HCB and his lenses

[Jack Conrad]

Which is of course pure drivel. It sounds good; it's an eye-catching number, with absolutely no basis in research; just anecdote. Even worse than the '10,000 hours' story.

A far more accurate summary is 'if you practise, you usually get better.'

Cheers,

R.

Going by that number, I should be at least 10 times better than HCB by now.

 

[Filzkoeter]

My bets :
Hektor 135/4,5:
http://www.moma.org/interactives/ex...erbresson/assets/photos/000/000/074/74_lg.jpg

I would question this... the oof area looks quite sonnarish; my guess: 50/1.5 Sonnar wide open.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Cheers then.

Sorry, Richard. Wasn't meant to come across as a personal attack. But Jack, above, nailed it. Trying to put an arbitrary number on how many pics you 'need' to take (or hours you 'need' to practise) can be a substitute for thinking about what you're doing, and how, and why. I'm not saying you're doing that: it's just that propagating the '10,000 pics' meme doesn't really do much.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Only good?

Quite good. Add other qualifiers/superlatives to taste.

Cheers,

R.

 

[jsrockit]

it's just that propagating the '10,000 pics' meme doesn't really do much.

As well as the fact that with a digital camera, many beginners will do this within one year.

 

[Roger Hicks]

As well as the fact that with a digital camera, many beginners will do this within one year.

Or less. Aaaaargh! I hadn't thought of it that way but you are of course absolutely right.

Cheers.

R.

 

[benlees]

Speaking of digital, the two blokes in the third picture that PKR posted (post #56) look like they are early adopters of chimping.

 

[semi-ambivalent]

Which is of course pure drivel. It sounds good; it's an eye-catching number, with absolutely no basis in research; just anecdote. Even worse than the '10,000 hours' story.

A far more accurate summary is 'if you practise, you usually get better.'

Cheers,

R.

Voice from Gallery: 'Lucky shot Arny!'
Arnold Palmer: 'Yea, and the more I practice the luckier I seem to get.'

s-a

 

[Clint Troy]

I would question this... the oof area looks quite sonnarish; my guess: 50/1.5 Sonnar wide open.

This is not the work of a 50mm lens. Not even a noctilux blurs a background to such an extent.

 

[bogdanb]

Perhaps a solution to the bickering would be to ask 'where do I see clear examples of Bresson using different focal lengths'?

There are quite a few photos on the Magnum website showing Bresson and his gear, mostly taken by fellow members. (I highly recommend that site, as one can find there many interesting pictures that never made it into books). I'm not that good at identifying lenses, but what always made me smile was the variety of gear used by HCB, who is sometimes presented as an ascetic figure gearwise. That could be a good source.

 

[taskoni]

Garry Winogrand was doing 10,000 pictures in a week when he was in good spirits 😀

 

[Vics]

This is not the work of a 50mm lens. Not even a noctilux blurs a background to such an extent.

Here's an example from my 1950s Sonnar 50/1.5 wide open and close up
Rural Cemetery by Victor Ross, on Flickr

 

[kossi008]

You say he'd never wear a RL, I say he'd always wear one if he could.
Who is right? Who is wrong?

And who cares? Seriously, guys, why not acknowledge the fact that "waste of money" carries drastically different meanings to most people and move on with the thread?

 

[kossi008]

Surely he took a photo here and there without his shoes on. Or his hat. Or his glasses.

Yes, there's a famous one of his own legs and feet from some early Italian trip he took... look Ma, no shoes!

 

[TXForester]

HCB was a photographer by profession, therefore he had to own a vast array of equipment. His professionalism and work ethics would have dictated that.

I don't question how much equipment he had as it is neither here nor there. But, I'm curious what ethics and professionalism have to do with it. Seems an odd justification. As long as the type and quantity of the equipment served his purpose would it matter? If he were capable of shooting all his work with a single lens, would that make him less professional, less ethical?

 

[Clint Troy]

I don't question how much equipment he had as it is neither here nor there. But, I'm curious what ethics and professionalism have to do with it. Seems an odd justification. As long as the type and quantity of the equipment served his purpose would it matter? If he were capable of shooting all his work with a single lens, would that make him less professional, less ethical?

Backup, Backup, Backup.

No, the romantic idea about him traveling around the globe with a single camera is not true. But Romantic, very.

 

[TXForester]

Backup, Backup, Backup.

No, the romantic idea about him traveling around the globe with a single camera is not true. But Romantic, very.

Backup, backup, backup.

I don't question how much equipment he had...

What part of my statement makes you think I'm buying into the romantic notion? My post had to do with your statement that professionalism and ethics dictates a lot of equipment. I don't buy that. Professionlism and ethics deals with behavior, not equipment. As long as the equipment, no matter how much or how little, allowed him to do the job he was hired to do, then they don't come into it.

Now if you want to talk about the manner in which he took his photos, then I could see professionalism and ethics being a valid subject, but not the one covered in this thread.

 

[Clint Troy]

Clint -

Aside from cameras and lenses he favored; It's most likely that he owned a vast array of equipment because Leica gave him gear constantly. He must have had lots and lots of gear. He, not needing money (he was wealthy) surely gave some of this gear to friends. Koudelka was a poor man until recently. He and HCB were good friends - a camera or lens may have made it's way to Josef. I've given a lot of gear away over the years.

The kind of work a pro does usually dictates the gear s/he uses.

I understand.

But imagine for one second his luggage when traveling for work. None different then Salgado, I believe, which was comprised of many backups as well as many, many rolls of film. Some more film. And some more Backups.
We're very far away from the romantic idea that he was a Bohemian with only one camera around his neck and a single roll of film for the week. Or the month, depending on his "magical eye" and on his propensity to capture the magical moment and tell a full story with one single frame.
As a serious Pro, HCB had to have many backups, many rolls of film, and again, more Backups. If not, then he had pockets full of Cash. Enough to buy a unlimited rolls of film and unlimited amount of camera bodies if needed during the trips... Which basically comes down to the same. IMO.

I'm just realizing through these threads that HCB wasn't the mythical Bohemian/magician that we are supposed to believe he was... 🙂

Was he still good? Yes. Of course!

 

[Clint Troy]

Backup, backup, backup.


What part of my statement makes you think I'm buying into the romantic notion? My post had to do with your statement that professionalism and ethics dictates a lot of equipment. I don't buy that. Professionlism and ethics deals with behavior, not equipment. As long as the equipment, no matter how much or how little, allowed him to do the job he was hired to do, then they don't come into it.

Now if you want to talk about the manner in which he took his photos, then I could see professionalism and ethics being a valid subject, but not the one covered in this thread.

Professionalism and ethics, in photography, must involve a lot of Backup equipment. That's all I was saying.
He surely must've had at least 3-4 camera kits during his travels. As a working pro, that's a bare minimum to be expected from even the venerated HCB!

 

[Richard G]

Professionalism and ethics, in photography, must involve a lot of Backup equipment. That's all I was saying.
He surely must've had at least 3-4 camera kits during his travels. As a working pro, that's a bare minimum to be expected from even the venerated HCB!

According to Patel's account, cited above, there was one spare Leica body on the train trip they took together.