Ronald M
Veteran
NO If he did he would have learned to expose properly. It take a darkroom magician to print his stuff I understand.
Did HCB Henri-Cartier-Bresson develop the negatives by himself?
- Thread starter kiemchacsu
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 61
- Views 5K
Dogman
Veteran
According to a couple of biographies I've read he most certainly processed his film early on. It was mentioned he processed his film while he worked as a hunter in Africa long before photography became his career. And while working as an international photojournalist he shipped his film out for processing by the publications he worked for or had it done at Magnum later on.
This information is readily available from various sources in print and even on the semi-literate Internet.
Erik van Straten
Veteran
Yes, I know that, but I did't know that you knew this too. I'm sorry if I caused any inconvenience.
Erik.
ramosa
B&W
Hmmm ... :bang:... But he was a supremely talented photographer who had an incredible impact on photography--then, now, and in the future.
Last edited:
Freakscene
Obscure member
There is a huge amount of repeated semi-truth and myth on the web and in the secondary literature about HCB.
If you have a legitimate academic or historical reason, you can make an appointment at the Foundation Cartier-Bresson https://www.henricartierbresson.org/en/ and look at many of his negatives. I have done so, although a lot of the information I received was from Martine Franck, who I met there, but that was (obviously) before Martine died.
The sleeves of some of his negatives are marked as to where they were processed, and others have accompanying notes.
Some are pretty poorly exposed, but most of them looked good to me, particularly in later years. That may be associated with progress in 35mm film technology as well as changes in methods and technique. Having said that, Gassman had several legendary printers who worked for him.
Arguing from secondary sources is just reiterating and sustaining the myths.
HCB knew how to develop film and developed some himself, particularly before WWII. The majority of his work was developed by Gassman, particularly during his very productive and prolific phase after WWII. Some films have a colour that indicates they were developed in 777, much of it does not. So the answer is "it depends but mostly he got someone else to do it when he could". Which is what I would do too if I were in France post-WWII and had the resources to outsource those tasks.
One thing that did not surprise me is that some of his famous photos were often printed from repro negs made from very good prints. This was standard practice in the 20th century to avoid risking damage to significant negatives from repeated handling and printing.
Marty
If you have a legitimate academic or historical reason, you can make an appointment at the Foundation Cartier-Bresson https://www.henricartierbresson.org/en/ and look at many of his negatives. I have done so, although a lot of the information I received was from Martine Franck, who I met there, but that was (obviously) before Martine died.
The sleeves of some of his negatives are marked as to where they were processed, and others have accompanying notes.
Some are pretty poorly exposed, but most of them looked good to me, particularly in later years. That may be associated with progress in 35mm film technology as well as changes in methods and technique. Having said that, Gassman had several legendary printers who worked for him.
Arguing from secondary sources is just reiterating and sustaining the myths.
HCB knew how to develop film and developed some himself, particularly before WWII. The majority of his work was developed by Gassman, particularly during his very productive and prolific phase after WWII. Some films have a colour that indicates they were developed in 777, much of it does not. So the answer is "it depends but mostly he got someone else to do it when he could". Which is what I would do too if I were in France post-WWII and had the resources to outsource those tasks.
One thing that did not surprise me is that some of his famous photos were often printed from repro negs made from very good prints. This was standard practice in the 20th century to avoid risking damage to significant negatives from repeated handling and printing.
Marty
Last edited:
philosli
Established
According to MoMA's description in an exhibition a few years back, here is a print done by HCB himself:
https://www.moma.org/interactives/objectphoto/objects/83982.html#recto
Excerpt:
"This is a rare example of such a photograph, printed and finished by Cartier-Bresson himself, who was outspoken about his distaste for darkroom work (after 1935 he focused exclusively on taking pictures and left the printing to others). The fiber content of the paper reveals it to be a European photographic paper produced in the 1930s; it is a double-weight paper with a smooth surface, easy to handle in the darkroom when wet and resistant to scratching. The paper was scored and then each side of the print was trimmed by hand. (Evidence of dark lines at the trimmed edges are visible, possibly from the black border of the negative’s edge.) A swirling finger smudge in the lower-right corner indexes the moment the artist held the corner down as he pivoted the paper to trim the next edge. He retouched a flaw on the face of each subject with graphite pencil but made no notations or stamps on the verso."
The back: (signed by HCB)
https://www.moma.org/interactives/objectphoto/objects/83982.html#verso
https://www.moma.org/interactives/objectphoto/objects/83982.html#recto
Excerpt:
"This is a rare example of such a photograph, printed and finished by Cartier-Bresson himself, who was outspoken about his distaste for darkroom work (after 1935 he focused exclusively on taking pictures and left the printing to others). The fiber content of the paper reveals it to be a European photographic paper produced in the 1930s; it is a double-weight paper with a smooth surface, easy to handle in the darkroom when wet and resistant to scratching. The paper was scored and then each side of the print was trimmed by hand. (Evidence of dark lines at the trimmed edges are visible, possibly from the black border of the negative’s edge.) A swirling finger smudge in the lower-right corner indexes the moment the artist held the corner down as he pivoted the paper to trim the next edge. He retouched a flaw on the face of each subject with graphite pencil but made no notations or stamps on the verso."
The back: (signed by HCB)
https://www.moma.org/interactives/objectphoto/objects/83982.html#verso
tunalegs
Pretended Artist
I read the whole thread - but am left asking, does it matter?
It's a bit weird to me, HCB after all wasn't really a "process" artist, on the other hand his pretense of never cropping indicates at least some weight placed on process over final product. But to the viewer, does it really matter one way or the other?
It's a bit weird to me, HCB after all wasn't really a "process" artist, on the other hand his pretense of never cropping indicates at least some weight placed on process over final product. But to the viewer, does it really matter one way or the other?
leicapixie
Well-known
I love all the "expert" opinions, concerning using and exposing film.
Film until much later in HCB's career was an iffy ASA (ISO)..
Even in 60's using pro film, included was an actual "close" ASA number!
It was Kodachrome and some Ektachrome as well as Agfs slide..
Add poor metering meters..
So exact exposures... that's life!
There was no internet and all developing by experience and luck.
Mechanical shutters are not 100% accurate!
So if occasional shots needed more burning or less, so what!
HCB shot and recorded life!
Imagine given a film, we don't tell you ISO, use an unknown developer,
a Leica Barnack with untested shutter and RF...
Even silver spooned rich kids don't stay in slums by choice!
Bravo bought meals etc. for HCB while in Mexico..
Film until much later in HCB's career was an iffy ASA (ISO)..
Even in 60's using pro film, included was an actual "close" ASA number!
It was Kodachrome and some Ektachrome as well as Agfs slide..
Add poor metering meters..
So exact exposures... that's life!
There was no internet and all developing by experience and luck.
Mechanical shutters are not 100% accurate!
So if occasional shots needed more burning or less, so what!
HCB shot and recorded life!
Imagine given a film, we don't tell you ISO, use an unknown developer,
a Leica Barnack with untested shutter and RF...
Even silver spooned rich kids don't stay in slums by choice!
Bravo bought meals etc. for HCB while in Mexico..
nightfly
Well-known
If you see his prints in person, there's really nothing special about the printing or developing. Certainly nothing you'd want to emulate particularly.
Unlike someone like Salagado where the prints in person are really spectacular, HCB prints are pretty blah.
This isn't a comment about him as a photographer, just saying that his developing and printing process don't seem to be a part of his talent or his concern as a photographer.
Unlike someone like Salagado where the prints in person are really spectacular, HCB prints are pretty blah.
This isn't a comment about him as a photographer, just saying that his developing and printing process don't seem to be a part of his talent or his concern as a photographer.
kiemchacsu
Well-known
Well if you said so, nothing is really matter after all, including most of what we have been discussed here on RFF.
I guess, understanding the history context is another way to enjoy a photo
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Highway 61
Revisited
This question could be asked after every thread here...
With this one we, at least, have some interesting matter (but for the usual off topic/dumb posts...) to think of.
Thanks to Marty in particular for his very interesting report of his visit to the HCB Foundation before Martine Franck died.
That was when the Foundation was still located in a very charming place of the Montparnasse sector. Now they have moved to some larger rooms in the Marais, but the new place has no soul, sadly.
davidnewtonguitars
Family Snaps
Does what HCB did, what camera, how he held it, which lens, which film, how he saw his world, how he chose his subject, how he composed, how he handled processing, does it all matter?
It sure the heck matters to US! Threads like this call us back to his images, and don't we enjoy them!
He was a giant of 20th century photography. Was he a perfect man? The trolls who trash him are not worth a comment.
It sure the heck matters to US! Threads like this call us back to his images, and don't we enjoy them!
He was a giant of 20th century photography. Was he a perfect man? The trolls who trash him are not worth a comment.
David Hughes
David Hughes
Oh dear, it's begining to seem compulsary to put him and everything he did on a pedestal...
Regards, David
Regards, David
nightfly
Well-known
A good cure for HCB worship is to go see a large collection of his work in person.
While still appreciating his eye, you will likely be less enamored of his technique, equipment or developing/printing process.
While still appreciating his eye, you will likely be less enamored of his technique, equipment or developing/printing process.
Michael Markey
Veteran
I`ve heard this said before although I`ve only seen a few prints of his myself as part of a larger exhibit .
David Hughes
David Hughes
Getting your hands on the originals can be an eyeopener. The trouble is that a lot of red tape has to be unknotted before you get beyond what I call the photocopy of a photocopy.
Another problem is that reproductions tend to be reduced down and that can hide a lot of things. A 2" x 3" half tone is no substitute for the real thing.
Regards, David
Another problem is that reproductions tend to be reduced down and that can hide a lot of things. A 2" x 3" half tone is no substitute for the real thing.
Regards, David
ptpdprinter
Veteran
I saw a large exhibit of HCB's work at the Leica Gallery in San Francisco a couple of years ago. I wasn't really expecting much technically, remembering the adage "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept", but I was pleasantly surprised. I thought the prints were sharp according to the lens standards of the time, and well printed. The thing is if you just focus on technique, you are missing the whole show. Oh, and they were selling for $20,000-$35,000.
Highway 61
Revisited
I wiped my eyes a few times before I re-read the whole thread. I still notice two kinds of stuff : posts answering the OP's question and putting some documented matter on the table, and OT-idiotic posts.
I have seen a lot of original prints of HCB's work. I feel like a lucky guy that this has occured to me, because that man was one of those who made the History (with a capital H) of small format photography during the XXth century. I would love to see some of his original negatives, like Marty did.
But, so far, I can see no pedestal. You still have to point it out so that it shows.
Out to Lunch
Veteran
An icon...the myth and the man. Tempers flare. It is obvious that there are some with an interest in the original question: did he developed his negatives himself. Some care and others don't. I suppose it is agreed that the bulk of his work was developed and printed by others. Does it affect his standing as a notable artist? I doubt it.
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
The second part is untrue as even his famous puddle-jumper photo is seriously cropped. Just take a look at the contact sheet prints that are findeable online or in the magnum book(s). So if the first quote is as accurate and reliable as the second quote, then we still don't know how and by whom and where his film was developed 😀
Similar threads
- Article
