Well, I think the photographs aren’t very good. They are just tight close-ups. Period.
Back in the day, using a Nikon and a 135mm lens, at about 5 ft to 5.5 ft distance, just far enough to avoid most distortion, you could pretty much fill the frame. An 85mm or 105mm would have been a doubtful choice for filling the frame (upright) in a gentle manner. Whether or not one chose to do so was something else: who knows how power can affect photographers…
The ‘detail’, about which the world and this article are wetting their knickers, doesn’t seem to suggest any special equipment… if the guy usually relies on a “medium format” digital camera then no doubt he’d use it; if not, it wouldn’t seem to make much difference. After all, today’s small cameras are way ahead of film regarding perceived sharpness etc., and I imagine any pro here using a current full frame Nikon, Canon etc. would have no trouble matching what VF has rejoiced in doing.
If there’s a problem, it lies with VF deciding to play a hatchet number on the sitters; I see no justified reason for press cruelty, especially in a magazine where such behaviour would not be expected.
Perhaps that’s why it happened: as with all paper media, circulation’s a tough game and any publicity is better than no publicity. Having people throw your title around is better than not having your title mentioned. If I’m correct, then I hope this trick turns around and bites that VF bum.
