HCB's Duck Pictures?

raydm6

raydm6

Yay! Cameras! 🙈🙉🙊┌( ಠ_ಠ)┘ [◉"]
Local time
10:35 AM
Joined
Oct 20, 2006
Messages
3,672
Fun Fact:

He had a tradition of testing out new camera lenses by taking photos of ducks in urban parks. These were never published, but he called them a ‘baptism’ of the lens and his only ‘superstition.’
Click to expand...
from: https://shooterfiles.com/2015/04/mas...rtier-bresson/

I have never heard of this. Is this true? Did he mention this somewhere in an article or book?

I wouldn't mind seeing some HCB lens test duck pictures. :)
 
I am testing new AF lenses by taking pictures of my kids - loads of moving around making them good subject for testing. Maybe testing them on ducks gave him a moving test subject that wouldn't protest too much (if this information is accurate of course).
 
Funny that he calls it a superstition. I'm more superstitious than I'd like to be, and every new lens I acquire, the first pic I always have to make of my wife. Started out doing this some twenty years ago, and now it's a compulsion. Ha!!!

Best,
-Tim
 
Most of the ponds around here have silted over due to all the construction, so I'd have to travel a bit to get to a duck pond, but that sounds like a wonderful tradition. There is a house I used to photograph as part of a lens test, but I figured one day someone would call the cops on me for taking so many photos of it, so I gave up on that.

PF
 
Whenever I get a new lens I always test it wide open on a particular statue of two girls in Yokohama; I call them Nicky and Nicole. It’s not a superstition and they don’t move, but they’re always available and they never complain.

All the best,
Mike
 
I found the reference in this blog (https://seanq6.blogspot.com/2010/11/technique.html) to a 1962 article/interview:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henri_...on#cite_ref-38

He started a tradition of testing new camera lenses by taking photographs of ducks in urban parks. He never published the images but referred to them as 'my only superstition' as he considered it a 'baptism' of the lens.[SUP][38][/SUP]
Click to expand...

Citation: J.M Dirac, ed. (1962). Cartier-Bresson Interviews and Notes. Paris. p. 122.
 
gelatin silver print (summaron 35mm f2.8) leica mp

No ducks, but geese, maybe those too are instructive.

Erik.

50903303397_57f78c2878_b.jpg
 
raydm6 said:
I found the reference in this blog (https://seanq6.blogspot.com/2010/11/technique.html) to a 1962 article/interview:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henri_...on#cite_ref-38



Citation: J.M Dirac, ed. (1962). Cartier-Bresson Interviews and Notes. Paris. p. 122.
Click to expand...

I'm stunned. I was sure this thread would have a real life and of course my starting position was that this duck thing was sure to be complete rubbish. And then here we have it: a definitive answer. With a reference. This new look forum certainly will take a bit of getting used to. Maybe we should ban authoritative references? Just an idea. At least I got to see Brusby's duck. Lovely shot.
 
Richard G said:
{snip} Maybe we should ban authoritative references? Just an idea. At least I got to see Brusby's duck. Lovely shot.
Click to expand...

Richard, thanks for your very nice comment.

I've been trying to figure out what you meant by banning authoritative references. I always like them :). Sorry for being so thick. Would you please elaborate? Thanks!
 
Every camera I get I try to take the first picture with it of my wife. Seems when I do I have no problems and am happy with that particular camera. Started that years ago, now it's a tradition. I can well understand why someone would start a tradition/superstition or what ever.
 
brusby said:
Richard, thanks for your very nice comment.

I've been trying to figure out what you meant by banning authoritative references. I always like them :). Sorry for being so thick. Would you please elaborate? Thanks!
Click to expand...

Sorry Bruce, and raydm6: just a bit of irony. There are debates, even arguments, that go on for pages here sometimes. This one resolved it seems with an original reference on page 1. A surprise. Not what we usually see, that's all.
 
Oh, that's hilarious, Richard. Thanks for the clarification. Maybe someone should inject a little confusion and obfuscation whenever things are seeming too clear and easily understandable -- just to help maintain a sense of continuity with the past. :rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom