Cartier-Bresson on "technique"

VinceC

Veteran
Local time
12:32 AM
Joined
Jun 14, 2005
Messages
2,965
I daresay that Henri probably wouldn't hang out on RFF:

From "The Decisive Moment" by Henri Cartier-Bresson

Constant new discoveries in chemistry and optics are widening considerably our field of action. It is up to us to apply them to our technique, to improve ourselves, but there is a whole group of fetishes which have developed on the subject of technique.

Technique is important only insofar as you must master it in order to communicate what you see. Your own personal technique has to be created and adapted solely in order to make you vision effective on film. But only the results count, and the conclusive evidence is the finished photographic print; otherwise there would be no end to the number of tales photographers would tell about pictures which they ever-so-nearly got – but which are merely a memory in the eye of nostalgia.

Our trade of photo-reporting has been in existence only about thirty years. It came to maturity due to the development of easily handled cameras, faster lenses and fast fine-grain films produced for the movie industry. The camera is for us a tool, not a pretty mechanical toy. In the precise functioning of the mechanical object perhaps there is an unconscious compensation for the anxieties and uncertainties of daily endeavor. In any case, people think far too much about techniques and not enough about seeing.

It is enough if a photographer feels at ease with his camera, and if it is appropriate to the job which he wants to do. The actual handling of the camera, its stops, its exposure speeds and all the rest of it, are things which should be as automatic as the changing of gears in an automobile. It is no part of my business to go into the details or refinements of any of these operations, even the most complicated ones, for they are all set forth with military precision in the manuals which the manufacturers provide along with the camera and the nice, orange calf-skin case. If the camera is a beautiful gadget, we should progress beyond that stage at least in conversation. The same applies to the hows and whys of making pretty prints in the darkroom.

During the process of enlarging, it is essential to re-create the values and mood of the time the picture was taken; or even to modify the print so as to bring it into line with the intentions of the photographer at the moment he shot it. It is necessary to re-establish the balance which the eye is continually establishing between light and shadow. And it is for these reasons that the find act of creating in photography takes place in the darkroom.

I am constantly amused by the notion that some people have about photographic technique – a notion which reveals itself as an insatiable craving for sharpness in images. Is this the passion of an obsession? Or do these people hope, by this “trompe l’oeil” technique, to get to closer grips with reality? In either case, they are just as far away from the real problem as those of that other generation which used to endow all its photographic anecdotes with an intentional unsharpness such as was deemed to be “artistic.”
 
Last edited:
In any case, people think far too much about techniques and not enough about seeing.

I am constantly amused by the notion that some people have about photographic technique – a notion which reveals itself as an insatiable craving for sharpness in images. Is this the passion of an obsession?

Take note, Frank G. and the sharpness gang. 🙂
 
Of course Vince, you do see the paradox of your post since you are an RFF member and in light of your signature. Or are you saying you don't agree with Cartier-Bresson?
 
VinceC said:
I daresay that Henri probably wouldn't hang out on RFF:
I got that impression when I was introduced to him at Magnum back around 1980. Quite reserved and unassuming (while I was trying too damn hard not to be awe-struck...I was standing next to Elliot Erwitt at the same time), yet I got a very serious vibe from him. No, he likely wouldn't hang out here (or anywhere online, so that's no knock on RFF), but that's okay. 🙂


- Barrett
 
Last edited:
FrankS said:
In any case, people think far too much about techniques and not enough about seeing.

I am constantly amused by the notion that some people have about photographic technique – a notion which reveals itself as an insatiable craving for sharpness in images. Is this the passion of an obsession?

Take note, Frank G. and the sharpness gang. 🙂

I'm with you, Frank. Sharpness is not what it's all about. Translated to music, only those with perfection of pitch would be recorded. Fine, we'd have Cecilia Bartoli, but there would be no Neil Young.
Quite a few of my favorite photos (not meaning my own) are to one degree or another "not sharp". Quite often, the emotional content is inversely proportional to the degree of sharpness.
 
Krasnaya_Zvezda said:
Quite often, the emotional content is inversely proportional to the degree of sharpness.
What happened to Yuri? Now you're Dmitri? 😛

VinceC said:
I daresay that Henri probably wouldn't hang out on RFF:
Why is that, Vince? Are you saying that all are at RFF are same-minded? I don't know what you're saying by that intro.
 
