Cartier-Bresson on 6x6 TLRs

Abbazz

Abbazz

6x9 and be there!
Local time
3:14 AM
Joined
Jun 24, 2005
Messages
931
Location
Jakarta (Indonesia)
View My Gallery
I was reading the New Yorker's article about Leica and I noticed the English translation of a well known Henri Cartier-Bresson's thought-provoking quote about TLRs:

If the good Lord had wanted us to take photographs with a 6 by 6, he would have put eyes in our belly.

I must admit that, despite the fact that I have used a number of TLR cameras, mainly because I liked their vintage lenses, I never really got along with the waist level finder. When I shoot with my Mamiya 330s, I always use the prism finder. That's also the reason why I don't use MF SLRs: I find a Hasselblad with a prism finder too bulky for a 6x6 camera. Ground glass viewing on LF is not much of a problem for me, maybe because the camera is much more static, but the left-right reversed view and the necessity to look down into the viewfinder, instead of looking towards the subject, are major drawbacks to me.

Am I the only one?

Cheers!

Abbazz
 
I enjoy them, but it's a very different experience from a 35mm SLR or rangefinder. It's fun to compose on such a nice big 'screen', though at least for me it requires a little extra time and contemplation.
 
I agree with you, but not HCB. Don't have a TLR but I do have a Kiev 60 that you can either use a TTL metering prism which works as an slr or a waist-level finder attachment that reverses everything. Tried and tried - could never get used to that reverse image. Because the Kneb is so damned big, you are "motivated" to use the waste-level finder which is less bulky than the prism. It's also supposed to be a pretty good one from those who use those things. But - alas, I always attach the metered prism when I shoot the "watermelon"

I'm a rank amature (as anyone who's seen my pics can attest) but I disagree with HCB on this one. Too many pic taken from a standing position - same perspective shot after shot, crouching or kneeling to position the camera in the relative center for better composition is awkward and it's very hard to keep the camera steady shooting in such a position especially at 1/30th and below, it also adds a second or two so you lose the "decisive moment". I definitely agree with HCB on focal lenth though - a good fast 50 (and you have to go out of your way to find a slow/bad one) is all you really need.
|
 
These cameras are obviously different tools for different situations. HCB couldn't stuff MF gear up his sleeve, or evoke that "impromptu" decisive-moment look that became his trademark, so he preferred a 35mm.

(N.b. I have the impression from recorded interviews that it was quite characteristic of HCB to dismiss something just because it didn't suit him personally...)

Anyway, I don't think waistlevels are inherently inconvenient for street work, on the contrary, they can give you a much lower perspective without having to crouch. Sometimes a waistlevel is a great thing.

And who says you have to use a MF TLR or SLR with a waistlevel or prism finder for street photography? There are plenty of great MF rangefinders that are just as responsive as 35mm, sport much larger viewfinders, and record over far greater film area. Slower glass, sure- but look at HCBs shots, he was very rarely shooting wide open anyway.
 
Yes, the WLF is kinda awkward, but whenever I see the results, I'm looking forward to the next chance I can use it.

And, I think TLR's looks so darn cool!

626436860_6a83d31dbe.jpg


And this is the "cheap" Yashica Mat, I am looking towards the day I can justify getting a Rolleiflex or even better, the Ikoflex. 😀
 
Personally, I can't wrap my brain around the reversed viewfinder. Inevitably, I end up doing a strange little dance to get the horizon and everything else lined up as I correct, and then recorrect for the errors made when I corrected initially.

Wash. Rinse. Repeat.

I want to like TLRs, but they just don't work. I'll stick with regular viewfinders, or even digital. With digital my "chimping" is at least somewhat productive.
 
i use a WLF on my hassy 500cm and though initially the reversed orientation confused me a little, i still enjoy using it. it takes more time that's for sure, but shooting with a medium format usually takes more time anyway (at least for me)
the large screen is really nice to look at. 🙂
 
Everyone has their own preferences and tastes. HBC certainly did. I do too. Differenct tools are used for different reasons and for different resutls. TLRs can be used for the decisive moment just like 35mm. The three women in the market in my gallery is an example (even if the scan and post processing was terrible). So was the old and new Korea shot which was with a MF RF. TLRs like the Yashica MAT 124 and the Rolleiflex have the built in ability to be shot with sports finders. That certainly allows the decisive moment to be shot! HBC may never have seen those cameras abilities, or just didn't care to admit it. He liked his 35mm and that is alright for him. Evidently he liked them to the exclusion of any other format. That was alright for himl too. But not for me. I like greater flexibility.

I have a Rolleiflex. I hardly ever use it any more since I have the Super Press 23, but I sure loved the heck out of my Yashica MAT 124 G when I had it before the 23. I see no problem with TLRs used more slowly or for the decisive moment. Those who do have to deal with that themselves in their own way.
 
I have problems with waist-level viewing, while I'm sure one can get one's reflexes in sync with the reversed image. And cameras designed for waist-level handling are in my experience awkward to use at eye level with prism attached.
 
I kindly disagree as well. Using a WLF gives you more freedom in composition. Even when I'm using my Pentacon Six 6x6 SLR, I prefer to use the WLF rather than the two TTL and non-TTL prisms I have. It allows you to take street photos in a less intrusive way rather than aiming a 180/2.8 lens in the face of ppl.
 
