Overheard at MOMA about HCB: "why were so many of his photos out of focus?"

Well, from my reading of the comments, it seems that some are trying to diminish HCB's work because of its technical imperfections (e.g., "Emperor's New Clothes", "don't understand how he came to be the Clapton-like God" "When you take an out of focus photo, you throw it. When HCB did the same : it's called ART"). Clearly the fact that this thread exists indicates that some people do give a damn about his technique, or rather lack thereof. I've heard & read similar criticism of Robert Frank and William Eggleston.

That's perfectly fine, as his detractors are certainly entitled to their opinions, & maybe they're right in suggesting that his photos would have been even more awesome if he had paid more attention to technique. And I'm as annoyed as anyone @ those who see HCB as some kind of god (mostly based on the fact that he used Leicas). But some of the criticism of HCB comes across as sour grapes.

My bottom line is similar to Juan's conclusion that his lack of technique "didn't matter to HCB, it doesn't matter to MOMA, and it won't matter to history of photography." It doesn't matter if his photos could have been improved w/better technique. They are what they are.

Harry Lime said:
Oh, god here we go.

Someone dared to say something critical about Hank Carter.

I don't think that anyone is trying to take away anything from the artistic genius of the man. And I don't think that anyone is trying to diminish his work, because of technical imperfections. You want to know how good HCB was? His artistic vision was so good that no one gives a damn about his technique. That's just about the highest compliment you can make.

But once you step back from the blind hero worship and look at his work objectively you have to speak truth to power. The man had little interest in the technical side of his art and it shows. That's simply a fact and a mature individual should be able to acknowledge that, especially in light of the fact that is takes nothing away from his artist achievements.
Click to expand...
 
CK Dexter Haven said:
And, to excuse technical issues because of the time period or because he was among the first to adopt a piece of machinery seems odd. If the image is the most important thing, you use whatever you have to use to get the image.
Click to expand...

Here's HCB's first Leica, from the 1930's:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cartier-Bresson's_first_Leica.jpg

It had an f3.5 lens, and he was probably using 100 ISO film at the time. (film reference).

As soon as he walked into an alley or went indoors, he would have been pushing the limits of the lens and hand-held shutter speed. Faster lenses and films would have improved things, but they just didn't exist at the time.
 
Sparrow said:
a quick search of google images retrieves many thousands of photos of almost every aspect of the operation, so you will understand my disagreement with your recollection.

Capa however may have got lucky to stumble into a more image rich environment than the others
Click to expand...

I think we need to differentiate between:

- The first wave to land on the beach on June 6th (6:30am)

- The afternoon of June 6th, after the beachhead was established

- The days following June 6, known as D-Day +1 (= June 7th) etc


Capa and the other fellow went in with the first wave to assault the beach on June 6th, 6:30am.

Capa was the only photographer who actually put his boots on the sand that morning, where he left behind a brand new and very expensive Burberry raincoat. He landed on Omaha Beach, section "Easy Red" with the first wave of landing craft to hit the beach. 'Bloody Omaha' suffered the highest casualties that morning. "Saving Private Ryan" depicted a rather tame version of what went on there.

The other fellow took pictures from his landing craft. I think he took this shot, but I am not 100% sure. In any case he never did set foot on the beach, but returned with the barge to the mothership to file his negatives

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_TZ4zYEBSw...AKGc/vzE-F84bRiU/s1600-h/D_day_invasion_2.jpg

There may have been some military photographers present, since there is motion picture footage that was shot from barges.

But Capa was the only one to actually set foot on the beach that morning.

=========================================

Once the beachhead was established during the afternoon of June 6 other photographers followed.

There were various photographers present that were members of the military. As an example Marty Lederhandler, who later worked for AP, was part of the US Signal Corps. He also landed on June 6 and took pictures, but he was not part of the initial assault waves, so he arrived that afternoon.

I'm pretty sure that the British, Canadians forces etc also have their own military photographers that arrived late in the day.

=========================================

The other 99% of the photographers arrived anytime after June 6 (D-Day +1, +2 etc).
Within 48 hours the place was swarming with photographers.

=========================================

On a separate note it would be interesting to know if there were any German photographers present that morning...
 
Last edited:
furcafe said:
That's perfectly fine, as his detractors are certainly entitled to their opinions, & maybe they're right in suggesting that his photos would have been even more awesome if he had paid more attention to technique. And I'm as annoyed as anyone @ those who see HCB as some kind of god (mostly based on the fact that he used Leicas). But some of the criticism of HCB comes across as sour grapes.

