Once upon a time...

[bobbyrab]

Disappointment is inevitable if you were expecting they would show some "level" comparable to today's with the camera and film technology of the '40's. The year the Royal Wedding happened, I was born; today I'm 65. What about the photographs of Steichen, Stieglitz or Ewans then?

I'm disappointed in the poor composition rather than the technical shortcomings.
Contrast the Royal wedding story on your link with HCB's Royal Coronation photos from 1937, ten years earlier than those in the Life link but compositionally not even close.
I think todays photojournalists biggest advantage is the wealth of great images from the past to learn and take inspiration from much more than better equipment.

 

[BobYIL]

I'm disappointed in the poor composition rather than the technical shortcomings.
Contrast the Royal wedding story on your link with HCB's Royal Coronation photos from 1937, ten years earlier than those in the Life link but compositionally not even close.
I think todays photojournalists biggest advantage is the wealth of great images from the past to learn and take inspiration from much more than better equipment.

Very true that they have learned a tonne! Look at the new generation Magnum photographers work.. and compare them with the first generation ones. I wonder why (or what happened) that the great majority of the photographic legends fell upon the lot of low-technology decades.

(BTW, I recall some of those pictures from actual Life magazine issues. They were not bad at all, actually they were excellent as many elder members here would remember. Life with its large format has been also a show place of pictures decades long, for Philippe Halsman's impeccable photography for example. The reproduction methods employed by such sites are really killing the original quality.)

 

[Phantomas]

I wonder why (or what happened) that the great majority of the photographic legends fell upon the lot of low-technology decades.

You got old, that's what happened. Everything old is great, everything new sucks. Heard that before. The reason why you had so many "legends" in the past is that photography was not as accessible as it is today. With prolifiration in photography one has to fight a lot harder to stand out. In those days it was easy. Got a camera? Attended an event of significance? You're the man. That is not to dismiss importance or effectiveness of the images of that era, but I'm much more impressed by the reportage photos of modern photographers than those of Capa, for example (no disrespect to Robert).
You had great old photographers, you have great modern photographers. Maybe you should open your eyes a little and look around. Of course they might not be your cup of tea, but that doesn't mean they are less valid.

 

[Sejanus.Aelianus]

I'm disappointed in the poor composition rather than the technical shortcomings.

One thing people did, far more often than now, it seems, was to crop in the enlarger. If you look at books on photographic technique from the 'thirties to the 'sixties, you'll see a great deal of space devoted to topics, such as how many different images can be made from a single negative.

Some of the most iconic images, such as Alberto Korda's 'Che' and Ron Case's "Three Queens" are crops from much wider images.

 

[BobYIL]

You got old, that's what happened. Everything old is great, everything new sucks. Heard that before. The reason why you had so many "legends" in the past is that photography was not as accessible as it is today. With prolifiration in photography one has to fight a lot harder to stand out. In those days it was easy. Got a camera? Attended an event of significance? You're the man. That is not to dismiss importance or effectiveness of the images of that era, but I'm much more impressed by the reportage photos of modern photographers than those of Capa, for example (no disrespect to Robert).
You had great old photographers, you have great modern photographers. Maybe you should open your eyes a little and look around. Of course they might not be your cup of tea, but that doesn't mean they are less valid.

One day you will reach to the age I am now and have chance to look back and assess all the photographers you knew to date, including those who happened to be great as “In those days it was easy. Got a camera? Attended an event of significance? You’re the man.” as well as those you recommended me to as “open your eyes a little and look around. Of course they might not be your cup of tea, but that doesn't mean they are less valid.”


The great majority of the photographs that made Henri Cartier Bresson, Elliot Erwitt, Robert Frank or Ernst Haas and the likes who they are, were not the ones happened to be with a camera while attending an event of significance. They were great, mostly, for being able to turn the ordinary and usual into significant and worthwhile to look at. Hundreds of photographs of HCB were based on this single philosophy. Steve McCurry was regarded to be great not for recording a pair of striking eyes of an ordinary Afghan girl, but for being able to turn out similarly striking photographs whoever his lens turned to. Salgado was great for the grim and gloomy stories he was telling with his camera about the human drama in any land he happened to be; but always with the same style and signature looking like his trademark. Now we have the most modern LF and zillion MP view cameras, however still regarding the work of Adams as prime reference. Will there be someone to turn out portraits like the ones of Yousuf Karsh again?

None of these photographers became popular and admired for the significant events they covered at the first rate, neither the more recent ones like Alex Webb, David Alan Harvey, Raghubir Singh or William Albert Allard who accomplished in color what the other masters were doing in B&W. They were great for the way they employed photography to make us see the world the way they wanted us to see, sometimes away from all professional and financial considerations; sometimes it took them weeks to come up with a single exposure to please themselves before their bosses or customers, like what it took for Sam Abell just to shoot the head of a dead buffalo.

And we loved their photographs, appreciated their way of seeing the ordinary before anything else. I hope and wish the new photographers around would enjoy the same popularity and respect as the ones above; for what has been accomplished so far would stay as being the milestones of photography if not also as being some reference points against which the new ones would be assessed. I’m afraid that it’s the same with painting, classical music, sculpture and most of the other branches of art too. If you want to be more respected than Beethoven or Renoir are , then compose or paint something greater than what they have accomplished. (BTW, this has nothing to do with nostalgia or getting old, but has a lot to do with love and interest about photography.)

 

[L David Tomei]

You got old, that's what happened. Everything old is great, everything new sucks. Heard that before. The reason why you had so many "legends" in the past is that photography was not as accessible as it is today. With prolifiration in photography one has to fight a lot harder to stand out. In those days it was easy. Got a camera? Attended an event of significance? You're the man. That is not to dismiss importance or effectiveness of the images of that era, but I'm much more impressed by the reportage photos of modern photographers than those of Capa, for example (no disrespect to Robert).
You had great old photographers, you have great modern photographers. Maybe you should open your eyes a little and look around. Of course they might not be your cup of tea, but that doesn't mean they are less valid.

Everything old sucks and everything new is great... heard that before too. Neither way is accurate, of course.

It's a tough world out there for photographers, same as it has been in the past. So good luck. BTW, I like your B&W images but, frankly, I wouldn't know whether most were shot in 1950 or 2012. Actually, I think that's good, but what do I know... I'm just some old guy.

 

[furcafe]

It sounds as if you answered your own question of "I wonder why (or what happened) that the great majority of the photographic legends fell upon the lot of low-technology decades." It has less to do w/technology & more w/the fact that the "legends" were present @ the creation, i.e., they pioneered the methods & photographic language that everybody still uses today. Still photography is a mature art, so the big steps have already been taken & only refinement is left. I think today's future "legends" are probably working in video, etc.

The

I hope and wish the new photographers around would enjoy the same popularity and respect as the ones above; for what has been accomplished so far would stay as being the milestones of photography if not also as being some reference points against which the new ones would be assessed. I’m afraid that it’s the same with painting, classical music, sculpture and most of the other branches of art too. If you want to be more respected than Beethoven or Renoir are , then compose or paint something greater than what they have accomplished. (BTW, this has nothing to do with nostalgia or getting old, but has a lot to do with love and interest about photography.)

 

[BobYIL]

It sounds as if you answered your own question of "I wonder why (or what happened) that the great majority of the photographic legends fell upon the lot of low-technology decades." It has less to do w/technology & more w/the fact that the "legends" were present @ the creation, i.e., they pioneered the methods & photographic language that everybody still uses today. Still photography is a mature art, so the big steps have already been taken & only refinement is left. I think today's future "legends" are probably working in video, etc.

The

I hold a different view for these. Before all these photographers had to endure a long "ordeal" in order to achieve the ability to see and capture what to be regarded as "great" and to maintain it as a discipline to turn out great pictures all the time; like the daily rehearsals of concert pianists.. and these all by mastering the impeccable use of low-tech gear at hand; by not making the financial side of their profession as being the first priority. (Once Marc Riboud has told me about the life of Joseph Koudelka in his early years by Magnum, overnighting in sleeping bags at public parks, surviving on a diet of yoghurt and potato chips.)

Today the talents are after the monetary priorities first in order to maintain their social style or obligations or whatever they see they deserve. And most of them are after quick money. How many talents would venture to sacrifice a few years of his life by living like a homeless in our day just for a probability to be regarded at the end as nothing but an artist?