If Henri Cartier-Bresson was alive today would he shoot film or digital?

[Roger Hicks]

The insinuation/implication buried in this hypothetical is... did you choose to shoot with traditional equipment (at least initially) in full or in part because you were inspired by/wanted to take pictures like ___________ ? (And there's absolutey, positively nothing wrong with this...) And, if you think that ____________ would not have chosen to use those tools today, how do you square that now with your decision to shoot with traditional film cameras?

Dear Nick,

Fair enough, but I fear that the problem is that the question behind the question is buried too deeply, for the reasons I gave earlier: there's too much background noise. I'd adduce the vast majority of the replies to this post to support this assertion.

As explained in http://www.rogerandfrances.com/subscription/leicaphilia.html my choice of Leicas was mostly historical accident, and the same has been true of most of the cameras I've ever used, be they Gandolfi, Kowa, Alpa, Minolta, whatever. I really believe that this is the case for most people, who are a product of their time, country, circumstances, love life and more.

It strikes me as rather pointless to try to explain camera choices by reference to a dead, rich Gaul who was arguably at his best in the 1930s and who eventually claimed to have given up photography. Different time, different place, different social structure, different range of equipment, and above all, different person.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Gumby]

... mostly historical accident, and the same has been true of most of the cameras I've ever used, be they Gandolfi, Kowa, Alpa, Minolta, whatever. I really believe that this is the case for most people, who are a product of their time, country, circumstances, love life and more...

I know it was for me, with one exception. I SPECIFICALLY CHOSE to buy a Nikon F3 rather than a Canon A1 or whatever the Pentax equivelent was because of features and usability. Almost all of my other cameras were happy coincidence of availability, price, and their ability to satisfy my need.

 

[Vics]

I voted digital, but I really think it would have been a smartphone. The iPnone is more in line with his camera-as-sketchbook aesthetic.

 

[RichW]

An interesting thing I heard him say in a video (on youtube I believe) is that he was more interested the actual capture of the image and not so much the final print itself. Also I believe he tried colour for a while but reverted back to black and white as it suited his style better, therefore I believe he would be using a film camera w/ B&W

Rich

 

[filmfan]

Who cares?

 

[dazedgonebye]

I think he'd most likely just spend all of his time on RFF pondering what gear Nick Trop would use.

 

[slaguod]

Late in life, and long after the advent of digital cameras, he had reverted to mostly using a pencil.

 

[Jamie123]

Roger -

Right. I proposed a completely unprovable, "who would win if Ali fought Mike Tyson in their respective primes" hypothetical situation, conjecture, what have you. Straight up, pure speculation "for fun" scenario where "formal logic" and other logical grounds to invalidate it is kinda a non-starter, if you will.

If HCB was an active photographer today, given that there are two choices - film and digital, in your opinion what do you think he would choose to shoot with - why?



But the crux of the question is... do you think he would choose traditional tools - his Leica with a 50mm prime? Or would he choose one of the modern alternatives because they're better suited tools for his vision? The insinuation/implication buried in this hypothetical is... did you choose to shoot with traditional equipment (at least initially) in full or in part because you were inspired by/wanted to take pictures like ___________ ? (And there's absolutey, positively nothing wrong with this...) And, if you think that ____________ would not have chosen to use those tools today, how do you square that now with your decision to shoot with traditional film cameras?

The reaction is as predictable as it is interesting to this thread, with some traditionalists - unless I'm reading too much into it, rejecting the premise, going so far to incorporate formal logic to argue against it. But such a scenario obviously doesn't deserve the "Bertrand Russell treatment"... which is, of course, beyond overkill. I more think such questions require a level of intellectual honesty that some may dislike - provoking an emotional response, so the question itself is mocked (see newly-started Picasso thread) or otherwise discredited, going so far to incorporate formal logic.

- No offense, of course, to anyone - but that's my take.

That said, Randy came up with the best retort for the tradtionalists, citing a quote by HCB that he "didn't like automatic cameras - like shooting pigeons with an automatic..." to paraphrase. Well played. Perhaps he would still shoot film.

Nick, the quick digression to formal logic didn't have a lot (if anything) to do with your question as it only related to a remark of Roger's that wasn't at all crucial to the point he's trying to make.

I think the point Roger is trying to make is that it simply no point in thinking about what would happen if you took a person from one historic and social context and placed him in a completely different one. HCB did the kind of photography he did because of the time he lived in, because of the point he was at in the history of art and the history of photography. He is regarded as a significant figure in photography because he did what he did when he did it. 'His vision' was shaped by the tools that were available to him at the time and the things he saw around him. He is inextricably linked to the time he lived in.

 

[NickTrop]

^ Yes, of course he is "inextricably linked to the time he lived in..." But this is playful conjecture. However (see embedded question) if this is the case, then this is also true of his work. If it is true of his work, then why would anyone choose tools that are, likewise, also "inextricably linked" to this period - when there are different, arguably better, choices? Further, it's a simple "oft-asked" question in many contexts - for fun. What would "X" do if s/he was alive today? To state "those were different times" or - "well, s/he isn't alive today"... simply means you don't want to play along, we all know this. But such questions can be fun exercises nonetheless.

So, I reiterate... we all know that HCB is no longer with us, we all know that he "lived in different times" and his vision was shaped by what was available to him. That all said, if HCB was an active photographer in modern times what tools do you think in your opinion he would choose if he was an active photographer in the prime of his career today? Why?

