I agree with AJ, I think it was done at the printing stage as well.
Looking at the picture, the hair isn't blurred, it's repeated over and over.
They could have made a first exposure and then masked the face while making several other exposures, increasingly raising or lowering the enlarger. From the look of it, I'd guess three exposures in total for the hair.
I would agree with you about manipulating in the enlarger with masking but you can see her eye brow through her hair and except for the burned out area to the lower right of her face/hair the hair seems to be exposed the same (not burned out or transparent by multiple exposures IMHO).you have to admit it's pretty interesting.
Maybe he asked her to turn her head and stop. The face stooped but hair still moved a bit. The googled photos I found are a little small.
I think it was done at the taking stage, as best effects are. Perhaps a swish of card to move the hair over a moderate long exposure, say 1/30th.
It didn't seem that Avedon was terribly interested in darkroom techniques, so I also think it was in taking stage. Could it be multiple exposures with zoom lens, or just moving back? I was surprised that the "Assisting Avedon" assistant didn't include any tips/tricks on this portrait. Some of the other portraits that he did later also includes multiples of hair yet face in focus.
In my humbug -- I mean, humble -- opinion it is just the hairdo, the lighting and the depth of field. The man did know how to use his tools and those around him did, too. That is why we are still looking at his photos.
How does hairdo, lighting and depth of field blur hair?
Originally Posted by snapguy
Just so as we are talking apples and apples
this is a copy that can be enlarged greater than life sized. There is no blur. there is an area in the left upper scalp with 4 lines apparently repeated, but on high magnification they appear different. I still think the highlighting of the blonde and a comb and spray did this.
Isn't it interesting how we all see things differently.
Thanks for the link .Am amazed at the image and that I hadn't seen the obvious detail that you saw right away. Really perceptive of you.
I agree about us all seeing things so differently,The other night I watched a TV show"Brain Games"and had the fact that we interpret things we see according to past experiences and training.Some times our brain jumps to conclusions which aren't factual but we are sure we observed one thing when another thing actually happened.
The first time I saw this image it was probably about 8 1/2" X 11" in a Avedon book and there were several of us looking at it together.probably one of us said" her hair seems to be moving" and that was enough to imprint on my brain (about 50 or more years ago).Sadly it makes a statement about my memory,LOL!
Again thanks, I believe you've answered my query
I remember seeing this decades ago and thought it looked as though it was a multiple filter exposure using red, green and blue in combination with the triple exposure.
This is normally done using colour film with the idea to make things that move look different and the things that don't move to look normal. I remember how some of the prints I saw and the small amount a couple of us did as an experiment in a studio turned out, the look isn't that much different.
I pretty much assumed a long exposure, and the hair being moved by a man made zephyr.