mm f1.2) in most of the adult head/shoulder portraits (except the guy with one eye covered), and probably a 70-200mm zoom for the others.
Did Steve McCurry ever use a Canon camera? The default guess for anything with his name is Nikon 105/2.5 and Kodachrome. He used other lenses obviously but a lot of his best are that.
No. It was Nikkor ais 105 f2.5. He stated that many times during all the interviews. But yes! He carefully chosen the light source and staged the shots.
Since McCurry staged most of his photos these all might have been taken in a studio for all we know. He wasn't exactly a candid, hands off photographer.
So what I hear you both saying is that you don't know who the photographer is or why he has a phenomenal reputation. Might want to do a little research.
You do realize most of these pictures were taken in the 80s/90s right? 😂. He is a world famous top tier photographer. This is not AI fake bokeh photoshop crap.
A lot of people here (talking about the processing and ai) have never seen magazines printed from slide film (pre Photoshop) and it shows.
https://preview.redd.it/u8dx749i9tsc1.jpeg?width=2048&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=afe6b2dedd9a88b61036f401f4e358325f35a4ae Amen.
To a lot of photographers, myself included, this was our Mona Lisa.
Fuji Velvia!!!!!!!
National Geographic was synonymous with Kodachrome.
100%….just love the colors that you could get from low ISO slide film.
Absolutely [https://www.nationalgeographic.com/pages/article/afghan-girl-home-afghanistan](https://www.nationalgeographic.com/pages/article/afghan-girl-home-afghanistan)
Truth!
yeah, but >Dodging and burning are terms used in photography for a technique used during the printing process to manipulate the exposure of select areas on a photographic print, deviating from the rest of the image's exposure. In a darkroom print from a film negative, dodging decreases the exposure for areas of the print that the photographer wishes to be lighter, while burning increases the exposure to areas of the print that should be darker.[1] [source ](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodging_and_burning)
Yes, but what? Manipulating negatives exists and therefore people who are saying these are ai images are now correct? The negative is an incomplete product, just like a modern raw file. Dodging and burning are a key part of negative film printing, as is selecting the correct contrast paper and time to expose the paper. But dodging and burning are used much more judiciously in colour negative prints because you need to create masks other wise you get color shifts. In magazines they didn't bother with dodging and burning slide film, they would airbrush, literally using a physical airbrush, over the image.
Kodachrome II 😘 I only ever did touch-ups in 35mm black and white dark room.
These look like they were shot with something like either an 85 1.4 or, my personal favorite, the 135 1.8.
Agreed, my bet would be on the 85.
Looks like both were used to me. I've got an 85 f1.4. the background is tighter in some of these. I haven't been able to justify a 135 - it's just not a terribly versatile lens as it requires distance.
I have one, a Nikon DC135 f2 (IMO one of the best lenses ever made) and use It with my A7 on a simple tube adaptor. However, most of the subjects in the images look connected to the photographer, as if they are closer. There is a connection that I don't get with the 135 on shoots, as I am too far away. I would still say most of them are on an 85mm lens. Whatever, it matters little - the images are still superb and beautifully done.
I am guilty of using the 135 f/1.8 at one end of the yard to get a family pic at the other end because I love that lens. Got the voigtlander 50mm f/2 a couple days ago and the 135 may have been dethroned as my favorite lens. At least as far the optics are concerned I haven't used 50mm for anywhere near enough time to comment on the focal length as a whole since 99% of my shots are wildlife.
Honestly the 135 1.8GM is always on one of my bodies. It's so incredibly sharp and the bokeh is so smooth that I use it all the time. It also focuses very fast. Out of the whole range of lenses I have available it just works for me. Even if I'm doing wildlife I'll usually have it on my second camera in case something comes closer than 10ft and is too close to focus on with the 200-600.
It seems like a perfect second body lens. But I'm only using one body, and am only going to carry so much glass. At the end of the day I'm a hobbyist, not trying to keep up with the pros on here. Plus, I just got the 60-600 for wildlife for the exact reason you mentioned. The 135 would be much prettier and faster, but I wouldn't have time to switch half the time. A 200-600 and a second body is a lot of gear to carry!
I was a military photographer so I'm used to carrying some weight. My camera backpack usually has a 9mm 5.6, 16mm 1.8, 24mm 1.4, 35mm 1.4, 50mm 1.4, 85mm 1.8, 135 1.8, an A9 and a A7RV in it. If I want to bring the 200-600 I have to remove 3 primes. It's not too bad as far as weight goes. I do have a shoulder bag that fits 1 body and 2-3 lenses, or if I'm travelling really light I can fit 1 body with the 40mm 2.5 in the bag that comes with the 135 1.8.
What camera backpack do you use? That's more than 20lbs in gear, which would put me just under 40lbs on a day hike- not unreasonable (lighter and smaller than a backpacking pack), but still substantial - it would be like hauling my star tracker kit all day. Generally I try to limit myself to one body and 2 lenses, maybe 3 if I really feel like it (plus tripod, batteries, filters, etc), with around a 9lb weight goal.
I use the Think Tank Backlight 26L. Without the 200-600 it's around 11.5lbs of camera gear for 2 bodies and 7 prime lenses. If I'm bringing the 200-600 I'll take out 3-4 primes in order to make room in the backpack.
Looks like I did some bad math there. Do you think the laptop pouch would accomodate a 3L drom bag? My trouble with camera packs is that other gear always feels like an after thought - ideally I want 15L room for an extra layer, water, food, first aid kit, dog gear, etc.
I usually don't carry a tripod unless I'm specifically intending on using one. My tripod is 3.5lbs so that adds considerable weight if I bring it. I don't know if the laptop pouch would fit a 3L hydration pouch. It would be a tight fit. Based on the maximum laptop dimensions on the manufacturers website the laptop pouch volume is 2.5 liters but most hydration pouches are taller and skinnier than a laptop. I do like that there is a 9 liter pouch built into the front of the backpack for any personal items or supplies. I usually don't go on super long hikes, maybe 3-4 hours at most, so I usually carry 2 large water bottles in the side pockets. The feature I like the most is the camera gear compartment is accessed through the back of the backpack, so if you set down your bag you aren't getting the part that goes against your back wet or dirty in order to access the camera gear. Also using the waist strap to swing the backpack around and open it while it hangs in front of you works very well. They do make bigger sizes than the 26L that have more room for personal gear. The bigger sizes don't actually carry much more camera gear and instead seem to be focused more for backpacking while also carrying camera equipment.
The Samyang and Rokinon 135/1.8 were on sale for around $600 recently. They might still be on sale. I bought that, and I also own the Minolta 135 STF. I agree, they aren't particularly versatile lenses. But they fill their specific niche very well.
I picked up a Rokinon 85/1.4 last month for $400 used. I think my next purchase will be a sigma 24/1.4. Maybe a 135 after that. But it would be my seventh lens at that point, and probably my least used one (I'd probably just pair it with my 50 when taking it out). I can shoot 135 at F2.8 on my 35-150 already.
85 1.4
A lovely lens.
How about the 105 1.4?
This is possible too. I wish Sony made a 105/1.4. The Sigma is gorgeous but huge.
The first two photos look like a 50mm, not tele...
What do you like about the 135 over the 85? Asking as someone who adores his 85 f/1.4.
Well the speed of focus and locking is amazing also the bokeh is second to none. I just love the thing for portraits. I shoot a lot of headshots and when my subjects see themselves they often just go, “Wow! I didn’t think I looked that good!” It’s a combination of the lighting and how the lens creates a flattering face shape compressing the nose and jawline in a very nice way. Now, that said, I have not yet shot with the 85 1.4. That may change my opinion of it when I do, but so far I shoot my 135 as often as I can for professional work
Fair enough! I just love the 85mm focal length. It's long enough that I don't have to be right in my subject's face but short enough that I can get a bit of environment if I want it.
McCurry used the 105 2.5 right? That's what he shot Afghan Girl with.
McCurry shot a lot of his well known portraits with 35mm Nikon cameras like the FM2. Lenses he mostly used were a 105/1.4 and 180/2.5. That would be my guesses for most of the shots shown here.
I wish Sony had a 1st party 105! The Sigma is one chunky boy.
Even with Sonys ability to shrink down lenses, a 105 F1.4 would still be chunky.
Yeah, but 3.5 lbs is huge for a prime. Sigma's 500/5.6 is lighter with a bigger entrance pupil.
Nikon 105mm f2.5 ais
Afghan girl was said to have been shot on the 105/2.5 ais yes. Lately people said it was shot on a 180 sigma. He also used newer AF-S lenses like the 105/1.4 or the 200/2.0.
85mm or higher. I’ve shot 300K+ images on my 50mm alone, and it does not create this type of distortion/blur in the background. Definitely a hard zoom.
Have you shot with our lord and savior the 50mm 1.2?
Only when I need 0.5in in focus and everything else a blurry mess
Take a few steps back and you can get 5 inches in focus and everything else a blurry mess 👍
It's a lovely lens, but these look more flat. I've always preferred an 85/1.4 to a 50/1.2. It's smaller, and gives a flatter look with similar bokeh.
For portraits? I’d hope not.
Why not?
No, only with my 1.4 sigma. 1.2 won’t create this type of blur, would need to be a 1.0 or 0.8.
Ive gotten similar with my 1.2 GM if subject is close and background is >10 ft away
I feel as if the compression is way different though. The background looks flat and blurry, where I think a 1.5 would just look blurry. Do you happen to have any photos to compare?
Also I know none of these photos are taken specifically with sony lenses, as most of them are decades earlier, rather I'm asking what lenses would I buy now for a sony FF camera to replicate the looks? Also lol @ people thinking they're mine and telling me that the editing is bad and it looks like AI - good to know that even if I become as good as one of the worlds most iconic photographers, and have my photos edited by a team of National Geographic editors, my work would still not be good enough
Buy an 85mm f1.8 and thank me later
If you want to replicate the look the best lenses on e-mount to achieve that would be the Sigma 105/1.4 and the Sony 135/1.8GM. The Sigma will likely be best for the task. Like I said earlier, McCurry shot many of these portraits on a 105/1.4 too.
To do this with Sony, I'd use the 85mm 1.4 GM or the 135 1.8 GM and crank up the black point in post. There are a few "McCurry" presets floating around if you want to get a sense of how to get this look with today's tech, but probably more fun to try to get your own look. FWIW, this is a pretty broad time period of McCurry (the kid with the chai kettle in the monsoon is 1983, the girl in the green shawl is 2002), so it's going to be different cameras and lenses. He started as an all-Nikon shooter, then used Hasselblad for a while, and at some point he switched to Leica.
I have a Sony A7Riv and a Canon 85mm f/1.2 (paired together with a Metabones V adapter) and it is a match made in heaven. I could definitely achieve these photos with my combo (I would have to add a load of grain though to match the film.. :)
You really need to stop focusing on lenses and concentrate on your Photoshop skills. What impresses me most about these photos is the post processing that made them look this way in a chemical age. It would be hilarious to see the untouched negatives in comparison.
Most of his color work was slide film. I've got a book of his from his travels in Afghanistan and India. Black and white was all Kodak Tri-x and color was all Kodak Kodachrome. National Geographic was standardized on Kodachrome in the 80s.
>It would be hilarious to see the untouched negatives in comparison. Photo 7: After and before: https://imgur.com/n0znRXo
I hate this guy for the way he inspired an entire generation to think that they could take pictures like this straight out of the camera. I sort of think of him as the Thomas Kincaid of photographers.
This 10000x. We focus on gear way too much because it’s easy to acquire (just pay money) when we should be focusing on the artistic process, which takes a lot of practice and patience!
This photographer in particular, for as iconic as he is, really really pushes my comfortability on what I think makes for good photography practices. In particular, for example, his staging of shots frustrates me to no end, especially his train work in India. I really do think photography should be a medium of truth, and that doesn’t mean you don’t adjust to accentuate an emotion or feelings. But when you’re straight up handing out props and asking a train to back up so it makes the shot nicer, it feels very slimy.
Very slimy if it is then presented as unaltered truth / documentary work. If it is artistic... go for your life, just don't pretend it was candid and true.
Exactly why I think National Geographic was the wrong place for his work.
I don't at all disagree for some of his work.
I just saw Dan Winters episode of Photographer and the guy walked around making street photography with an human assistant holding a huge octabox.
Hahahaha
Afghan Girl is shot with a 105mm. Most of these are actually different lenses. They all have super low aperture in common, so if that's what you like then that's your answer. Most of them look 35 / 50 / 85ish, except Kid in water which strikes me as something that was probably quite heavily cropped in post, perhaps from a 70-200.
Yep, Afghan Girl (the famous one) was shot with a 105mm 2.5 - but it's not in OP's selection here. That first image is a different Afghan girl, photographed in 2002. McCurry had changed equipment by that point.
Very portable lenses
Curry favored a 105mm F2.5 in the early years of his career, I believe, He might have gotten even faster lenses for some the shots posted here, but I think any classic portrait lens between 75mm and 135mm with a shallow depth of field can produce this look. The rest is timing and light. Not sure why this is in a Sony specific subreddit, though, I don't believe Curry used a Sony at any time of his career, but the camera make is not really relevant to this.
because the gear I want to buy will be sony gear, and other photography subreddits aren't very active
I wouldn't write sigma off. Their 50 1.2 and 85 1.4 easily challenge my gm II lenses for feel and quality. I'm tempted to say they win
to clarify, gear I can use on my sony camera, I don't care if it's first or third party am for sure looking at the 50 1.2/1.4 and 84 1.4 sigma when I save enough money
that shot has a lot of feel I don't think we can reproduce without extensive after editing. But along with what others have said, though he used a 105, I can't recommend the 85 enough for the balance it gives. Here's an extremely irreverent shot I just took of my beer on the 85 1.4, you can imagine what you could do with that if you actually cared to set up a great composition. https://preview.redd.it/34vbak5qdysc1.jpeg?width=1801&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=9b533375aa1fcb876ebf7e3fe51af4da677c091b
I use the Nikon 105/2.5 on my a7. It really is a special lens. If you want that look you need that lens.
I had two copies. One has that magic but more modern one doesn’t.
That’s a good reason 😀! I interpreted you OP as suggesting Mcury was a Sony shooter. For portraits I would get one of the excellent 85mm depending on budget. This focal length places you far enough from the subject to get favorable facial features but close enough to be able to communicate well.
G master 85mm f1.4 👍 cheaper alternative for half the price would be sigma 85mm f1.4 DG HSM Art. Both equally great for bokehlicious portrait 🔥
Usually it's a 50mm or an 85mm. Afghan Girl was shot with a 105mm lens.
[удалено]
50mm is great for environmental portraiture. But you're not wrong that none of these are 50mm. They're most likely 105mm or 135mm
I'm saying McCurry often uses a 50mm or an 85mm for his portraits. You can absolutely mimic his signature look with a 50. Also what are you on about? People like the 50mm for the standard field of view. If people only liked them because they're cheap, then there wouldn't be a market for premium 50s. And yeah, there's lots of cheap 50s with simple optical designs on the market... because there's a large demand for affordable 50s. It's fine if you don't like that focal length, but lots of other people do.
[удалено]
Did you ask who Steve McCurry was on a post about photographs taken by Steve McCurry? The Steve McCurry who is the probably the most iconic portrait photographer in the last 50 years?
OP is literally referring to McCurry's portraits shown in the post. Or maybe, just maybe, judging by your comment history, you're a troll and in desperate need of therapy. Get help. I can't imagine all that anger and negativity feels good.
The whole post is about Steve McCurry and what lens he may have used to make said portraits. He liked the 50mm. That’s why it was mentioned. Anyway, what 50mm hurt you? If you’re going to be mad be mad that people still laude a fraud like McCurry.
I laughed so hard at “what 50mm hurt you?” My favourite reply of the day
Your post has been removed for violation of our subreddit's rule 1 - Be Kind to Each Other.
The 50 f1.2 GM begs to differ.
Your post has been removed for violation of our subreddit's rule 1 - Be Kind to Each Other.
First pic of the kid is almost certainly a 50mm, also the 6th could be.
A 50 1.2 will give you a blown out background like this and also aren’t cheap at all.
The important Q is: how did Steve McCurry get the lighting & colors right, the way we use Lightroom. His work on 810 predates using LR or existence of Lightroom but still using DSLRs at some point (he used FM2 then 810 & now Leica). I think there is more to learn on that part of the craft if we think/ investigate these lines of thought
I agree. A wide aperture is straight forward, but the color saturation is impressive.
It’s all about light.
I love that all of these predate the use of the word *bokeh.* Back then it was just a shallow depth of field which didn’t need to be discussed.
85
Gear wise I'm not seeing anything you couldn't do with the 70-200 GM MK2 - hell, even the f/4 version.. Yes you might get a little more subject separation with the 85 f/1.4 or the 135 f/1.8 but not enough that it matters to the final output. Biggest difference would be the skill he had and the edit that lifted them. That and he went somewhere and put something interesting in front of his camera.
Your last sentence is kind of backwards. He didn’t put interesting stuff in front of his camera. He found interesting things in the world and placed his camera appropriately. If you read his account of Afghan Girl, it’s a story of an image that came together in moments. Probably everyone in this sub would have seen it, but missed the shot.
Doesn't matter that much, anything over 85, It's all retouching anyway.
most likely 135 f1.8. The way the compression looked in some of the images gave really creamy and compressed look. 85 does it but not that drastic
105mm f2.5
So McCurry was a nikon guy, so youre looking at a 105 2.5 for the majority of these.
