Quote Originally Posted by juan
Does anyone know what camera she used for 2 1/4 square? Or how tall she was? Online sources say she used a camera with a waist-level finder, but the point of view of her photos certainly seems high for that. As in the top two photos above. The third photo looks more like a waist-level finder to me.
From what I understand, up until about 1962 she used a Nikon 35mm, then switched to a Rolleiflex wide angle. Switched again to a Mamiya 33c in the latter part of the '60's, and the very last work was done on a Pentax 6X7 she borrowed from Hiro. She was saving up to buy her own Pentax when she offed herself. As far as height, I believe she was in the 5'4" to 5'6" range.

My opinion of the show is quite different from Domenico, and I left a post in another thread to that effect. Selkirk's prints were only of images that were either not available in original prints, or were of negatives Arbus had never printed herself. There were actual Diane Arbus prints represented in the show as well, and I honestly saw no appreciable difference between them and the Selkirk prints (And as a matter of fact the print of "Patriotic Young Man" that Domenico refers to as an example of what is wrong with the Selkirk prints is actually an Arbus print). But then I was looking at the images themselves rather than concerning myself with technical considerations. I guess each individual sees something different when they look at an item, be it a photograph or a rock. In the "Revelations" book there is an article by Selkirk concerning the great pains he went to to match her darkroom techniques. If the labels under the prints hadn't told me, I would have had to look very critically to determine who printed what.

As far as the LAMAC experience, I was not shocked by the extra twelve dollars as that was what they charged for the Ansel Adams At 100 exhibit. I thought this was the norm until I read above that SF didn't tack on an extra charge. I was disgusted by several "gigglers", especially since they seemed past the ravages of puberty. I guess Arbus' work still makes people uncomfortable. And of course, no gallery experience would be complete without the obligatory "Expert with the VERY LOUD VOICE" who knows everything about everything and is only too happy to generously share his profound knowledge to all within the rather considerable earshot of his voice. This is why I prefer books.

But to get back to the images themselves, I did experience the power that Domenico found wanting. Oddly, it was exactly that feeling I was expecting to get at the Adams exhibit, but didn't, which made me go back and reconsider my feelings and assumptions about the great St. Ansel. I dunno - I guess everyone has to experience stuff for themselves and take what they like and leave the rest. That's why there is still room in the world for yet more photographic visions.