To be fair, there's probably as many posts here about the "technique" of how to shoot people you don't know on a city street, how to interact with subjects and various conceptual discussions as there are on what glass is sharpest.

I can only speak for myself here, but part of the fun of using a rangefinder is geeking out on the classic (superior for its specific job although completely antiquated) technology and window shopping for more unaffordable gadgets that I realize really won't improve my photography.

Some people fix up old sports cars or stargaze for fun. Sure, the end result of those might be driving and looking but they also entail a deep love (or at least excitement) for the tools themselves. After all, this is a rangefinder forum. Not an art or even just a photography forum. Maybe I'd be a better photographer if I spent less time hanging out here and poring over ebay gear but this is just a hobby for me. The end result isn't REALLY about making the best possible image at all costs. It's about having fun.

The lamest thing I could do is try and live my life according to how I think Henri would best approve of. Last time I checked he wasn't a client of mine. I mean, I was never one for making lots of test chart exposures or fret about minor sharpness advantages but if that's your thing then just go for it. Even if he wouldn't have patronized RFF I think Henri would get behind that idea, it's in line with how he chose to live himself.

*k, off my soapbox now* 🙂
xo
shak
 
>>Of course Vince, you do see the paradox of your post since you are an RFF member and in light of your signature. Or are you saying you don't agree with Cartier-Bresson?<<

I see the paradox. If I didn't enjoy hanging out and talking about equipment, I wouldn't be here. I don't think I agree or disagree with him. But his thoughts were interesting enough that I retyped them from the Website (which doesn't have a block-copy ability). It's also worth knowing the thoughts of accomplished artists, because they're always a bit different than the rest of us.

One of the things I enjoy about RFF is its healthy balance between the machines and the "seeing." I'm not sure Cartier-Bresson really sustained that healthy balance, inasmuch as he abandoned photography in his later years.
 
Also, while we do admire and treasure his life's work, he seems to have been -- as my 8-year-old might say -- something of a "stinker."
 
I don't think he was a "stinker", in the sense that he was crotchety, or unpleasant. He was just an old-school, educated European. They tend to be a more serious lot...
 
VinceC said:
One of the things I enjoy about RFF is its healthy balance between the machines and the "seeing." I'm not sure Cartier-Bresson really sustained that healthy balance, inasmuch as he abandoned photography in his later years.

Bingo.

To get off topic badly, I'm an Episcopalian. That's the USA version of an Anglican. Compromise is unimaginably burned deep into our souls from Elizabeth Regina onward. This understanding of HCB seems just that little bit more real world than most - he was _human_. He never was 100% one way or the other. But by the end of Vince's coment we run back into that human thing again.

Any of us could, with bad luck, become pultizer prize winning photographers tomorrow. I say that because we are the kind of folk who will actually have a camera ready and hyperfocal focused; hence we are actually ready, at some level, for that insane surprise. However, we are, in fact, all human with all that has always implied...

"Chances are,
Nothings free,
Longing for what used to be.
Still it's hard, hard to see,
Fragile lives, shattered dreams..."

The Offspring.

William
 
VinceC said:
Also, while we do admire and treasure his life's work, he seems to have been -- as my 8-year-old might say -- something of a "stinker."

My knowledge of idiomatic English is not really good, what does "stinker" mean in this context ?
Somebody who likes to stir up things, in a negative meaning ?
Thanks,
bertram
 
A "stinker" can be someone who is "crotchety, or unpleasant" as mentioned above. It's most often used to describe children who are being stubborn, annoying and displaying a bad mood. I think in modern American useage, stinker is nearly always said with a bit of a smile and tenderness toward the very young or the very old.
 
Dirk said:
I don't think he was a "stinker", in the sense that he was crotchety, or unpleasant. He was just an old-school, educated European. They tend to be a more serious lot...

He was lucky to be born in a wealthy nest. If "old-school, educated European" means old money, aristocratic private school types... well, fortunately, not many of them are around (anymore). I've know a few and they're mostly stuck up people, though I could have ran into the wrong lot, of course. 🙂
 
I recommend you all the 'Cameras, shoes and other essentials' chapter from Lenswork 'On Being a photographer'.

And I'm not kidding when I tell you that until maybe two years ago I thought that Cartier-Bresson was a brand of jewelry. Honest. I don't know from when those HCB words are, but after reading them, they sound more like an excuse than anything else 😕

But if we talk of Tag-Heuer, now that's a good photographer 😉

Oscar
 
Back
Top Bottom