Compared to another french well-know photographer that used to shoot with Rolleiflex TLR, Israel Biderman also known as Izis, it is much more different. It was hidden during WWII near where I live, because he was jew. He took a lot of well known photos of France before and after the war, and there is a beautiful exhibition now in my town about his work.

There is also his personnal Rolleiflex, it's a pre-war Rolleiflex Automat with uncoated Tessar. It has been tuned-up :

The loading door opens on the other side than it used to open (like Minolta Autocord for ex.). There is around the focusing wheel a huge distance indicator in place. It seems there is a home made sport finder that prevents you from using the mirror.

In an interview Izis said that if you have the feeling you're about to take a good picture, you don't have time to concentrate on focusing on your Rolleiflex. So I think this is why there is such an enormous distance scale. It is guess-focusing. Another thing is that in B/W you don't have to worry a lot about exposure, if you work in the streets, you take exposure one time and bracket with your instinct.

I think everyone has his own recipe about what seems confortable to take pictures.

isis-2.jpg
 
Last edited:
I have found the TLR to be perfect to take photos of my 3 year old. The "belly" shot helps me NOT to shoot at my eye level ( which is a boring, all to common vantage point for many people's photos ), but at my son's eye level - it helps me get into his world more.

In fact, I have become so attraced to these fine cameras, I created pages for

Rolleiflex TLR's
http://members.aol.com/dcolucci/rolleitlr.htm


Rolleicord TLR's
http://members.aol.com/dcolucci/cord.htm


and Ricoh Diacord TLR's
http://members.aol.com/dcolucci/tlr.htm


The cost to performance ( and flash sync at every speed for easy fill flash ) ratio on these cameras is superb. For as little as $ 100, you can shoot large negs that will shame your old 35 negs....

Dan
 
Mael said:
Compared to another french well-know photographer that used to shoot with Rolleiflex TLR, Israel Biderman also known as Izis, it is much more different. It was hidden during WWII near where I live, because he was jew. He took a lot of well known photos of France before and after the war, and there is a beautiful exhibition now in my town about his work.
Click to expand...

Izis is a great great photographer, rather unrecognized.
About HCB quotation, that's obviously a joke, even though he didn't like TLRs. There's no arrogance here, IMO; Doisneau was a friend of his, and many other TLR photographers. Besides, a photographer like HCB is entitled to give his opinion on camera and photography; sorry, but we (myself) are less entitled to do so, and often do so with much more arrogance.
I've got a Rolleiflex, it's a superb camera giving stunning high quality results, but it's quite difficult to use it for candid street shots. So I can understand why a photojournalist prefers a Leica III or M for shooting in the street.
What about Doisneau then? I've always been impressed by Doisneau street pictures but ... they were very often "posed".
Best,
Marc
 
I think of this as the tool and craftsman issue. Every camera is a compromise. The photographer needs to overcome the limits of the camera design and use it for its strengths. That does not mean you use a TLR like a rangefinder. You use the TLR as a TLR. Margret Bourke-White made some powerful images of the NAZI concentration camps at the end of the war with a TLR. Diane Arbus and Mary Ellen Mark has also used waist-level cameras to great effect as well as Doisneau stated above. If I remember correctly, Eugene Smith used a TLR during the war.

I think photographers gravitate toward a particular camera type because that kind of camera presents the least number of compromises. Some photographers shift from camera type as the type of work they do changes.
 
I join most of you in being reverential to the human icon, HCB, but I am sure his comment was tongue-in-cheek. Even if it wasn't, his advice must be read in the context that he was not a technophile nor particularly interested in photography's finer points. His work and opinions should be viewed in the context of the early twentieth century.

My opinion is that many of his most famous photos would not even find a market today, sad as that seems, and remember he went back to painting and abandoned photography without looking back.

Still, he pointed the way for many photographers who followed . . . including a bunch of 6x6 shooters!
 
I'm far from being a HCB fan, but I'm surprised by some comments to say the least.

Bike Tourist said:
Even if it wasn't, his advice must be read in the context that he was not a technophile nor particularly interested in photography's finer points.
Click to expand...
Not a technophile? he was one of the first photographer using a Leica SM for photojournalism, when people were still using MF folder or LF ... btw, there's no need to be a technophile for having a sound opinion on TLRs

Bike Tourist said:
My opinion is that many of his most famous photos would not even find a market today, sad as that seems,
Click to expand...
Yep, like Capa, Winogrand, Weegee, Lange, Arbus ... etc. Try to sell a picture à la Weegee to a newspaper now... what's the point?


Bike Tourist said:
and remember he went back to painting and abandoned photography without looking back.
Click to expand...
That's supposed to mean? Django Reinhardt also abandoned guitar for painting .... that means?
 
Thanks, Marc, for parsing my comments. By not being a technophile, I meant that he was reputed not to be too concerned with f stops and so forth. He knew what settings worked in various conditions and did not concern himself beyond what it was necessary to know to make the image. He left it to others to do the darkroom work.

As to meaning? Let's see . . . I meant that others seemed to make more of his images than he did. He did not think of himself as only a photographer.

At least, that's my understanding, since I wasn't there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom