We are forgetting that HCB comes from another era than most of us. We should judge him accordingly. In the 30's "photojournalism" was more of an essayist with a camera, rather than a pen. The stories were built up and shown as such. Rarely was it a "single' shot. The magazines of the era used photography as a storyboard. Yes, there might be one or two shots that were standouts, but not all of them.
In the 40's and 50's this really "gelled" and we had the extensive picture story that really only needed captions and s short lead-in to set the story!
Where HCB shines is that he recognized the key shot and used it! He was also a " walker" and took pictures all the time, wether he was on assignment or not!
Yes, he had the luxury to come from a moderatly wealthy family (Bresson Textile Mills) and had support from the family. There was an unwritten code amoong the Magnum shooters not to show placards from Bresson Textile mill workers when they covered protests or "manifestations" on the streets. This position allowed him to take pictures with less concern for the next meal, but it in no way demeans his influence on 20th century photography. There were many like him in the 30's,40's and 50's. Lartique comes to mind, never had to work, coming from a very wealthy banking family. Brassai similarly. This kind of background probably allowed them to do what they loved doing without the necessity of providing food and shelter. Dont we all wish that our situation would be similar? Would we be better photographers for it? Probably not! Some of us have done this the tough way, cutting back on "non-essentials' like food,shelter, status symbols do pursue what we love to do and that is very much the same thing.
HCB was a bit of a "luddite" when it came to the technical aspects. He knew what he needed, how the camera behaved, how a certian film worked and he quickly realized that having someone else develop and print eliminated one, according to him, tedious aspect of his craft.
Was he a snob! Yes, I think so, but he is one of the few who, in my estimation, had the right to be one.
He obviously detested technical questions and unfortunately his use of the Leica had people asking him "Which is the best lens" or "How do I expose for this or that". Did he like the limelight? He professed that he wanted to stay incognito, but got pissed if he wasen't afforded the respect he deserved and sucked up the accolades dumped on him. In short, he was a normal human being with a skill of a finely honed craftsman.
I never met him personally (briefly in France at the launch of the book "France" - which incidently contains color shots by him!), but I have friends who knew him quite well.
If you go back and look at his books, "The Decisive Moment" and the "Europeas" are only two of these, his books on India, China,Russia shows him as a "essayist" photographer. "Man and Machine" shows that he did not loose his touch in the 60's and 70's. He was and will be, one of the giants of our time when it comes to show us the world!
I must admit, that if I had been him I would have taken my 2-300 best images, stitched them together and made them up as a set of contacts (say 20-30 of them) and then showed it to the world saying" OH, I really haven't shot that much. Here are my complete contact sheet collection!" That would have depressed a lot of us!
Of course he shot a lot of film. He was on assignment and he know full well that the editor wanted a full set of prints to work from "Oh, too bad you didn't shoot that as vertical" or vice versa!
Over the years I have accumulated a fair bit of his books. Depending on my mood, I either like him or find him banal. The "Scrap book" that came out last year is very interesting as it shows images that he, himself would not have let out! He supposedly one time proclaimed" Contact sheets are like taking your pants off in public".
He is still amazing though, for almost 60 years he documented the world as he saw it - and I suspect "colored" our view of it too in so doing.
