Why HCB uses a 50mm lens

[leicapixie]

HCB used other lenses. I know a football stadium in USA series was at least 135mm. As crowds and more people everywhere, Ernst Haas noted HCB used the 35mm to get closer to subject. I think Japanese funeral would be one! Images on Japanese trains. I prefer the 50mm.The 50mm is the Best value for money, compact, usually very sharp and optically almost perfect. The 35mm has a distortion factor in perspective. Also there's too much foreground and none in 90mm.Exactly what HCB said. Do I use other the focal lengths.? Of course, esp. with SLR. Not tied to RF frames..

 

[Rob-F]

I'm glad I don't have HCB's problems with the 35mm focal length. I took to 35mm like a duck takes to water. It's my primary focal length. When I need something different, it's likely to be a 24mm, if not wider. I don't seem to encounter any "distortion factor." I know that retrofocus extreme wide-angle lenses bend straight lines, especially if they are too close to the frame edges, but I know how to compose without distortion getting in the way even at 18mm. In my teens, I admired the look of Cinerama, Cinemascope, VistaVision, Todd-AO, and Ultra Panavision 70. I like the feeling of openness, space, and "you are there" that wide-angle lenses afford. We all have our limitations. HCB had his, and I have mine; but I'm not limited by what HCB thought, or said.

 

[raydm6]

^^ Did you say “Ducks”?

 

[jankap]

I think, it was the only useful lens for him, no changing lenses, no lens bag. My father used the Elmar collapsible, he carried it with the Leica III in his pocket. Harbour scenes in Rotterdam were his metier. He lived almost at the same time.

 

[boojum]

I think, it was the only useful lens for him, no changing lenses, no lens bag. My father used the Elmar collapsible, he carried it with the Leica III in his pocket. Harbour scenes in Rotterdam were his metier. He lived almost at the same time.

You from NY? "The name's so nice they say it twice." LOL

 

[peefeeniz]

HCB sounds like a disagreeable rich snob who dabbled at photography and shot so many frames some were bound to work out.

 

[Erik van Straten]

HCB sounds like a disagreeable rich snob who dabbled at photography and shot so many frames some were bound to work out.

This is the stupidest post in this entire thread.

Erik.

 

[telenous]

HCB sounds like a disagreeable rich snob who dabbled at photography and shot so many frames some were bound to work out.

Er, 'dabbled'?

He shot a lot, but so did many others without ending up with an impressive body of work like his.

 

[boojum]

HCB sounds like a disagreeable rich snob who dabbled at photography and shot so many frames some were bound to work out.

If you have seen his English language interviews you have seen him as a fellow who did not take his work too seriously and dismissed all the praise and adulation. Despite your studied and knowledgeable views the vast majority of photographers, amateur and professional, and critics agree that he was head and shoulders above the crowd. You could even say he defined the genre. Do take the time to look at his work. Then see how much better you can do.

 

[raydm6]

This would have been an interesting read (although 12,000 miles seems excessive for the time-span noted):

Cartier-Bresson traveled across the United States with poet John Malcolm Brinnin for several months. This 12,000-mile automobile journey took them from Baltimore to Los Angeles via Chicago, Memphis, and Houston. A planned joint book project, however, never came to fruition.

from: https://www.instagram.com/p/BnNW0oKjH1w/

And I also found this reference:

Cartier-Bresson travelled south again in April 1947, this time spending 70 exhausting days with a friend of Capote's, a young American poet called John Malcolm Brinnin. It was Brinnin who brought along a copy of Walker Evan's American Photographs. That book, published in 1938 to accompany the Moma show of the same name, had precipitated a revolution in American photography. A move away from straight photojournalism and the still-predominant notion of the beautiful image, it was the most influential photography book of the time and remains a seminal work.

from: https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/103837

Additionally:

John Brinnin, who traveled across the U.S. with HCB on an abortive book project, reported how annoyed he was that so many subjects in the country required the 35mm. It was "shrill" he complained, and the 90 reminded him of "an old deaf lady's ear trumpet." Having virtually internalized the depth of field of the 50 at all apertures he much preferred to shoot by adjusting only that, keeping the shutter permanently at 125 and the distance at 4 meters, which he marked on the lens with red nail polish. "That's my life -keeping a certain distance from things," he told a questioner. So it was wise but also maybe a little self -serving for him to state "It is by strict economy of means that simplicity of expression is achieved." I've often wondered how he would have reacted to the equipment cupboards of just about any member of this group. Jay's might have given him a heart attack! And, as stated above, for most of three decades, until Leitz finally made a fast lens to equal it, the 50 he used was the 1.5 Zeiss Sonnar.

-- david kelly (dmkedit@aol.com), August 21, 2001.

 

[Yokosuka Mike]

Gone,,,,,,,,,,

 

[jankap]

You from NY? "The name's so nice they say it twice." LOL

??
I choose "jankapp", because in Dutch there is a saying "jan rap en zijn maat". Meaning (not positively): "jan with his gang".
See here: https://historiek.net/jan-rap-en-zijn-maat-betekenis-herkomst/80153/

 

[JoeV]

RFF has gone to hell. People just drop by to be disruptive. How do these people find our little niche forums and inject their perverted way of thinking into our small photography community way of thinking. This creature, peefeeniz, only comes here to be annoying. For what benefit does he enjoys this sort of behavior I know not why.

I'll be back to RFF when peefeeniz is banned for life!

Not all the best,
Mike

I looked at “Peefeeniz’s” posting history and he seems rather knowledgeable and experienced with both SLR and rangefinder. And also has a wonderfully snarky attitude, which is sorely needed here. He’s also not the first person to ever question Cartier-Bresson’s bona fides.

