Did Francis Wollf ever take a bad photo?

[sidewinder]

There's a wonderfully atmospheric one of Melvin Lastie which has the same effect - ciggie in hand as he plays, taken at the 'Alligator Boogaloo' session..

Yes, I have the big book of Wolff photos. Invaluable, IMO

Edited April 5, 2004 by sidewinder

[Hardbopjazz]

  sidewinder said:

There's a wonderfully atmospheric one of Melvin Lastie which has the same effect - ciggie in hand as he plays, taken at the 'Alligator Boogaloo' session..

Yes, I have the big book of Wolff photos. Invaluable, IMO 

Yeah, there's a lot of photos in the book with musicans smoking. Kind of makes you say, "yeah, smoking is cool." Man, I bet Van Gelder's studio must have reeked from smoke.

Edited April 5, 2004 by Hardbopjazz

[Shrdlu]

I've often wondered why there is usually just pitch blackness behind most of Wolff's Englewood Cliffs pictures. Was that studio kept fairly dark?

Anyway, I'm a big fan of his work (Who isn't?)

[sidewinder]

Wasn't he a stickler for food etc. in the studio? In which case, he must have been following them around with a turbo-charged extractor fan !

[Soulstation1]

i have both of wollf's bn books

ss1

[patricia]

  Shrdlu said:

I've often wondered why there is usually just pitch blackness behind most of Wolff's Englewood Cliffs pictures. Was that studio kept fairly dark?

Anyway, I'm a big fan of his work (Who isn't?)

Although it may very well been dimly lighted, the studio didn't necessarily have to be, to create the effect. The background virtually drops away with the adjustment of the depth of the photographer's field. Thus, even in normal light, the background can appear to be black. I would guess that if the picture was formally composed, which the picture of Mobley appears to be, a dark backdrop and strategic lighting would be likely.

[sheldonm]

I've been a photographer for about 30 years and have photographed a ton of rock musicians but now shoot primarily jazz musicians. My take on this issue is how you define a great photograph. If your looking for something that's defined as not being "too grainy", the 6x6 would certainly produce a nicer print than 35mm; although this is changing a little with the advances in film/digital technology. But this is certainly not the definition of a great photograph, in my opinion. There are many photographs that are grainy/blurred that show more feeling than the ones that are tack sharp. A photograph that is technically perfect can still be a bore. I have many original photographs that were shot by Wolff, Claxton, Leonard, Gottlieb and others. While all the prints I have are considered great (in my opinion), they may not be considered so by others. I centainly think, actually I know all these photographers have made bad photographs and I have seen examples from all of the above. Even a photograph that is not technically "great" may still qualify as a great photograph. Sometimes what makes a photograph great is the combination of sharpness or lack there of, the tonal range, the subject matter, composition or the historical nature of it. I could ramble about this for days but I'm sure I've bored some of you already. These are just my opinions based on my experiences. BTW, I like the Mobley shot; while maybe not "great", it shows some creativity, enough so that everyone has an opinion on it. That in itself may qualify it as great!

Mark

[sheldonm]

I heard one time that Francis would often photograph with one hand while holding the flash out to one side. I don't know if this is the case, but it's possible (although a little difficult).

Mark

[mikeweil]

  Soulstation1 said:

i have both of wollf's bn books

Oh you lucky guy - they're still on my wish list.

Please don't take me wrong - I rank Wolff among the great jazz photographers along with Leonard, Claxton, Friedman, you name 'em. It's jsut that particular photo that doesn't get me.

Aren't there any others any one of you thinks it's not so great? Don't wanna put him down, but we all know the really great ones, and this thread is about the misses.

[patricia]

  sheldonm said:

I've been a photographer for about 30 years and have photographed a ton of rock musicians but now shoot primarily jazz musicians.  My take on this issue is how you define a great photograph.  If your looking for something that's defined as not being "too grainy", the 6x6 would certainly produce a nicer print than 35mm; although this is changing a little with the advances in film/digital technology.  But this is certainly not the definition of a great photograph, in my opinion.  There are many photographs that are grainy/blurred that show more feeling than the ones that are tack sharp.  A photograph that is technically perfect can still be a bore.  I have many original photographs that were shot by Wolff, Claxton, Leonard, Gottlieb and others.  While all the prints I have are considered great (in my opinion), they may not be considered so by others.  I centainly think, actually I know all these photographers have made bad photographs and I have seen examples from all of the above.  Even a photograph that is not technically "great" may still qualify as a great photograph.  Sometimes what makes a photograph great is the combination of sharpness or lack there of, the tonal range, the subject matter, composition or the historical nature of it.  I could ramble about this for days but I'm sure I've bored some of you already.  These are just my opinions based on my experiences.  BTW, I like the Mobley shot; while maybe not "great", it shows some creativity, enough so that everyone has an opinion on it.  That in itself may qualify it as great!

Mark

I agree. Although sharpness and crispness is usually desired and evident in b+w work, it isn't always the goal of the photographer. Sometimes graininess, and even being slightly out-of-focus works to create a mood or feeling in the finished work.

But, just having a particular camera and knowing how the camera you're using and the additional equipment, if any, works has as much, IMO, to do with creating a great picture as owning a top-of-the line saxophone has to do with creating musical magic. Without Wollf, or, in the case of music, we'll say Charlie Parker, the equipment means almost nothing.

Edited April 5, 2004 by patricia

[Hardbopjazz]

There was one photo taken in the Hackensack studio, where there's photo of someone playing the piano, don't remember whom it was, but it was just a shot of the musicians back and the blinds covering the window. It doesn't appear in the book I have, but I did see it once on some website. I'll have to try to track it down.

Edited April 5, 2004 by Hardbopjazz

[sheldonm]

I would agree that Bird could take an average (or even broken) saxophone and play better than most people could with a top of the line horn. I also think if you are a good photographer, you could take better photographs with a middle of the road camera than many people can with a $8000.00 Canon digital. With photography, I feel it's the photographer's personal vision that makes or breaks an image. I have seen many photographs that are technically perfect that put me to sleep. On the other hand, someone may love them......to each his own!!!!

[brownie]

In addition to the Rolleiflex 6x6 camera, Wolff also used a Leica camera from time to time. But most of the photos which were on the covers of the BN albums came from 6x6 negatives. Cropping from 6x6 negatives enables for much sharper images than with the 35mm format especially when they are to go on 12-in album covers which was what Wolff's photos were mostly used for.

To add to Sheldonm remark about the use of flash, it was near standard procedure at the time for a photographer using a Rolleiflex 6x6 to click with one hand while the other hand aimed the flash in the chosen direction to give softer and more diverse values of light. Photos came out much better than with the regular flash attachment that went with the Rolleiflex and gave straight-on illuminations.

As for Wolff's off photos, I would not put any blame on him for any non worthy photos. The man took an immense collection of incredible photos.

I have been in the photo editing business now for some four decades and I will go on record to say that I do not know of any great photographer (and I have met and worked with a lot of those) who did not miss a number of photos.

[sheldonm]

Brownie,

You are correct. Many people reading this have probably never used a camera that didn't focus, expose, advance or rewind for you. It's much more difficult to do this in the field than you would expect and still turn out "perfect" images. I think Wolff's body of work speaks for his ability! I have many of his original prints and they are amazing.

Mark