Sparrow
Veteran
No, I don’t think so. As far as I can tell of that group of Photojournalists that were covering “events” in Europe 1935-45 Henri was the only one with any proper artistic training, from an uncle I believe, as such he was unique and seminal in forming the modern graphic idiom.
He did however crop his photos in that period. I have seen the scrapbook he made with his own hands in the mid 40s and the prints are not in the correct proportions and are not in consistent proportion to each other
Carlsen Highway
Well-known
Among others who have suffered from overenthusiastic acolytes, Ansel Adams, Christ and Marx come to mind.
Roger - This is dangerous ground your treading. The Ansel Adams people will burn you at the stake or take you out the back and shoot you for that last sentence.
Sparrow, I think it should be remembered that Mr Cartier Bresson didnt become a photojounalist really untill after WW2. Sure he worked for a Socialist paper for a short time in the late thirties with Chima and Capa, but he thought of himself as an artist at that time.
Comparing him or his pictures from the 1930's with anybody else doesnt make a lot of sense (Such as Margeret Bourke white...)
As for the scrapbook, he printed much of it in his bathroom - and he hated printing - over a couple of days so he could take it over to help select images for the "posthumous exhibition"
Again, regarding the cropping - people change over time. It is entirely possible that Cartier Bresson had not yet decided that cropping would be elimiated from his working practices in 1946. Remember, at that time, he wasnt really a working photographer as such, he had been in prison for three years, taken some pictures of artists for a book that never happened and so forth, but prior to the war he had been focussed on cinema.
I suppose what I am saying is that Cartier Bresson didnt spring into being fully formed in 1932 when he bought that little Leica and pushed it through a fence to take a picture of a man jumping a puddle behind the railway station.
The views of an man who had ben taking pictures for 40 years may not have been those of the younger man.
Roger - This is dangerous ground your treading. The Ansel Adams people will burn you at the stake or take you out the back and shoot you for that last sentence.
Sparrow, I think it should be remembered that Mr Cartier Bresson didnt become a photojounalist really untill after WW2. Sure he worked for a Socialist paper for a short time in the late thirties with Chima and Capa, but he thought of himself as an artist at that time.
Comparing him or his pictures from the 1930's with anybody else doesnt make a lot of sense (Such as Margeret Bourke white...)
As for the scrapbook, he printed much of it in his bathroom - and he hated printing - over a couple of days so he could take it over to help select images for the "posthumous exhibition"
Again, regarding the cropping - people change over time. It is entirely possible that Cartier Bresson had not yet decided that cropping would be elimiated from his working practices in 1946. Remember, at that time, he wasnt really a working photographer as such, he had been in prison for three years, taken some pictures of artists for a book that never happened and so forth, but prior to the war he had been focussed on cinema.
I suppose what I am saying is that Cartier Bresson didnt spring into being fully formed in 1932 when he bought that little Leica and pushed it through a fence to take a picture of a man jumping a puddle behind the railway station.
The views of an man who had ben taking pictures for 40 years may not have been those of the younger man.
Last edited:
Sparrow
Veteran
I wasn’t making a value judgment, taking a view or offering an opinion I was simply stating the reality, and the reality was that when he had full editorial control of his work he cropped it, whatever he or others came to believe in later years, at the time he cropped
Photojournalist or not he was influential in the genera, and a lot of his work had the same politics as Capa and the rest, I suppose that as they all lacked objectivity non could be considered photojournalist until editors demanded balance in their work after the war
Photojournalist or not he was influential in the genera, and a lot of his work had the same politics as Capa and the rest, I suppose that as they all lacked objectivity non could be considered photojournalist until editors demanded balance in their work after the war
Carlsen Highway
Well-known
but the when is the point I am making....if you see what I mean.
Cartier Bresson said in 1958 that he did not crop his pictures. His intentions there wer clear. If you had of pulled the scrapbook out and waved it in his face and said "Aha Quest ce que cest, you arrogant Frenchman, explain this!"
He may have said, "Merde, but that was twenty years ago mon ami..."
The legend has totally overwritten the actual man I suppose.
Cartier Bresson said in 1958 that he did not crop his pictures. His intentions there wer clear. If you had of pulled the scrapbook out and waved it in his face and said "Aha Quest ce que cest, you arrogant Frenchman, explain this!"
