Did Francis Wollf ever take a bad photo?

[Hardbopjazz]

Every photo I ever seen by Francis Wollf was great. I can't think of 1 photo I didn't like that he took, at least none from any albums.

Can you think of any?

Edited April 3, 2004 by Hardbopjazz

[mikeweil]

Every photographer takes several, in most cases many, many photos before he gets one that he thinks is really great. The reason we do not know any "bad" is they never get published. Would you publish an inferior photo you've taken?

[Hardbopjazz]

Of course not. Maybe my questions should have said are there any of his photos that don't grab you.

[Christiern]

You might have asked if he ever made public a bad photo. I think every photographer has a few of those.

[mikeweil]

I never liked this particular Mobley cover photo, as it makes him look like some alien insect!

Edited April 3, 2004 by mikeweil

[Hardbopjazz]

I forgot about that one.

[Chuck Nessa]

That is one of my favorites.

[Dan Gould]

I'm with Chuck-I don't think Frank "composed" his photos very often-they were usually just on-the-job shots or guys relaxing or discussing the music. That one was obviously carefully lined up and I think its a keeper, one of his best.

[chris olivarez]

We probably will never see Francis Wolff's "outtakes". Even so his worst photos are probably better than some peoples best.

[wolff]

He may have been a better dark room technician than photographer. Other than the composition, that can be improved by cropping, when I look at his photos I think "dark room expert".

[chris olivarez]

Well whatever it was he made it work.

[wesbed]

It's interesting how art can be interpreted in different ways. I always thought the Hank Alien Insect photo was cool as hell. Kind of a glimpse of Hank in action. Right up close, front & center.

[BruceH]

It certainly grabs your attention. I like how it's not a run-of-the-mill Wolff photo. Good album, too.

[mikeweil]

Perhaps I would like it better without that bulky piece of microphone or whatever it is.

[Dmitry]

I never liked this particular Mobley cover photo, as it makes him look like some alien insect!

Not one of my favorites either.

He took some awesome photos though.

I bet Wolff used a great medium format camera, like Hasselblad 1000F.

[brownie]

I never liked this particular Mobley cover photo, as it makes him look like some alien insect!

Not one of my favorites either.

He took some awesome photos though.

I bet Wolff used a great medium format camera, like Hasselblad 1000F.

No Hasselblad for him, Francis Wolff was a Rolleiflex 6x6 faithful!

[patricia]

I always find it interesting when people consider the equipment used to take a great photograph relevant. It has very little to do with the resulting work. A great photographer can do equally good work with a piece of crap camera as they can with a bells-and-whistles one.

All photographs are an example of how skilled the photographer is at transferring to film what they are seeing and nothing else. Like a good painter or musician, even they sometimes can't describe what it is that they do that few others do. There is a singlemindedness that gives them the ability to not only know what belongs in the picture, but more importantly, what doesn't. Ten frames of the same shot are all slightly different from each other and the one chosen, quite often, is not the photographer's favourite. But, as was said earlier, an artist of Wolff's skill's worst shot is probably better than most's best.

Almost all the photographers that I know do all their work "up front", which is to say that they intend for everything in the frame to be in the finished shot. They compose as they view the subject through the lens and do no, or almost no cropping at all.

Edited April 5, 2004 by patricia

[Dmitry]

I never liked this particular Mobley cover photo, as it makes him look like some alien insect!

Not one of my favorites either.

He took some awesome photos though.

I bet Wolff used a great medium format camera, like Hasselblad 1000F.

No Hasselblad for him, Francis Wolff was a Rolleiflex 6x6 faithful!

He must have mastered it in the 1930s. It's a classic.

Do you know what kind of lighting he used, just a flash on a bracket?

[Dmitry]

I always find it interesting when people consider the equipment used to take a great photograph is relevant. It has very little to do with the resulting work.

I think you are wrong.

Reason one - a 35mm milk-dish could not have captured Wolff's subjects nearly as well as a classic 6x6 Rolleiflex.

It would be technically impossible to produce the images of such quality without a good camera/lens.

[patricia]

I always find it interesting when people consider the equipment used to take a great photograph is relevant.  It has very little to do with the resulting work.

I think you are wrong.

Reason one - a 35mm milk-dish could not have captured Wolff's subjects nearly as well as a classic 6x6 Rolleiflex.

It would be technically impossible to produce the images of such quality without a good camera/lens.

You're entitled to your opinion.

My point was that an artist, such as Wolff, could have taken a great photograph with whatever was available to him. The resulting picture would have been a demonstration of his skill and not a demonstration of the equipment he used, whatever it was.

I think that he could have taken the shot with a Brownie box, if that was what was available, using the time-exposure setting and available light, but probably didn't. Great eye for composition. I like it.

Edited April 5, 2004 by patricia

[Dmitry]

You're entitled to your opinion.

My point was that an artist, such as Wolff, could have taken a great photograph with whatever was available to him. The resulting picture would have been an example of his skill and not an example of the equipment he used, whatever it was.

I will disagree again.

I don't think it's as a matter of opinions & our subjective views of what constitutes photography as an art form...

Good medium format camera with appropriate film and a good lens properly set-up for the occasion, such as a poor-lit studio, always takes a [much] better picture than a Samsung point-n-shoot.

Camera is the photographer's eye, not a box-full of screws and gears.

I realized it when I was 12 or 13 and joined a photo club.

[patricia]

You're entitled to your opinion.

My point was that an artist, such as Wolff, could have taken a great photograph with whatever was available to him.  The resulting picture would have been an example of his skill and not an example of the equipment he used, whatever it was.

I will disagree again.

I don't think it's as a matter of opinions & our subjective views of what constitutes photography as an art form...

Good medium format camera with appropriate film and a good lens properly set-up for the occasion, such as a poor-lit studio, always takes a [much] better picture than a Samsung point-n-shoot.

Camera is the photographer's eye, not a box-full of screws and gears.

I realized it when I was 12 or 13 and joined a photo club.

Of course, Dmitry.

I do still photography for a living and I don't disagree with you when you say that a skilled photographer can take superior shots with good equipment, properly used. I'm only saying that it's not the defining factor. My own preference and the camera and lenses I use are almost exclusively a Canon AE1, with a 35-70mm zoom, or a 50mm macro lens. I do mostly portraits and close-up ad work.

A point and shoot camera was invented, in my opinion, in order to enable anyone to take a decent picture. I like to be able to control every aspect of my work, so the fewer automatic features, the better.

But, I stand by my opinion that an artist, whose medium is a camera, can take a picture, like the Mobley one with almost any camera, paying attention to the film speed, basic composition, lighting and exposure. So, you see, I'm not really disagreeing with you.

What makes Wollf's work remarkable is his eye.

Edited April 5, 2004 by patricia

[brownie]

He must have mastered it in the 1930s. It's a classic.

Do you know what kind of lighting he used, just a flash on a bracket?

No idea about this. But he obviously used the flashlight very diligently!

[sidewinder]

There has been an excellent exhibition of original Francis Wolff prints at one of the London galleries during the past few weeks. Lots of great shots on show - Mobley, Dexter, Wayne, Coltrane/Morgan/Fuller, Herbie and Elvin, to name a few. Now showing over at the 'Spitz' gallery in Spitalfields, I believe.

[Hardbopjazz]

One of favorite photos of his, is that of Sam Jones from Sonny Red's "Out of the Blue." You can see the smoke and the flame burning form Jone’s cigarette and rising through the air. Just a great shot.

I don't know if anyone else has the book of his photos. There just so many great shots in there.

Edited April 5, 2004 by Hardbopjazz