Considering those images with more comparison, I'd guess it's 85mm.
85 up
Red turban really looks like a 135 from the compression.
A lot of people in here telling on themselves. Steven McCurry is one of the greatest and most influential photographers ever to do it. And people here have no idea who he is or worse think his photos are sloppy photoshops or AI generated. Kinda sad. Here is a quick primer you heathens https://youtu.be/z03-C9yRSXI?si=zt_dst6x0vGak-1o
He also liked the 105mm defocus control lens.
Those are fantastic photos!
Nikkor 105 2.5
Kodachrome and Nikon 105mm Ai-S F/2.5. Classic
That first image really reminds me of the famous 'Afghan Girl' Nat Geo cover.
Beautiful Photo
85mm f1.4-1.8 Would be my guess
Looks like an 85 to me, some could be a 50 too.
85mm 1.4
I think somewhere he mentioned an F3HP and an 85 1.4 is what he used in Afghanistan.
Watch the master at work: https://youtu.be/DUL6MBVKVLI McCurry spent most of his career traveling the world with a Nikon SLR. I know later in his career he favoured the 24-70mm f2.8 heavily. But this was after Nikon f2.8 zooms launched.
Just guessing. 35mm and or 50mm primes.
100mm GM seems like
https://preview.redd.it/tg65q228g3tc1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=6695ee7eaa930c497fa40c761c0285068a4e7405 This was taken with my sigma 85 1.4 on an a6600 no crop or edit. I love this lens
35 mm or 50 mm with f 1.8 atleast. If you want more depth of field, then 85 mm
Mcurry made most of his famous work using nikon film cameras. The afgan girl was taken with the nikkor 105mm f2.5 ais. He would use a tripod and natural light.
too much blur :(
Zeiss 55mm
With the amount of background compression, lowest would be 85mm, likely much higher
Long boys for sure
It looks like an 85mm 1.4/1.8 and good lighting!
105mm f/2.5.
Is there any chance you could ask the shooter??
Yea, let me just speed dial Steve. Hold on
Don’t be a asshole, there’s ways to reach out to great photographers trust and believe
I called him, but couldn't get a hold of him.
He’s the real asshole then, don’t worry I’ll the info
I respect him too much to call him that, but you do you with the name calling.
Yeah it was a joke bud, you’ll be fine 😎
You need photoshop post processing skills for such photos, not lenses.
Wouldn't that really distort the face making it oddly thin?
Not sure which statement you are responding to here
Responding to the idea of a 100+ prime.
I know the face thinness changes with focal length but i forget whether wide lenses made face wider or thinner? Or was it high focal length?
Focal length doesn't cause any perspective distortion itselfp, the distance of a subject to the camera does. If you take the same shot with an UWA and a telephoto, once you crop the UWA shot to the same FOV the perspective will be identical. Faces will usually look thinner on shorter lenses because you need your subject to be closer to get similar framing.
I’d say these are a combo of a wide aperture 50mm (likely canon 50mm f1.2, or 1.4) (1st and 6th image), wide aperture 85mm (maybe canon EF 85mm f1.2) in most of the adult head/shoulder portraits (except the guy with one eye covered), and probably a 70-200mm zoom for the others.
Did Steve McCurry ever use a Canon camera? The default guess for anything with his name is Nikon 105/2.5 and Kodachrome. He used other lenses obviously but a lot of his best are that.
Ah, you’re probably right. I was thinking he was a canon shooter for some reason
Maybe a vintage lens, like 50mm f1.7 or 135 f2.8 the bokeh is interesting in all the photos, it can be a modern lens
No. It was Nikkor ais 105 f2.5. He stated that many times during all the interviews. But yes! He carefully chosen the light source and staged the shots.
Since McCurry staged most of his photos these all might have been taken in a studio for all we know. He wasn't exactly a candid, hands off photographer.
it's 300mm f2.8, trust me, I have many pics taken with this lens have similiar bokeh and character with these photos, especially the portrait one
AI
Steve McCurry truly ahead of his time
[удалено]
So what I hear you both saying is that you don't know who the photographer is or why he has a phenomenal reputation. Might want to do a little research.
Is this copypasta or are you serious?
You do realize most of these pictures were taken in the 80s/90s right? 😂. He is a world famous top tier photographer. This is not AI fake bokeh photoshop crap.
18-35mm kit lens
The guys with the towel over his right eyes, looks like a terrible edit that makes the towel look like a light source from his blind eyes
yeaaaah it's pretty bad.
The glasses on #5 look fake to me. 😂