sig
Well-known
But there is nothing wrong in asking the question. By asking you are trying to understand and get more knowledge.
Overheard at MOMA about HCB: "why were so many of his photos out of focus?"
- Thread starter robklurfield
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 105
- Views 13K
But there is nothing wrong in asking the question. By asking you are trying to understand and get more knowledge.
antiquark
Derek Ross
True, true. If the "essence" of the picture is good, then minor technical flaws won't diminish it.
LeicaFoReVer
Addicted to Rangefinders
photos should not be completely out of focus unless there is a meaning or effort to give it a different atmosphere. It does not mean that whole image must be pin sharp either
People here always give examples from extremes! Take it easy. Then all of us must use pin-hole cameras or point and shoot cameras.
In the name of art, so many people try extremes to be different, not for me thanks...
People here always give examples from extremes! Take it easy. Then all of us must use pin-hole cameras or point and shoot cameras.
In the name of art, so many people try extremes to be different, not for me thanks...
Ken Smith
Why yes Ma'am - it folds
This guy was in the middle of the greatest military feat of all times and documenting it via a camera. If no other pictures were taken that day - this one would say enough of what was a dire situation. It doesn't have to have aesthetics - it has authenticity of the human spirit to defy all odds.
Spyro
Well-known
Sparrow
Veteran
you’ll not be from round these parts then? :joke smiley:
Roger Hicks
Veteran
There's a difference between admiration and deification, and besides, our tastes change with age and with what else we have seen. For example, I'm a lot less keen on Ansel Adams than I was 30 years ago, and I'm no longer quite such an HCB-worshipper. Looking at what I consider their 'best pictures' (i.e. the ones I'd most like to own) I'd put quite a lot of Willy Ronis's work ahead of any but the very best HCB.
There's also a difference between seeing originals and repros. Sometimes the repros are better, especially if the picture has not been grotesquely over-enlarged. At other times, the prints are vastly better, sometimes because of their size. My AP column for May 1 addresses this question (among other things).
Cheers,
R
There's also a difference between seeing originals and repros. Sometimes the repros are better, especially if the picture has not been grotesquely over-enlarged. At other times, the prints are vastly better, sometimes because of their size. My AP column for May 1 addresses this question (among other things).
Cheers,
R
Last edited:
sig
Well-known
Sparrow
Veteran
He was one of many photographers that day, his photos were spoiled by the lab I suspect he got the shots OK, little seemed to scare the chap, very magnanimous of you to praise a communist like that btw
Finder
Veteran
Or to be able to dodge a bullet. I am sure the people that died that day did not have less spirit.
However, this is way off topic and nothing to do with the topic of photography.
Harry Lime
Practitioner
It's two fold. Slow shutter speed and lots' of very angry MG42's. Anyone in their right mind would have had a severe case of the shakes.
I've only ever heard an MG42 in the movies, but apparently an uncle of mine was there on June 6th and he had an awful lot of respect for them
I say apparently, because even after 50 years he still didn't want to discuss any part of that chapter of his life, except the funny stories. So we're still not exactly sure where he was. I'll have to look up his records some day.
Last edited:
Harry Lime
Practitioner
If I remember correctly there were only two photographers in the actual landing that morning.
I would have to look up the name of the other fellow, but he landed on a relatively quiet beach and I'm not sure he got of the landing craft. Capa landed smack in one of the worst sections.
jfretless
Established
Tony Vaccaro.
In the BBC documentary, The Genius of Photography, maybe third or fourth episode, they talk about Capa and Vaccaro. IIRC, Vaccaro's images were destroyed by the Army censor. ...but in the documentary he talks about developing the rolls at night, in the woods, using chemicals he found in a bombed out camera strore, using helmets. Not sure if the two parts, censor and developing were connected in the documentary or two different conversations.
John
Last edited:
Harry Lime
Practitioner
Oh, god here we go.
Someone dared to say something critical about Hank Carter.
I don't think that anyone is trying to take away anything from the artistic genius of the man. And I don't think that anyone is trying to diminish his work, because of technical imperfections. You want to know how good HCB was? His artistic vision was so good that no one gives a damn about his technique. That's just about the highest compliment you can make.
