tomalophicon
Well-known
He probably did use digital. He only died in 2004. I reckon he secretly bought himself a Kodak P&S and took self-portraits in mirrors and every shop window...
If Henri Cartier-Bresson was alive today would he shoot film or digital?
- Thread starter NickTrop
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 123
- Views 2K
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
Funny thing: the over-saturation of "very good" and "very bad" (and everything in-between) photography has created an environment where HCB himself would have been shut-out: galleries dismissing it as pedestrian (opting instead for the "different", which has lost most of its meaning) or as "unfocused" (both in subject matter and in "sharpness") in many instances.
He'd be voted out of Delete Me groups. He'd be hissed on the intertoobes for being a "Leica shill". AFP would not hire him on the sole basis that he wouldn't develop or process his own photos. Magazine editors would demand not to have stuff that is "distracting".
My gut feeling is that part of the reason he "retired" from photography at the peak of his photographic career is the attitudes that devolved around it in the late 20th century. He certainly wouldn't be able to provide as many candids which are at the core of his work, because today's attitudes towards a man pointing a camera at strangers stirs morbid second-guessing as to what his intentions would have been.
In short: the "film or digital" so-called question would be the least of his concerns.
kbg32
neo-romanticist
From what I know of him, if he was alive today, he wouldn't qualify this question with an answer.
Jamie123
Veteran
Ha 🙂
I actually thought about it earlier and I think it's not correct. If we construct a counterfactual conditional so that it incorporates a logical impossibility then it's definitely not valid. If I say "If I had a million dollars, circles would be square", then there is no way that the consequent (square circles) could follow from the antecedent (me having a million dollars) becoming true. Also, I think truth isn't really a property of conditionals, as, strictly speaking, a conditional does not state neither truth of falsehood. Conditionals can be valid or invalid ('valid' means that the truth of the consequent necessarily follows from the truth of the antecedent). A conditional states that a certain cosequent follows from an antecedent, i.e. that IF certain premises are true, a certain conclusion follows, but the conditional itself does not state the factuality of its premises or conclusions.
What can be true or false is an argument containing a conditional.
If I construct an argument in the form of:
Premise 1: If A is the case, B follows.
Premise 2: A is the case.
Conclusion: B is the case.
Then it becomes clear that the first premise, i.e. the conditional, does not state any facts.
Aaanyways, so much for formal logic. I suspect what you had in mind, Roger, was the rule that anything follows from a contradiction, often referred to in it's latin form "ex falso quodlibet".
zauhar
Veteran
I picked this out of his NY Times obit:
-- And later, explaining his dislike of the automatic camera, he said: "it's like shooting partridges with a machine gun."
It is not clear to me what "automatic camera" means (maybe motorized film advance?) but it does not sound like he would be enamored of current rapid-fire digitals. Elsewhere in the article it is pointed out that when shooting the Paris student uprising, he only took four or five frames an hour. That is truly Zen-like.
Of course, people are not consistent, especially in hypothetical scenarios.
I think Nick's poll opened up a lot of interesting conversation.
Randy
-- And later, explaining his dislike of the automatic camera, he said: "it's like shooting partridges with a machine gun."
It is not clear to me what "automatic camera" means (maybe motorized film advance?) but it does not sound like he would be enamored of current rapid-fire digitals. Elsewhere in the article it is pointed out that when shooting the Paris student uprising, he only took four or five frames an hour. That is truly Zen-like.
Of course, people are not consistent, especially in hypothetical scenarios.
I think Nick's poll opened up a lot of interesting conversation.
Randy
Jamie123
Veteran
Let's ask a more interesting question, though:
Who would win in a cage fight? HCB or Terry Richardson?
Tough one, I know. HCB has the advantage of knowing the decisive moment to strike but TR would probably fight in the nude which would, understandably, make HCB quite hesitant to get close.
Who would win in a cage fight? HCB or Terry Richardson?
Tough one, I know. HCB has the advantage of knowing the decisive moment to strike but TR would probably fight in the nude which would, understandably, make HCB quite hesitant to get close.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Jamie,
It's hard to argue with that, so I won't: I think you're right, and that indeed, ex falso quodlibet is a far better and more realistic summary.
Note only that I think you're right, not that I'm sure. But then, dealing with counterfactuals, who could be?
Thanks,
R.
FrankS
Registered User
Most relevant/enlightening post to the initial question. Great info. Thanks Randy!
So it's settled then: film with a manual camera.
zauhar
Veteran
Thanks Frank - here's the link to the obit:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/04/arts/04CND-CARTIER.html?pagewanted=all
My favorite HCB quote from it:
"Why didn't I bring my camera?"