The great thing about rubbing elbows, metaphorically, with strangers in a discussion forum is you get exposed to a wide variety of perspectives. We should embrace these people as opportunities for personal growth. The challenge is to remain as hospitable as possible toward people who differ widely from your own worldview, else we end up in our own personal version of a padded room.

 

[jsrockit]

HCB sounds like a disagreeable rich snob who dabbled at photography and shot so many frames some were bound to work out.

How do you dabble and shoot a lot at the same time? Also, who doesn't shoot a lot using a small format camera? The museums and galleries do not care how much you shoot, they care what is left after editing. Photography is not olympic target practice.

 

[Dogman]

Oh, hell, everybody's entitled to their opinions. Nothing sacred about anything photographic.

 

[Retro-Grouch]

RFF has gone to hell. People just drop by to be disruptive. How do these people find our little niche forums and inject their perverted way of thinking into our small photography community way of thinking. This creature, peefeeniz, only comes here to be annoying. For what benefit does he enjoys this sort of behavior I know not why.

I'll be back to RFF when peefeeniz is banned for life!

Not all the best,
Mike

A most unfortunate response, I'm afraid. Perhaps peefeeniz is trolling, perhaps not; HCB was wealthy and well educated, but was also a Communist who detested the rich (a creature of contradictions, like many brilliant people). In that respect, I disagree that he was a rich snob, and his empathy for working people shines through in his pictures. On the other hand, anyone who does street photography (dabbling or otherwise) will have to acknowledge that it is a question of shooting bazillions of images to get a few keepers, and they often feel more like dumb luck than the exercise of skill. So peefeeniz has something of a point, there. That being said, I'm a big admirer of HCB, and I feel that without any substantive argument to back up his rather extreme statements, peefeeniz's comment feels unfortunately like trolling.
But Mike, if you feel that someone is possibly trolling, call them out, ask them to substantiate their claims, engage in an exchange of ideas. An opinion that differs from yours is not necessarily "perverted", and though you may not have your mind changed, the mental exercise of clarifying one's thoughts in order to express them to another can be most beneficial. And please do not attempt to speak for us all by describing RFF as "our small community way of thinking". This forum is a big tent, open to all, with a great diversity of opinion, aesthetic, political, and otherwise. I have locked horns with a number of folks here, in what I hope is a respectful manner, and have rather enjoyed those exchanges! No need to ban anyone; in "the free marketplace of ideas", we can hope for truth (or at least facts) to succeed by their own strength. And please don't go away. We need every member, and every member's thoughts.

 

[boojum]

??
I choose "jankapp", because in Dutch there is a saying "jan rap en zijn maat". Meaning (not positively): "jan with his gang".
See here: https://historiek.net/jan-rap-en-zij...erkomst/80153/

No, No, it was under what was a double post. I was just being a smart-aleck. In New York City, also New York, New York, the folks there say, "The name's so nice they say it twice." That's why I posted what I did. Nothing mysterious or nefarious. Prosit.

 

[peefeeniz]

LOL Anything I don’t like should be banned! Sad but unfortunately true these days. Let’s all think alike and unperson the dissidents.

HCB and the majority of famous photographers came from privileged backgrounds. None of them had to dig ditches or work in a sweatshop. Photography, as a hobby, art form or profession has always had a high financial barrier to entry that’s only recently been lowered to “everyone” status because nearly everyone has a digital camera in their phone.

I think it was because HCB had the luxury to have the time to shoot, travel widely, and merely drop his film off with his darkroom technician it was inevitable that he would be able to make some good photos. I’ll grant that he had an excellent eye with the skill, talent, experience to make superior, better than average photos.

But so do most of the people on this forum.

Without HCB’s immense privileges.

We’re all taught to admire HCB as a brand, just like the mania over Vivian Maier. Same for Ansel Adams and Edward Weston and hundreds of other masters preserved in books and documentaries, taught in photo history classes, promoted online, etc. But if Joe Schmo did the very same photo HCB ~ and did it first ~ it would still get zero traction and be rejected by every arts institution short of a county fair.

 

[boojum]

LOL Anything I don’t like should be banned! Sad but unfortunately true these days. Let’s all think alike and unperson the dissidents.

HCB and the majority of famous photographers came from privileged backgrounds. None of them had to dig ditches or work in a sweatshop. Photography, as a hobby, art form or profession has always had a high financial barrier to entry that’s only recently been lowered to “everyone” status because nearly everyone has a digital camera in their phone.

I think it was because HCB had the luxury to have the time to shoot, travel widely, and merely drop his film off with his darkroom technician it was inevitable that he would be able to make some good photos. I’ll grant that he had an excellent eye with the skill, talent, experience to make superior, better than average photos.

But so do most of the people on this forum.

Without HCB’s immense privileges.

We’re all taught to admire HCB as a brand, just like the mania over Vivian Maier. Same for Ansel Adams and Edward Weston and hundreds of other masters preserved in books and documentaries, taught in photo history classes, promoted online, etc. But if Joe Schmo did the very same photo HCB ~ and did it first ~ it would still get zero traction and be rejected by every arts institution short of a county fair.

Lots of people have phone cameras and none are the equal of HCB. Many wealthy have the time and money to travel but are not the equal of HCB. The posit that one must be proletarian to be a good photographer is not supported in fact but seems supported in fancy.

 

[peefeeniz]

Lots of people have phone cameras and none are the equal of HCB. Many wealthy have the time and money to travel but are not the equal of HCB. The posit that one must be proletarian to be a good photographer is not supported in fact but seems supported in fancy.

How would we know that there aren't many equals or betters than HCB with their phones and cheap cameras? There most likely are many.

I don't think one needs to be poor to be a great photographer but clearly being rich helps a lot.