He may have said, "Merde, but that was twenty years ago mon ami..."
The legend has totally overwritten the actual man I suppose.
Sparrow
Veteran
Well yes I suppose, so what you’re saying is this was before he became a virgin?
user237428934
User deletion pending
Funny discussion. It's absolutely irrelevant if someone crops or not.
Chris101
summicronia
Thanks Turtle, I appreciate your considering the result of my take on all this. But I'll tell ya what is lazy. I am lazy! It's just the opposite of the hypothesis you are questioning. I aim, focus, meter if there's time, then print everything on the negative, extraneous elements and all.
Attached are three prints that may have been better off cropped to isolate the main subject. I like them anyway - maybe because they show things I'd rather not see.
I have a mechanical relationship with the camera. I set and guide it, but once I push the button, the camera does it's own thing, and makes a picture. Printing the whole thing is easy, and lets the camera have the last say in the content of the picture. It's the lazy man's path to artsiness.
Attachments
Carlsen Highway
Well-known
Before he was a virgin...yes, before he was deified.
Deification included in his case the Holy Leica, the Sacred Decisive Moment, the 50mm lens and cropping became blasphemy. These things became writ in stone and no man may turn them usunder lest he be branded a philistine. And so it has been.
NOw, of course it is the opposite. No man may mention Monsieur Cartier Bresson's 50mm lens without the Priests of Skeptism burning them on the fires built with three or four shots done with a 35 and a 90mm, neither can the saved mention cropping - without the vestal virgins purifiying them with brimstone ladled on with a the puddle jumping behind the gare photo.
Deification included in his case the Holy Leica, the Sacred Decisive Moment, the 50mm lens and cropping became blasphemy. These things became writ in stone and no man may turn them usunder lest he be branded a philistine. And so it has been.
NOw, of course it is the opposite. No man may mention Monsieur Cartier Bresson's 50mm lens without the Priests of Skeptism burning them on the fires built with three or four shots done with a 35 and a 90mm, neither can the saved mention cropping - without the vestal virgins purifiying them with brimstone ladled on with a the puddle jumping behind the gare photo.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Point fully taken about when.
But I took the comment about 'body of work' to apply to 'body of work', not 'early work'. Which is why I compared him with Margaret B-W.
As for the last point, yes, absolutely.
Cheers,
R.
Carlsen Highway
Well-known
huh, looks like it was the last shot on the roll as well. I never noticed that.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
No it isn't, if, because of some misconceived hero-worship they either don't crop when it's needed, or refuse to crop and print anyway.
This, surely, is the point of the discussion. HC-B worshippers want to be more like the Master, and it probably doesn't do their photography any good.
I use the word 'worshippers' deliberately. You can think he was a great photographer (I do) without believing that he was perfect in every way and without trying to emulate him in every way. But an awful lot of people (including me) were/are so knocked out when they first saw/see his work that they tended/tend to swallow the 'no crop, one lens' twaddle (most of it generated by hero-worshippers) along with the reality.
Cheers,
R.
Carlsen Highway
Well-known
To me threads like this are interpreting photographic history, and are enjoyable in their own right.
jwcat
Well-known
taxi38
Taxi Driver
The Bresson shot of the man jumping over the water was cropped from the original horizontal shot where the shutter failed to work properly.Ive seen what I believe was the original,showing the photo plus the rest of the frame black.As far as I know this is the only time a Bresson photo was cropped.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Turtle
Veteran
I can certanly see why people prefer not to crop. It can make things quicker in the darkroom, as no easel blades need moving or colums racking up/down and refocusing, but back to the purity/getting things right in camera angle:
Not all cropping is retrospective. Its not as if those who crop only look at their images in the darkroom and go, "darn it, I did not see that hand sticking into the frame. I will crop it out" or "messed that up again, lets take that out." Frequently one sees what one needs well before even releasing the shutter and it may or may not conform to the format or FL you are using. I mainly shoot 35mm and 6x7 and find that although I mostly do compose with that format in mind, not infrequently do I find 6x7 stubby or 35mm too long. I am often aware that the frame needs cropping before I even fire the shutter. MY question would be this:
If I see the image I want before firing the shutter (and think it needs a slight change in aspect ratio to look as I want to present it, for example), shoot the frame and then print it to that aspect ratio (by cropping) in what way have I done anything other than perfectly recorded and presented the print the way I intended?
I think it is worth remembering that it is the print we all strive for and the negative is merely somewhere in between vision and print. The neg is a tool, an intermediary and not an end in itself so surely is rendered irrelevant beyond its ability to deliver the print we desire.
In HCB's day - or at least when he started - wide/long lenses were either uncommon or expensive or both (I believe), so it is not surprising that he used a 50mm. Having honed his skills with this FL, it is not a surprise that he largely stuck with it, because lens changes on the hoof for truly unpredictable decisive moments wont get you far.
With RFs, when the action is unpredictable, I tend to commit to a FL and then use your feet and guile to make the shot happen as best you can. There is compromise, btu also benefit. I shoot various FLs, but it is always the same one that is on as my default (35mm, a personal choice). As I move about, I may decide to change my default to something else, but when I am unable to predict at all what might unfold and where, I will plug for the 35. I think this, more than anything, combined with the relative lack of wides back in the day, explains why HCB shot mostly with a 50mm. It was not because he thought other FLs unworthy, just that he had limited options, became attuned to working with a 50 and would have to have reprogrammed himself to work any other way.
I think the following are true:
However, the above can easily become perverted into:
PS I am glad Roger made references to religion, because that was one of the first parallels that struck me in terms of how messages can become, shall we say, twisted into absolute laws that may not bear too much relation to the original intent. We humans are good at that. Its funny how we all realise that we are fallible but then attribute infallibility to others.
Not all cropping is retrospective. Its not as if those who crop only look at their images in the darkroom and go, "darn it, I did not see that hand sticking into the frame. I will crop it out" or "messed that up again, lets take that out." Frequently one sees what one needs well before even releasing the shutter and it may or may not conform to the format or FL you are using. I mainly shoot 35mm and 6x7 and find that although I mostly do compose with that format in mind, not infrequently do I find 6x7 stubby or 35mm too long. I am often aware that the frame needs cropping before I even fire the shutter. MY question would be this:
If I see the image I want before firing the shutter (and think it needs a slight change in aspect ratio to look as I want to present it, for example), shoot the frame and then print it to that aspect ratio (by cropping) in what way have I done anything other than perfectly recorded and presented the print the way I intended?
I think it is worth remembering that it is the print we all strive for and the negative is merely somewhere in between vision and print. The neg is a tool, an intermediary and not an end in itself so surely is rendered irrelevant beyond its ability to deliver the print we desire.
In HCB's day - or at least when he started - wide/long lenses were either uncommon or expensive or both (I believe), so it is not surprising that he used a 50mm. Having honed his skills with this FL, it is not a surprise that he largely stuck with it, because lens changes on the hoof for truly unpredictable decisive moments wont get you far.
With RFs, when the action is unpredictable, I tend to commit to a FL and then use your feet and guile to make the shot happen as best you can. There is compromise, btu also benefit. I shoot various FLs, but it is always the same one that is on as my default (35mm, a personal choice). As I move about, I may decide to change my default to something else, but when I am unable to predict at all what might unfold and where, I will plug for the 35. I think this, more than anything, combined with the relative lack of wides back in the day, explains why HCB shot mostly with a 50mm. It was not because he thought other FLs unworthy, just that he had limited options, became attuned to working with a 50 and would have to have reprogrammed himself to work any other way.
I think the following are true:
- Become able to shoot instinctively with a smallish number of FLs and you will be a better photographer. Sure, use as many as you like (especially when you have time, but know some intimately for when you have no time to think or mess about with kit).
- Try to get it right in camera. Do not shoot in the hope that you can crop out a better composition later. Know what you want the final image to look like and endeavour to shoot that image.
However, the above can easily become perverted into:
- Shoot only one FL if you want to become a better photographer.
- Don't crop your images. doing so only proves you did not get it right at the taking stage.
PS I am glad Roger made references to religion, because that was one of the first parallels that struck me in terms of how messages can become, shall we say, twisted into absolute laws that may not bear too much relation to the original intent. We humans are good at that. Its funny how we all realise that we are fallible but then attribute infallibility to others.
Last edited:
Roger Hicks
Veteran
andydrew
Newbie
It strikes me that cropping is a bit like masturbation. We all do it, but don't like to admit it ;-)
