Cartier-Bresson on 6x6 TLRs

Marc-A. said:
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.
Best,
Marc
Click to expand...

Hi Marc,
You're right it probably was a joke. That's the problem of print, you loose the context.
I think however that you and I are also entitled to judge camera's. Maybe even more than HCB because we actually use RF's as well as TLR's.
although I agree that a RF is the ultimatum street photography tool, but the TLR comes very close on a second place.
Best regards,
Michiel Fokkema
 
For some reason using the WLF on my Hasselblad makes composition
easier than using a prism. The reversed image takes me out of the
picture and makes it easier to look at the image as an abstract 2D object.

Roland.
 
I too believe that HCB was probably doing a little send-up on his TLR-using friends. Most of my shooting is done with a 35mm RF; I even use my OM-1 more than my MF cameras. But for deliberate project work they are so much fun. I actually enjoy the constraint of the WLF on my Mamiya - the reversed image forces me to pay more attention to composition.

- John
 
I don't know. For medium format I use a waist-level finder almost exclusively. Portraiture with the 180/2.8 that Max mentioned is suboptimal with a prism finder IMHO, because camera+lens do get in the way if you have this huge chunk of glass and metal between your eye and the subject. Also I'm quite tall, so if I hold the camera before my chest it has a good height - chest level for me would be eye level for my wife. I'm a very bad street photographer, but street pictures tend to turn out better with a waist-level finder for me as well, because the camera isn't before my face and I get to interact more normally with people. Also because people won't recognise a TLR as a camera.

I also don't really "get" Cartier-Bresson, but that's another story. Or rather I consider him a fairly good photographer, but I don't get the degree of reverence with which people treat him. I think his "decisive moment" is overrated as a paradigm of picture taking, because many of his decisive moments happened in the darkroom - the way a photographer would have shot 5 frames per second on a digital today and selected the best frame. Judging from the films I've seen of him shooting away with his screwmount Leica at 1 frame per second, I guess that's what Cartier-Bresson would have done today, too, but most who admire his photography assume that all his shots are unique and that mass production of images for later selection is somehow a bad thing.
 
Bike Tourist said:
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.
Click to expand...

Thanks for clarifying your point. About the fact he left the darkroom work to others, I would say: he was/is not the only one among famous photographers. Photojournalist used to do that. And when famous photographers want to print their pictures for an exhibition or a book, they also leave this work to others (Salgado and Koudelka leave some scanning/printing work to Picto Bastille in Paris, Jeanloup Sieff has worked with Imaginoir in Paris, as Peter Lindbergh and Salgado again ...etc).
Btw, I read in the Washington Post that Winogrand left about 300.000 pictures undeveloped. Does it mean he was not concerned by (his) photography?
Anyway, whether HCB was a technophile or not has IMHO nothing to do with his statement about TLRs. He knew how to take a picture, and knew enough to have a worthy opinion on other cameras. We can disagree with him, but we can't dismiss his opinion because he wasn't a technophile.

Now, about the myth:

Bike Tourist said:
others seemed to make more of his images than he did. He did not think of himself as only a photographer.
Click to expand...
Finder said:
Bresson himself said he thought photography was inferior to painting and other plastic arts. To him photography was like a sketchbook.
Click to expand...

You shouldn't believe a French guy who spent his whole life taking pictures and who set up Magnum (with Capa and some others), when he pretends not to take his job seriously. That's the French fake causualness ... if photography was like a sketchbook, as he pretended, he would have painted and not spent his life sketching. Believe me, it's only blabla. I know that blabla from gifted persons: "oh I'm surprised, I passed my exam, while I didn't work at all", "oh photography is just sketching with a camera, I travelled around the world and set up Magnum for fun" ... blabla
HCB worked hard, was very well informed about photograhical technics, spent his life for taking pictures and was one of the most reknowed photographer. Again, that's enough to be entitled to give his opinion on TLR, even if we can disagree with it.
Best wishes,
Bien amicalement,
Marc-A.
 
ferider said:
For some reason using the WLF on my Hasselblad makes composition
easier than using a prism. The reversed image takes me out of the
picture and makes it easier to look at the image as an abstract 2D object.

Roland.
Click to expand...
This is the best explanation I've seen. It works that way for me too. Most of my 6x6 work is static (it's my 'personal view camera' equivalent) and the flat, crisp, inverted image aids me in composition.

I thoroughly enjoy HCB's work but remember he was a short man. My eye level view of the world, as a tall person, is always looking down -- a dull perspective. I welcome an eye in my belly :) Besides, I ain't as limber as I once was, and a TLR or 6x6 SLR helps me get the low shots and still be able to get up again ...

Gene
 
I don't know. For medium format I use a waist-level finder almost exclusively. Portraiture with the 180/2.8 that Max mentioned is suboptimal with a prism finder IMHO, because camera+lens do get in the way if you have this huge chunk of glass and metal between your eye and the subject. Also I'm quite tall, so if I hold the camera before my chest it has a good height - chest level for me would be eye level for my wife. I'm a very bad street photographer, but street pictures tend to turn out better with a waist-level finder for me as well, because the camera isn't before my face and I get to interact more normally with people.
------

For all those reasons I really, really want to use the WLF. I really do. I WISH I could get used to the reverse image. If you're good with a WFL, and have a quite leaf shutter, it almost doesn't matter how big your camera is, plus the perspective is better.

Think I try again - for the umpteenth time, to force myself to get used to it.
 
Marc-A. said:
You shouldn't believe a French guy who spent his whole life taking pictures and who set up Magnum (with Capa and some others), when he pretends not to take his job seriously.

Marc-A.
Click to expand...

I never take what an artist says about his work seriously. I was just pointing out that Bresson had at least articulated that sentiment. Personally, I don't think quoting an artist regardless of his/her stature is actually submitting any kind of proof for a position.
 
If the good Lord had wanted us to take photographs with a 6 by 6, he would have put eyes in our belly.
Click to expand...

I am not sure where this Bresson quote comes from, on occasion it is reported as a playful repartee with Doisneau and other times as an advice he gave to a novice and later famous Magnum photographer (I am afraid I can't remember the name).

For people who use rangefinders and TLRs the appeal of both is obvious. They are quite different beasts and they require a different kind of discipline. I agree with the general consensus and in particular Finder's comment above, cameras are always compromises and you utilize them for their strengths and overcome the weaknesses. One way to pretend that a particular camera is 'the best' is to denigrate its weaknesses as unimportant but that doesn't change the fact that to some people these exact same weaknesses are indeed very important and therefore they need to use a different camera.

A TLR is an exciting alternative to a 35mm rangefinder exactly because it is so different. It is in many ways much more inconspicuous and yet slower. The tonality of the resulting prints is simply lush. The lower angle from the WLF is neither better nor worse than the ELF of the rangefinder, it's just different (in an interesting way).

If God wanted us to take pictures only from the normal height of eye level he wouldn't have given us knees to bend.

As for Bresson's work, I 've read he was shooting two rolls before breakfast, and who knows, perhaps it's true. But that's neither here nor there and I don't think his work should be compromised or be any less respected by the amount of shooting he did. Winogrand shot quite a bit, didn't he? Nobody says he is a lesser photographer because of it. Most people would be unable to match the quality of the selected/edited output of Bresson or Winogrand even if you handed them with a phographic machine gun. The important thing is how you see the world, what situation tickles your interest. Bresson's way of seeing was special and, as we all know, it resonates with so many.
 
Last edited:
Finder said:
Bresson himself said he thought photography was inferior to painting and other plastic arts. To him photography was like a sketchbook.
Click to expand...
In my actually hearing him talk in the audio interview (from which this quote was taken) he seems to say this more matter-of-factly than with any contempt for the camera or photography. I believe he simply felt that he had said pretty much all he wanted to say with the camera, then hung it up and picked up his sketchbook and pencil. It happens sometimes: how long did Horowitz stay away from the keyboard (at least in the public sphere)?

As far as TLRs go, I do have some fondness for them, but as time went on I realized that my preferred working method gravitated to 35mm, and, in the last six years, principally to RFs, not because it's "better", simply that it's best for me. Your enthusiasm may vary.


- Barrett
 
Last edited:
Hey at least with most TLR's you don't have the "pleasure" of composing *portrait* using a waist-level-finder.

I tried to do that with this beast, and I almost fell over :D

1366572953_66ccd174b7.jpg



... as for HCB, he's one heck of a photographer, but he's not a camera designer. So I fail to see the merit of arguing about what he thinks about camera design. Unless he said that his photos *cannot* be taken using a TLR.

If you like TLR's, then you like it. If you don't, you don't. Simple, non?
 
I have a Rolleiflex and use it often, as follows:

If the subject is stationary, I use the waist-level finder.

If it is moving, or apt to move, I use the sportsfinder.

I was once hired by Cycle World magazine to photograph the Cotati 250 motorcycle race. When I arrived and opened the trunk of my car I discovered to my dismay that I had left my SLR gear home. In my other kit bag was my aged Rolleicord, complete with a dozen rolls of black and white film.

I stood at what I decided was the most interesting curve and focused at the point where the tires touched the pavement as the bikes whizzed by, then used the sportsfinder to pan as they passed.

I also did all the pit shots and the winners circle stuff.

Worked out just fine. Editor was pleased, photos were used, and I got paid.

He did make an interesting comment:

"What camera did you use? Leica? Nikon?"

"No," I answered. "I used a Rollecord."

He laughed. "You're a funny guy, Ted.

Ted
 
Last edited by a moderator:
hehe. Funny guy, this Henry.
I can't remember if his friend Robert (Capa) had an eye on his belly. But then he was a Hungarian Jew, a fugitive from a hostile country, so you never know what he was hiding under his shirt, right?:D
 
Yup, true. Cycle World magazine, August 1969, pp74, 75. "AFM Cotati National." I also wrote the story. Can't recall which editor I dealt with on that one. Could have been Ivan Wagar, Dan Hunt, or Michael Griffin. It's been too long.

Oddly, in the same issue they published "Mr. Bisby Changes His Style," a short story of mine.

"Officer Delgado," another short story of mine, was published in CW in their December 1969 issue. I only mention this as I believe this was the first piece of fiction ever published by CW.

Naturally both stories had to involve motorcycles.

Ted
 
Ted: Great story. I started reading CW (and Cycle) about a year later. A lot of fun to read back then.


- Barrett
 
Personally the first time I picked up my TLR and shot with it was on my recent trip to San Francisco. It was exhillarating being able to take photos without anyone even knowing what the hell I was doing. It was great! I was taking shots that I had never even imagined i could get before.

People were just so much more at ease and would'nt stiff up at the sight at my 35mm camear.
 
JBF:

That's a perhaps little-known advantage of the TLR. Because it's not held at eye level it isn't "threatening" and people are much less inclined to react negatively to a camera pointed their way.

In my case people think I'm an anachronistic old fuddy duddy, wandering about with an antique camera, not quite sure what he's doing.

They may be half right.

Ted
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom