Overheard at MOMA about HCB: "why were so many of his photos out of focus?"

Good point Harry. All these factors contributing to some of the most iconic war photographs of all time. Some intentional, some by accident, some due to technical limitations and some due to human limitations!
 
Last edited:
1) take the photo at the right time but don't focus at the right distance.
2) take the photo at the wrong time but focus at the right distance.

i know which one i'd pick.
 
Such a good discussion here..

Spyro's comment above is bang on imho.

If I can get to NYC, I'd like to see that exhibit.

Cheers,
Dave
 
3) take the photo at the right time and focus at the right distance.
4) take the photo at the wrong time and focus at the wrong distance.
 
Last edited:
You also need to place Cartier-Bresson's work in context of the time. It was not like he had Tmax 1600, AE, or modern optics to use. And while we think of Henry as a very traditional photographer, his approach was very radical. He was working against the very technically "perfect" idea of photography. So the idea that he cared about or wanted perfectly sharp images is something being projected by the (modern) viewer.

While we can look at his work and say we could do that, had we lived in the 1930s, I doubt anyone here would have had the insight or brilliance to be able to create that work. We would be posting on plateglassforum.com deriding that inferior low-quality flexible bits of "film."
 
I saw the show in NYC a couple of weeks ago. I think it could have been edited down a bit. Hard to take in 300 images at once (your feet and eyes will be exhausted). Interestingly, I thought sorta along the same lines as the quoted comment, more factual then qualitative, i.e., so many of his shots are out of focus/blurry/technically challenged, even ones where you could tell there was no decisive moment but a decision to make the image then. I didn't know whether to attribute the quality to the times [camera/lens/film/printing] or shooting style. In spite of apparent technical challenges, I do appreciate HCB's eye and found the true surprises in the show to be the picture stories. In the stories, I got a sense that HCB was shooting more in control, the images are "technically" better than some of his iconic images and he was more focused - literally and figuratively. The show is certainly a must see, when else will you get to actually see printed images of such a collection of his images. While the book may be excellent, it , other books, the web, or tv are no substitute for seeing the images on the wall in front of you. The show also made me consider his place in history (read the recent New Yorker article for such consideration), and I did have a somewhat suspicious eye, not because of HCB's technical shortcomings, but because in contrast to many images of his where you can be awe struck, there were also many where it is possible to think, why didn't he do better. Please, if possible, see the show. Just go rested and well fed.
 
I think the comments on flickr show the worth of comments on art/photograhy/anything of an aesthetic nature by those who have eyes yet cannot see. It's just wasted on them, but ya gotta make the effort anyway. HCB threw away better shots than 99.9% of the people here will ever make, myself included, and it's hilarious seeing how fragile the egos are.
 
If you cannot appreciate HCB's photos after seeing this exhibit, I'd say you are a fool. I'm not saying you have to like his work, but if you think he is overrated after seeing this exhibit, you probably don't know what you are talking about.
 
jsrockit said:
If you cannot appreciate HCB's photos after seeing this exhibit, I'd say you are a fool. I'm not saying you have to like his work, but if you think he is overrated after seeing this exhibit, you probably don't know what you are talking about.
Click to expand...

That is a big statement. Can you explain the reasons behind it?
 
What I meant is that you do not have to like the photos or the photographer, but you have to respect / appreciate his place in the history of photography. I think he has earned that respect and is an important figure in adding to what photography could be in his era.
 
I think it would be difficult to argue that the group of radical left wing photographers that were active in Europe just prior to and during WWII were anything but the foundation of modern photography and photojournalism, as is arguing that Henry’s stuff is pin sharp and perfectly exposed

It’s an art gallery exhibition not a technical institute after all
 
While enjoying the Cartier-Bresson exhibit at MOMA in NYC last weekend, a man next to me asked, "Why are so many of his shots out of focus?" To which I answered with a question, "Why does it matter?"
Click to expand...

