lf-photo.org.uk

Hi All

I just bought a book from the nation Portrait Gallery of photographs by Emil Hoppe.

For those of you who don't know the name, Hoppe was called 'The Master' by Cecil Beaton, and worked between 1907 and the late sixties.

Anyway, the book is super, if you like his style, and what's more has been reduced from £30 to £6.50!!

Susie

Susie,
Your post looks a bit lonely - I too have a copy of the Hoppe book, freebie tho - I agree it has some very good photos, but why are so many so soft? Was it deliberate or as a result of the equipment he was using? Sharp lenses were available to him surely? Dennis.

Hi Dennis.

Thanks for adding to the thread!

The soft look was one that he seems to have developed: no pun intended! I bought a copy of his autobiography about 25 years ago and quote from that.

On one picture taken with a Rectilinear lens in 1908 he says, "I still like these cheap, old-fashioned lenses which gave such "roundness" to the head and produced such fine modelling."

Certainly in his early work use was made of a Dallmeyer Portrait lens.

Later on, when enlarging he used a soft-focus lens in the enlarger and began the exposure with the smallest stop considered advisable. During the exposure the iris was slowly opened fully and then closed down again. He says, "The final effect is a roundness which I have not found it possible to obtain by any other method.", and that he abandoned the use of a soft-focus lens on the camera for this technique, which gave much more control.

The range of cameras he used is considerable, from the Leica and Contax via a Permaflex, a custom built 10x8 single lens reflex up to a 10x12 studio camera.

I admit the 'look' is not to everyone's taste, but I think that he owed his reputation and access to the rich and famous by not having a 'warts and all' approach.

Best wishes,

Susie

Susie,
Thanks for the elucidation. It seems he had some interesting ideas, & I agree he probably owed his good fortune in part at least on the fact that his portraits were flattering for the subjects. If I tried that trick with my enlarger the whole thing would shake I fear. It is surprising the amount of interest many of the older photographers (Ansel Adams is another) took in their equipment when so many of the photo magazines have put around the idea that taking an interest in the equipment is 'amateur', & real photographers just get on with it. OK, I am simplifying, but you probably get what I mean. Best wishes, Dennis.

Hi Dennis,

I agree with what you say about equipment. I think the thing is, in Hoppe's and Adams' case they were interested in the gear as a tool - same as Edward Weston was. Better equipment made it easier to get the result they were after.

The 'amateur' approach, as derided in the press, is the idea that having good equipment will make you a good photographer, and that the newest is the best.

In my case, I suppose I would class myself as a 'student of camera design' if that doesn't sound too pompous: I already know I'm no good at taking pictures, but like the gear that does it! I do though appreciate what others are able to do with it.

Susie

Susie Frith wrote:The 'amateur' approach, as derided in the press, is the idea that having good equipment will make you a good photographer, and that the newest is the best.

I think you're bob on there, Susie.

More importantly, I picked up a copy of the book on your recommendation and it arrived today. This is a really interesting read with some fantastic imagery.
It has already inspired me to produce some more portraits.
Thank you.

I suppose the phrase - heard all too often - 'Wonderful pictures; you must have a great camera' is semantically equal to 'Great meal; you must have a wonderful cooker'...

Neil