 

[FrankS]

Already answered. He Stated that he didn't like automatic cameras. (auto advance, auto exposure) Felt it was too easy. Probably why he gave up on photography.

 

[Turtle]

I suppose the reality is that the person (and the style and approach that goes with it) that we recognise as HCB could not exist today. He was a product of his era and were he born 50 years later he would be emerging into a very different photographic world. Alternative questions might relate to what top current street photographers are shooting, but even that is marginal as the entire genre is not as relevant within the photography world as it once was. Or perhaps, what does Salgado shoot? Well, until relatively recently he was still shooting film (including rangefinders), but now DSLRs. Considering the reason for his change to digital and the reasons for it, I suppose all this really tells us is that it does not matter much.

 

[Jamie123]

^ Yes, of course he is "inextricably linked to the time he lived in..." But this is playful conjecture. However (see embedded question) if this is the case, then this is also true of his work. If it is true of his work, then why would anyone choose tools that are, likewise, also "inextricably linked" to this period - when there are different, arguably better, choices? Further, it's a simple "oft-asked" question in many contexts - for fun. What would "X" do if s/he was alive today? To state "those were different times" or - "well, s/he isn't alive today"... simply means you don't want to play along, we all know this. But such questions can be fun exercises nonetheless.

So, I reiterate... we all know that HCB is no longer with us, we all know that he "lived in different times" and his vision was shaped by what was available to him. That all said, if HCB was an active photographer in modern times what tools do you think in your opinion he would choose if he was an active photographer in the prime of his career today? Why?

But you're assuming that HCB, if he were an active photographer in the prime of his career today, would still be doing the same kind of photography he did at the actual height of his career.

The way I see it you're making on of two hypotheses. Either you're assuming a situation where HCB was still alive and well enough to take pictures. In this case, we know what would probably be the case. He'd be even more bored by photography as he was before he died as a few people pointed out.
Or you're assuming a situation where you could use a time machine and transport HCB at his peak to our time. In this case he would probably take a few looks at what photography has been done in the past 50 years and decide not to bother as someone else has already done what he was interested in. He then might or might not continue with other photographic endeavours utilising the means at his disposal.

The reason why I think questions such as these are silly is not because I do not want to play along, but because I seriously don't know how 'playing along' would look like in this situation. If someone says 'who'd win in a cage fight, X or Y' I can certainly see the fun in coming up with answers but I see little fun in debating the age old film vs. digital topic with the occasional mentioning of a dead photographer who peaked long before he died.

 

[MIkhail]

Classical question is: "What would Jesus use"?

 

[zauhar]

^ Yes, of course he is "inextricably linked to the time he lived in..." ...
So, I reiterate... we all know that HCB is no longer with us, we all know that he "lived in different times" and his vision was shaped by what was available to him. That all said, if HCB was an active photographer in modern times what tools do you think in your opinion he would choose if he was an active photographer in the prime of his career today? Why?

I think that is a fair question. My impression is that what he was always seeking to capture a meaningful arrangement of people and their surroundings, and whether he admitted it or not this was almost a mystical precept, akin to Jung's synchronicity. (By the way, HCB took one of the most famous photos of Jung, but I don't know if they shared any intellectual kinship.)

An important element of psychological synchronicity is of course the human being, in this case the photographer. If there is no human with the gift of being attuned to their environment, then there is no chance for synchronicity, and no "magic" HCB photos.

So, maybe HCB would use an M9 or digital P&S, but to use it in the special, purposeful way he did would mean avoiding the "rapid fire" approach possible with a modern camera.

Maybe photographers today are not psychologically/temperamentally capable of shooting like HCB? Maybe certain kinds of art can only be produced at certain points in history?

Randy

 

[Sparrow]

... remind me; is the Spanish civil war still going on? hypothetically, in this hypothetical resurrection ... and is Capa coming back too? cos he'd struggle to get a US visa to pop over to see his, now American, mate Henry ...

 

[Sean Moran]

Classical question is: "What would Jesus use"?

Depends on what presents he was brought: Gold, Frankincense, Myrrh, MP/M9.

 

[DougFord]

If I've said it once I've said it a thousand times, clone the SOB.
HCB x.2 would be ****ting in his diaper by now and as a consequence we'd be that much closer to knowing his decision.
Here ya go lil'Hank, do you wanta play with the roll of film or the memory card?

 

[Jamie123]

Maybe photographers today are not psychologically/temperamentally capable of shooting like HCB? Maybe certain kinds of art can only be produced at certain points in history?

I think in his essay "Marks of indifference" Jeff Wall paints an excellent picture of how photography established itself as an art form in the 20th century and he also refers to the practice of HCB and others in this regard. i fear any paraphrase of mine wouldn't pay the original justice so I just aswell link to the text. It's a good read and the HCB part is on page 2:

http://lorneshawnblythe.com/parsons/marks_of_indifference.pdf

 

[zauhar]

I think in his essay "Marks of indifference" Jeff Wall paints an excellent picture of how photography established itself as an art form in the 20th century and he also refers to the practice of HCB and others in this regard. i fear any paraphrase of mine wouldn't pay the original justice so I just aswell link to the text. It's a good read and the HCB part is on page 2:

http://lorneshawnblythe.com/parsons/marks_of_indifference.pdf

I started reading that, it is a fascinating chapter.

Thanks! Gives me something to distract me from final grades + mind boggling computing issues. ;-(

Randy

 

[cosmonaut]

The masters always shot the best they could afford. It would depend on his wallet, just like us.