Randy
Jamie123
Veteran
I, too, only think I'm right but am not 100% sure about my explanations as my courses on formal logic date a while back. 🙂
BobYIL
Well-known
The last cameras used by HCB were a Leica CL and then a C2 (?) if I remember; these in the years after his retirement. However I am more inclined to believe if a CL was available in his active years then he would be preferring it over the M3; due to compact size and being less conspicuous. (That is, if he were to opt for digital in our day then he'd rather go with a compact and simple camera with fast AF.)
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Actually, Nick, I think you may be the one who's missing the point.
The past is a different country. I can no longer shoot the stuff I shot in the 60s and 70s, 'cause it ain't the 60s and 70s any more, and I couldn't shoot the 30s 'cause I wasn't alive then.
In other words, when you shoot is to a very considerable extent more important than what you shoot with. Today, a 30-year-old HCB might be a trustafarian, an Occupy protester, the director of the family company (if it had survived), or, well, anything, really. The camera is pretty damn' trivial, compare with all the other variables.
Today, I remembered an old Party anthem:
Lift up the people's banner
Now trailing in the dust.
A million hearts will rally
To guard its sacred trust.
With steps that never falter
And steps that grow more strong,
'Til victory crowns our efforts
Proudly we march along.
The intriguing thing is, this song is at least as applicable to the Occupy movement as to the Party: arguably more so.
Politics are far from irrelevant. Remember that HCB produced a movie for the Abraham Lincoln Brigade during the Spanish Civil War, a major antifascist/anti-reactionary struggle. Maybe he'd be more into politics today, too...
Or maybe he'd be a photographer like Vanessa Winship. Anyone know what cameras she uses? 'Cause I don't. Nor do I care. Same for Martin Parr. Why deify equipment?
Cheers,
R.
kdemas
Enjoy Life.
Actually I believe his last cameras, that he used, were the Contax T and a black Minilux.
Interesting about the CL...he did value compactness.
Out to Lunch
Veteran
The man died in 2004. Lets move on.
NickTrop
Veteran
Hmmmm, Randy - very interesting quote. Maybe he would be a traditional shooter.
Gumby
Veteran
... and we KNOW he wasn't an American. Even more reason to move on!
NickTrop
Veteran
Roger -
Right. I proposed a completely unprovable, "who would win if Ali fought Mike Tyson in their respective primes" hypothetical situation, conjecture, what have you. Straight up, pure speculation "for fun" scenario where "formal logic" and other logical grounds to invalidate it is kinda a non-starter, if you will.
If HCB was an active photographer today, given that there are two choices - film and digital, in your opinion what do you think he would choose to shoot with - why?
But the crux of the question is... do you think he would choose traditional tools - his Leica with a 50mm prime? Or would he choose one of the modern alternatives because they're better suited tools for his vision? The insinuation/implication buried in this hypothetical is... did you choose to shoot with traditional equipment (at least initially) in full or in part because you were inspired by/wanted to take pictures like ___________ ? (And there's absolutey, positively nothing wrong with this...) And, if you think that ____________ would not have chosen to use those tools today, how do you square that now with your decision to shoot with traditional film cameras?
The reaction is as predictable as it is interesting to this thread, with some traditionalists - unless I'm reading too much into it, rejecting the premise, going so far to incorporate formal logic to argue against it. But such a scenario obviously doesn't deserve the "Bertrand Russell treatment"... which is, of course, beyond overkill. I more think such questions require a level of intellectual honesty that some may dislike - provoking an emotional response, so the question itself is mocked (see newly-started Picasso thread) or otherwise discredited, going so far to incorporate formal logic.
- No offense, of course, to anyone - but that's my take.
That said, Randy came up with the best retort for the tradtionalists, citing a quote by HCB that he "didn't like automatic cameras - like shooting pigeons with an automatic..." to paraphrase. Well played. Perhaps he would still shoot film.
Last edited:
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
Knowing a bit of history can have the effect of knowing the answers before the question is asked.
If Julius Caesar were alive today, would he conquer Egypt or invade Poland?
If Julius Caesar were alive today, would he conquer Egypt or invade Poland?
isoterica
Established
Cartier-Bresson chose the best way possible at the time [and for him] to shoot in the manner that he did. If he were still alive and transitioning to digital, which I think he would based on an interview I saw of him and how they manipulated his images via darkroom showing he wasn't opposed to alteration, he probably would begin with what he knew, the Leica camera. From there he might get a smaller pocketable high end point and shoot if he liked the medium, just for those moments when he was out but not planning to shoot but wanted the option if it arose. Black and white vs. color? He would utilize both based on which captured the moment better. He probably saw a lot of color opportunities but missed them due to black and white and had to focus on contrast to make use of what he had then.
gns
Well-known
Interestingly, at the time he chose the leica, it was not traditional at all. It was a brand new tool, probably considered by most to be not much more than a toy. He adopted the new and figured out how to do something intelligent with it.
Gary
Similar threads
- Article
- Article