Reminds me of The Emperor's New Clothes. Apparently someone was detached enough to ask what appeared to be obvious to a lot of folks.

As for the Normandy photo - it's obvious why it's out of focus and it didn't have to do with low light, shutter speed, etc. The guy was cold, wet, and scared crapless from the shear amount of lead flying down range in his direction. If that was the only photo he took that day I'd still admire the man. Anyone here ever hear a MG42 in action? Now what's HCB's excuse ?
 
Last edited:
Ken Smith said:
Reminds me of The Emperor's New Clothes. Apparently someone was detached enough to ask what appeared to be obvious to a lot of folks.

As for the Normandy photo - it's obvious why it's out of focus and it didn't have to do with low light, shutter speed, etc. The guy was cold, wet, and scared crapless from the shear amount of lead flying down range in his direction. If that was the only photo he took that day I'd still admire the man. Anyone here ever hear a MG42 in action? Now what's HCB's excuse ?
Click to expand...

It is also difficult for people to see. Is a sharp picture of a beautiful flower beautiful? Just because the picture is sharp and a flower is beautiful does not make the image beautiful. So where does the intrinsic nature of an artwork belong? Simply in subjective criteria for technical quality?

Then you are comparing today's criteria for technical quality to past criteria and technology. This would show a lack of knowledge in the viewer and a rather shallow view of photography.

I hope you are not suggesting that having someone shoot at you is a reason for an image being "good." I think you are confusing bravery with aesthetics.
 
Ken Smith said:
Reminds me of The Emperor's New Clothes. Apparently someone was detached enough to ask what appeared to be obvious to a lot of folks.

As for the Normandy photo - it's obvious why it's out of focus and it didn't have to do with low light, shutter speed, etc. The guy was cold, wet, and scared crapless from the shear amount of lead flying down range in his direction. If that was the only photo he took that day I'd still admire the man. Anyone here ever hear a MG42 in action? Now what's HCB's excuse ?
Click to expand...

HCB wasn’t at Normandy on account of being in a German labour camp, where he’d been since he was captured three years earlier while serving with the French army, I expect he had heard rife fire along the way
 
Well I was gonna say that you gotta take Bresson into context and understand that it was 1930-50, that he was the first to use such equipment in such a manner and he pretty much put the small format on the map at a time when even medium format was called "miniature format". I was gonna say that then he went ahead and put street photography on the map, because maybe there was Brassai and a couple of others but nobody outside those circles even knew back then what street photography is. Then he went ahead and put photography on the map by making it so popular and forcing the art world to accept it as an equal art, because up to that point it was only considered as a bad substitute of painting. And he did that not only with his photos but also with his writings and his definition of photography which, believe it or not, he was the first person to give. Then he went ahead and introduced art into journalism by running Magnum and freeing its members from the burden of only making the photos that editors want to buy. Still pretty much the only agency that rolls this way: first make what you consider a good photo, then see if anyone wants to buy it. Bottom line, the guy singlehandedly revolutionalised photography. And i was gonna say that, by today's standards and compared to modern street/pj photographers his photography might seem a little emotionally detached, superficial or light in content, but it was 1950 for chrissakes and to this day, he is still the benchmark when it comes to composition and timing. And although some of his photos migh seem a little cliche today, in 1950 they were extremely original and he was the first to photographicaly explore all kinds of facets of humanity.

But its not even worth saying it. Because, of all the photographers that you might see exhibited in a museum like MoMA, Bresson is probably the easiest to understand and appreciate. There is no deep and meaningful concept, his photos are just pretty, well composed, highly decorative things. And if you cant even see that and you get hung up on sharpness or lack thereof, well, you may as well start shooting plates of food for some stock agency. Prefererably with bokeh.
 
Last edited:
Because it doesn't matter.

It didn't matter to HCB, it doesn't matter to MOMA, and it won't matter to history of photography.

Cheers,

Juan
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom