Cartier Bresson and wide angle lenses

[mfogiel]

I don't remember who said this, but the meaning was, that limiting your gear choices leads to developing your creative abilities. HCB knew this well, plus I believe, that he preferred to take photos from a certain distance, to result less visible to his subjects.
Anyone who has shot the street has a feeling about how close he can get.

 

[telenous]

Hi,

It looks like a 3,5cm (or 35mm) Elmar on the camera to me. I've one in the display cabinet and it stays there most of the time. I don't know what the others who have used one think but I wasn't impressed after the standard 5cm Elmar. Perhaps HCB thought the same, it would explain a lot.

Regards, David

I was talking about the lens in another photo, but yes, you 're right about the Elmar 35/3.5 in the 'young Henri' portrait. It's what he must had used until well into the 40s when newer 35mm designs were introduced by Leitz.

 

[hepcat]

Not unfair. But equally, not a total rebuttal of my point. With "street" photography you have (some) pre-existing ideas too. And if you're trying to copy HCB's style...

Cheers,

R.

My thoughts weren't a rebuttal, just more of an observation about how you pick your tools for the job. In the street, you're limited to a small camera and a normal/wide. That's what HCB used. That's what folks shoot in the street today. Since using a small camera with a normal/wide is de rigeur for street work, I wonder why the fascination with what HCB used.

 

[cz23]

Speaking of the Man, some nice work from his early, surrealist years:

http://lightbox.time.com/2014/03/11/beyond-cartier-bresson-a-history-of-a-masters-early-work/#1

 

[Rodchenko]

The slaughterhouse photo reminds me of one in the Thames & Hudson Surrealist Photography book, but I can't remember who it was by.

Thanks for the link.

 

[taxi38]

There WAS / is a feeling to photography that related it to truth,now the distortion of the visual was felt as a distortion of the truth,this was then.
Nowadays we've all been obliged to jump down the rabbit hole making the quest for a modern 50mm mindbendingly awkward.

 

[bobbyrab]

There WAS / is a feeling to photography that related it to truth,now the distortion of the visual was felt as a distortion of the truth,this was then.
Nowadays we've all been obliged to jump down the rabbit hole making the quest for a modern 50mm mindbendingly awkward.

Thought I understood what you meant in the first sentence, but then you lost me on the second.
It sounds like an interesting view so could you try and explain a little clearer.

 

[David Hughes]

Hi,

I can't help thinking that he was lucky, the Leica was new then and few people had them; production reached about two and a half thousand in the first two years. With time to experiment and the money to take a lot of pictures it would have been easy to get a reputation. Not like today when there are millions out there to compete with.

And being able to take 30 or 40 shots and then select the best would give a huge advantage over the old plate or cut film users.

Just my 2d worth.

Regards, David

 

[Rodchenko]

He had a lot of talented contemporaries.

 

[Mark C]

And his output over the years was amazing. I saw a show in Pittsburgh years ago that was overwhelming for the sheer number of great images. I would really have needed to go back a number of times to digest it all. He shot a lot of film over a lot of years, but it is the keepers that matter to me and he delivered over and over.

I do believe he did the vast majority of his work with the 50. Why not if that was what he preferred; he'd tuned his vision to it. He also used other lenses occasionally too, which still doesn't seem like much of a surprise.

Oh, and he never cropped. Except when he did.

He was real person driven by his passion and creativity, and he was a great photographer.

 

[Rodchenko]

Oh, and he never cropped. Except when he did.

😀

He was real person driven by his passion and creativity, and he was a great photographer.

That's what matters

 

[tunalegs]

Probably something like 90%-95% of all photos taken on 35mm film have been taken with 50mm lenses. So it's not really too notable for a photographer who used 35mm film to have taken most of his photos with a 50mm lens.

Is it? 😕

 

[Mark C]

It probably is for a working professional of his caliber.

 

[David Hughes]

Hi,

You say "And his output over the years was amazing." and really I don't know how to answer that except to say that 6 cassettes of 35mm film a day is 225 frames roughly and he was going for a good many years. And as his hobby was photography I expect he did it 7 days of the week, making 1,575 pictures a week... That's assuming the 6 films a day is correct, of course.

And, as I said, at first few were using Leica but were taking one picture at a time then changing the plate and so on and spending hours developing them individually. Any 35mm user can develop 36 to 40 pictures in the time it took others to develop one plate. Time in the chemicals is the same, like the trick question about boiling three eggs.

I hope that doesn't sound rude, it's not intended to be; I'm just in favour of looking at the reality of it. I'd love to be able to afford the time and money to do it but then I can't. Now if someone would care to donate a new M9 and a Tri Elmar I'd have a good go at doing the same.

Regards, David

 

[Mark C]

If digital and flickr hasn't convinced you that volume and enthusiasm won't substitue for talent, then I suspect nothing will.

I will continue to be impressed and inspired by HCB's great photographs.

 

[Doug]

Yet, talent alone does not produce great works either; one needs that volume and enthusiasm, plus a usable camera and being able and willing to use it. It appears that H C-B had all of the above. 🙂

 

[David Hughes]

Hi,

Exactly, plus time and money - he was lucky to have them as well. They're something it's difficult to find a substitute for...

But I don't know/see what digital has to do with it. When I see 2,000 images on a card and so on I reckon it's just luck that produces the good shots.

Regards, David

 

[Doug]

Some measure of time and money indeed necessary. And luck is surely a big one, as I've noticed in my own "work"... while volume is a factor in luck, and "being there". If we could only mine luck like Bitcoin we might become exceptionally lucky like Louis Wu (of Ringworld). We need all the luck we can get. 😀

I don't think digital has much to do with it either, and find it curious when people assume digital encourages us to blast away unthinkingly, and praise film for helping them slow down (like HCB?!), as if they had little personal control.

 

[Coopersounds]

nice shot NY_Dan!