But once you step back from the blind hero worship and look at his work objectively you have to speak truth to power. The man had little interest in the technical side of his art and it shows. That's simply a fact and a mature individual should be able to acknowledge that, especially in light of the fact that is takes nothing away from his artist achievements.
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
Well said!
JoeV
Thin Air, Bright Sun
As a technically-oriented community we often get hung up on the process involved with the fashioning of a photographic image; but I have to consciously remind myself that once a print has been finished it stands alone, separate from the process of its creation. as an image.
The problem with understanding photographs is avoiding the all-too-easy presumption that photographic images map, in a 1:1 correspondence, objective reality; they don't function that way at all; they're entirely abstract, two-dimensional fields of line and shading and tone and granularity - that's all they are. The problem is when we attempt to map these images to some rational process of technical production, or attempt to map them to some objective reality from which they were derived. So, blur or granularity are only problems when taken in this context. but the photograph itself stands alone as an abstraction, from which we can derive some subjective aesthetic appreciation entirely apart from any objectivity we attempt to impart.
I wonder if we would be having this same discussion about Jackson Pollock's work, whether his paint was adequately dribbled, strewn or splattered. It doesn't matter, really; the work stands on its own. the objective nature of its creation does little to inform our subjective reactions.
As a technical-oriented community we take interest in the process of how HCB worked, but this is not the same thing as subjective appreciation of the image, entirely distinct from the process of its making. Dots per inch, zones of dynamic range and mean transfer functions don't help us in understanding an image.
~Joe
The problem with understanding photographs is avoiding the all-too-easy presumption that photographic images map, in a 1:1 correspondence, objective reality; they don't function that way at all; they're entirely abstract, two-dimensional fields of line and shading and tone and granularity - that's all they are. The problem is when we attempt to map these images to some rational process of technical production, or attempt to map them to some objective reality from which they were derived. So, blur or granularity are only problems when taken in this context. but the photograph itself stands alone as an abstraction, from which we can derive some subjective aesthetic appreciation entirely apart from any objectivity we attempt to impart.
I wonder if we would be having this same discussion about Jackson Pollock's work, whether his paint was adequately dribbled, strewn or splattered. It doesn't matter, really; the work stands on its own. the objective nature of its creation does little to inform our subjective reactions.
As a technical-oriented community we take interest in the process of how HCB worked, but this is not the same thing as subjective appreciation of the image, entirely distinct from the process of its making. Dots per inch, zones of dynamic range and mean transfer functions don't help us in understanding an image.
~Joe
Last edited:
Sparrow
Veteran
a quick search of google images retrieves many thousands of photos of almost every aspect of the operation, so you will understand my disagreement with your recollection.
Capa however may have got lucky to stumble into a more image rich environment than the others
antiquark
Derek Ross
Compared to who? I'm not into the HCB hero-worship myself, but photojournalism in HCB's era had limitations that today could be mistaken as laziness or sloppiness.
CK Dexter Haven
Well-known
I'm not inclined to argue about his 'place' and importance in photography. Whatever he may have done to establish the medium is one matter, but it's altogether something separate from the comments about his images.
Personally, i don't really see the 'magnificence' in his work. I don't really care about the compositional rationales. To me, they often seem like exercises. If i don't get something from the image, it doesn't matter to me how or why it was created. And, to excuse technical issues because of the time period or because he was among the first to adopt a piece of machinery seems odd. If the image is the most important thing, you use whatever you have to use to get the image. It's like getting an unprintable/unpublishable neg, but saying it's excusable because the photographer shot it with a broken camera.
Essentially, the matter of focus/out of focus is only an issue if you don't otherwise value his imagery. I don't love his work, so the focus/softness problems are significant to me. If you find his timing and composition to be beyond reproach, you excuse the other qualities. But, there are plenty of other photographers working in similar, if not more stringent and demanding conditions, who did not publish or exhibit images with those characteristics. I love Koudelka and Boubat and Doisneau and Burri and Bravo, Erwitt, Franck, Morath.... Very rarely do i see technical problems in their work. I'm sure they experienced the same problems and used the same equipment. But, they edited more critically. Or, perhaps paid more attention during the process. Cartier-Bresson is a bigger name than any of the above. But, i don't think he was a better photographer.
If i do get "hung up on sharpness," it's A.) an individual assessment, particular to each image; B.) NOT the decision of the photographer, but something he was willing to 'live with;' C.) a detraction from what the image could/should have been. I'm just not willing to give the guy a pass on a picture just because of who he's supposed to be. If you were teaching a class, curating an exhibition, publishing a book or magazine, and were approached by a photographer with a portfolio of soft, out of focus photographs, or printed from under/overexposed negs, would you coddle him and say it's all okay? Would you publish them anyway? The guy caught someone jumping over a puddle. I just don't see what the big deal is there. THAT is his most famous image. And, now legions of rangefinder users chant his mantra - one that doesn't truly represent how he worked.
I'm guilty of falling for some of this. I have FOUR books i don't like. Because i'm trying to see what it is that inspires this legend. But, suggesting that i'm wrong for not liking him is just offensive. It's like saying you don't really understand color if you don't like Eggleston. Or fashion if i didn't think McQueen was a genius.... But, we're talking about a guy who photographed for 60 years, and it was all he did. He did it all over the world, with access to just about anything. He did it through the most tumultuous periods in the world's history. And, i still have not seen a single one of his photographs that truly represents a 'wow' moment in time for me.
Personally, i don't really see the 'magnificence' in his work. I don't really care about the compositional rationales. To me, they often seem like exercises. If i don't get something from the image, it doesn't matter to me how or why it was created. And, to excuse technical issues because of the time period or because he was among the first to adopt a piece of machinery seems odd. If the image is the most important thing, you use whatever you have to use to get the image. It's like getting an unprintable/unpublishable neg, but saying it's excusable because the photographer shot it with a broken camera.
Essentially, the matter of focus/out of focus is only an issue if you don't otherwise value his imagery. I don't love his work, so the focus/softness problems are significant to me. If you find his timing and composition to be beyond reproach, you excuse the other qualities. But, there are plenty of other photographers working in similar, if not more stringent and demanding conditions, who did not publish or exhibit images with those characteristics. I love Koudelka and Boubat and Doisneau and Burri and Bravo, Erwitt, Franck, Morath.... Very rarely do i see technical problems in their work. I'm sure they experienced the same problems and used the same equipment. But, they edited more critically. Or, perhaps paid more attention during the process. Cartier-Bresson is a bigger name than any of the above. But, i don't think he was a better photographer.
If i do get "hung up on sharpness," it's A.) an individual assessment, particular to each image; B.) NOT the decision of the photographer, but something he was willing to 'live with;' C.) a detraction from what the image could/should have been. I'm just not willing to give the guy a pass on a picture just because of who he's supposed to be. If you were teaching a class, curating an exhibition, publishing a book or magazine, and were approached by a photographer with a portfolio of soft, out of focus photographs, or printed from under/overexposed negs, would you coddle him and say it's all okay? Would you publish them anyway? The guy caught someone jumping over a puddle. I just don't see what the big deal is there. THAT is his most famous image. And, now legions of rangefinder users chant his mantra - one that doesn't truly represent how he worked.
I'm guilty of falling for some of this. I have FOUR books i don't like. Because i'm trying to see what it is that inspires this legend. But, suggesting that i'm wrong for not liking him is just offensive. It's like saying you don't really understand color if you don't like Eggleston. Or fashion if i didn't think McQueen was a genius.... But, we're talking about a guy who photographed for 60 years, and it was all he did. He did it all over the world, with access to just about anything. He did it through the most tumultuous periods in the world's history. And, i still have not seen a single one of his photographs that truly represents a 'wow' moment in time for me.
snausages
Well-known
Seems to me that HCB's technique - spontaneous handheld snapshots - is rather central to his art and to what he contributed to the conversation of photography...
Similar threads
- Article
- Article
- Article
- Article