My bottom line is similar to Juan's conclusion that his lack of technique "didn't matter to HCB, it doesn't matter to MOMA, and it won't matter to history of photography." It doesn't matter if his photos could have been improved w/better technique. They are what they are.
Click to expand...

I think you need to reread what I wrote...

Originally Posted by Harry Lime

"Oh, god here we go.

Someone dared to say something critical about Hank Carter.

I don't think that anyone is trying to take away anything from the artistic genius of the man. And I don't think that anyone is trying to diminish his work, because of technical imperfections. You want to know how good HCB was? His artistic vision was so good that no one gives a damn about his technique. That's just about the highest compliment you can make.

But once you step back from the blind hero worship and look at his work objectively you have to speak truth to power. The man had little interest in the technical side of his art and it shows. That's simply a fact and a mature individual should be able to acknowledge that, especially in light of the fact that is takes nothing away from his artist achievements.
"
 
So many experts here... I'm sure you guys could have taught HCB a thing or two... ;)
 
Last edited:
No, I believe my reading comprehension is just fine, though my writing may fall short.

I wasn't disagreeing w/your statement regarding HCB's artistic vision trumping his technical shortcomings, but rather your view that "I don't think anyone is trying to diminish his work, because of technical imperfections." While I agree w/your opinion of HCB ("His artistic vision was so good that no one gives a damn about his technique") for the most part, I disagree w/your assessment of what some others had posted in the thread. Again, I think it's obvious that some commenters on this thread do "give a damn about his technique" & HCB's technical imperfections do diminish his work in their eyes.

Harry Lime said:
I think you need to reread what I wrote...

Originally Posted by Harry Lime

"Oh, god here we go.

Someone dared to say something critical about Hank Carter.

I don't think that anyone is trying to take away anything from the artistic genius of the man. And I don't think that anyone is trying to diminish his work, because of technical imperfections. You want to know how good HCB was? His artistic vision was so good that no one gives a damn about his technique. That's just about the highest compliment you can make.

But once you step back from the blind hero worship and look at his work objectively you have to speak truth to power. The man had little interest in the technical side of his art and it shows. That's simply a fact and a mature individual should be able to acknowledge that, especially in light of the fact that is takes nothing away from his artist achievements.
"
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Harry Lime said:
I think we need to differentiate between:

- The first wave to land on the beach on June 6th (6:30am)

- The afternoon of June 6th, after the beachhead was established

- The days following June 6, known as D-Day +1 (= June 7th) etc

BIG EDIT


On a separate note it would be interesting to know if there were any German photographers present that morning...
Click to expand...

Yes you are probably correct if you set those criteria, but then if one defines D-Day as the first landings then the the Airborne's attack on the Orne river was the start of it, and they got the day wrong too
 
Why does Cartier-Bresson have to be be put on a pedestal.? He was a good photographer that pushed the limits of what was considered photography. I but so did a lot of people. I find it odd that anyone would worship any artist or photographer. Why the hype, both in the accolades and derision?
 
went TODAY to the Show...LOVED IT...Tres Fab

though I don't recall seeing "so many" Out of Focus shots

There were definitely Soft Focus and then of Course Sharp
but Todays standards of Sharp is Quite a Different sharp!

What a GRAND Way to have Lived Life...to see the WORLD & its Cultures ,to see history & Capture it in the Making
 
Last edited:
antiquark said:
Compared to who? I'm not into the HCB hero-worship myself, but photojournalism in HCB's era had limitations that today could be mistaken as laziness or sloppiness.
Click to expand...

I don't think any of his contemporaries exhibited the same inattention to technical pursuits. And, the image characteristics/flaws we're discussing weren't limited to his early years. If other photographers had the same problems with materials or equipment, they didn't show/print/circulate those images. It reminds me of internet dialog. One camp asserts that "it doesn't matter if i spell or punctuate properly. I can be casual and still communicate my thoughts." The other (my) camp says that communication also involves a demonstration of respect for your audience. Showing flawed work indicates to me either 1) whatever i do is good; or 2) your respect isn't important to me. I don't agree with #1, and i don't appreciate #2.

I think the Capa image is an unfortunate comparison. I don't think anyone is suggesting that a single blurry photo should be an indictment of a person's career. There are always circumstances that prevent someone's visualization from becoming a realization. I think everyone acknowledges that HC-B made some excellent photographs. My issue is with the sum of his career. That the 'sloppy habits' seem too often to be ignored by the fans. And that his editing is sometimes far less demanding than that of even an amateur. What's puzzling is how often it happens when the situation is NOT difficult. His portraits, for example. We're not talking about someone evading gunfire. A lot of his assignments were pretty cushy. And, when he gets it right, the photographs are wonderful. But, then he'll toss in a hazy, lazy snapshot, and it's supposed to be good+important because the subject is famous and the photographer is famous. That's my objection.
 
CK Dexter Haven said:
But, then he'll toss in a hazy, lazy snapshot, and it's supposed to be good+important because the subject is famous and the photographer is famous. That's my objection.
Click to expand...

If it works, it works. It doesn't matter sometimes if it has a snapshot feel to it.
 
CK Dexter Haven said:
I don't think any of his contemporaries exhibited the same inattention to technical pursuits.
Click to expand...

His contemporaries might have perfected the art of focusing, but they seem to be long forgotten for some reason... :)

CK Dexter Haven said:
And, the image characteristics/flaws we're discussing weren't limited to his early years. If other photographers had the same problems with materials or equipment, they didn't show/print/circulate those images.
Click to expand...

Take a look is this google search for 1950's pics from LIFE magazine. HCB wasn't the only photog with blurry images, lens flare, bad composition, etc.
http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&tbs=isch%3A1&sa=1&q=1950s+source%3Alife&btnG=Search&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&start=0

CK Dexter Haven said:
Showing flawed work
Click to expand...

Does soft focus make a photograph flawed?


CK Dexter Haven said:
That the 'sloppy habits' seem too often to be ignored by the fans. And that his editing is sometimes far less demanding than that of even an amateur.
Click to expand...

That's one of the first lessons of photography: technical perfection does not a good photograph make. :)

CK Dexter Haven said:
What's puzzling is how often it happens when the situation is NOT difficult. His portraits, for example. We're not talking about someone evading gunfire. A lot of his assignments were pretty cushy. And, when he gets it right, the photographs are wonderful. But, then he'll toss in a hazy, lazy snapshot, and it's supposed to be good+important because the subject is famous and the photographer is famous. That's my objection.
Click to expand...

Offhand, I can only think of 3 blurry shots by HCB, so it's not like his work was inundated with them.

Even modern photographers, like Steve McCurry, have blurry shots.
 
 
sharpness can be an aesthetic or (in the wrong hands) it can be an anesthetic.

(if you don't believe the second part of what I hope is an aphorism I have coined myself and not plagiarized from anyone, have a look at some of the really, really sharp images on flickr; see if you think that sharpness makes 'em better or just makes 'em sharper.)

I think the best way to understand why HCB matters is to view him in the context of his times. if you look at what came before him, I think you can get a good perspective of why some folks think his work is a big deal. does that make him the greatest photographer of his or any era? I have no clue and I don't care. what I do know is that his work altered how others did photography and how people look at. is every one of the 500,000 (or is it a million?) images he is said to have shot wonderful? no. are some of them wonderful? I think so, but that's just an opinion. what's a fact is that before he came on the scene photography was different than it was once he made his impact.

until this guy at the show asked his question about "so many out-of-focus shots," I'd never given this much thought regarding HCB or any of the artists whose work I like (famous ones and unknowns alike, including btw, many folks on RFF... some of you are really good at this). I don't expect I'll give this much thought in the future either. to be honest, I was tickled over the question. I shared a laugh with the guy who asked it. I thought it was a fair question and I had no intent to malign or condescend to him when I answered. the interaction was silly and I enjoyed the brief conversation. there's no accounting for taste, not mine and not this fellow's and probably not yours either.
 
antiquark said:
I think the poster may have been referring to "Mario's Bike". It was an HCB photo someone surreptitiously submitted to the "deleteme" flickr critique group. The comments are quite hilarious:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/andrerabelo/70458366
Click to expand...

That's what it was, yes. I once saw another posting on Flickr as "Luigi's Bike"...and well, the Nintendo Era does have an effect on memory recall.

"Sharpness" is indeed overrated. But so is "blur".

One of the problems is the over-exploitation of a feature to the point of rendering it ineffective.

How many people here are impressed by humans talking? Nobody. Why? Because it is generally expected for humans to be able to speak. How many people here are impressed by a dog talking?

Supply and demand.
 
The great eyes of HCB can punch through minor technicalities like pinpoint focus, graininess, and the limits of small format 35mm.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom