Robert Capa makes us look bad.

[Steve Meltzer]

This morning I perused the Robert Capa book edited by his brother Cornell. Robert Capa: Photographs (Aperture Monograph)

His first published pics were of Trotsky giving a lecture. Not a bad professional start...

To me the quality of Capa's work is just amazing. The sad part is that he took all those shots with cameras and lenses are very sub part current levels of professional cameras and lenses.

I can't help but wonder what he could have done with some really good equipment...

or maybe I should wonder instead, how is it possible so many crappy pics are taken today with the latest wonderkin darlings of the latest camera or lens test...

hmmm.

Stephen

Stephen

Check out the work of the French photographer Jacque Henri-Lartigue. His books ofthe turn oof the century France are stunning.

The kicker is he took most of the amazing photos in his book when he was 12. And with simple folding cameras.

Two or three years ago the Pompidou Center in Paris did a show of his work. And they present many of the original images.

So on the wall you'd see this great shot of a couple of guys in a 1912 racing auto with wheels exaggerated by panning and blur. Then you'd look down and see the original image that was just 2x3 inches.

And JHL never had his pictures enlarged. Until the1950s they were snapshots in his family photo albums.

JHL proves to me at least that gear is irrelevant. I think as a photographer i've always looked for gear that felt comfortable and then struggled to ignore it and focus on the pictures.

By the way I studied pj in NY with Robert's brother Cornell and whenever someone in the audience asked what camera was used to make which picture, CC would grimace and ignore the questioner. Once he got a bit annoyed at this person and said, " Why does it matter to you so much what camera was used? Look at the picture, that's what matters."

Amen.

Steve

 

[Toby]

I think it's totally wrong to say that Capa's work was not partly driven by the technology he had at his disposal. The aesthetic of his work as well HCB snd others was a direct result of the speed of use, portability, and size of contax and Leica RF's, as well as advances in film technology. These pictures could not have been taken by the large format cameras and the slow film of a generation earlier. The size of the cameras also made a difference, they were less imposing and made it easier to get close to your subject.

The type of work that he did not exist before 35mm photography - that is not a coincidence.

 

[VinceC]

>> My point is just that many people have claimed that various of his shots were faked and/or staged. This has been claimed of many photographers. For instance, many people swear the "Death of a Spanish Loyalist"- one of his most famous images- was faked. <<

My recollection is that the photo's caption was embellished by a magazine, and Capa rode with it. At the time he was relatively unknown and sending prints and negatives out from Spain to whichever publication would use them, with very little control over the final published product.

A number of us on this forum would point out that the technical quality of sonnar lenses was comparable to today's lenses, and generally exceeded the resolution of the film. The Contax is a pretty quick handling camera with shared viewfinder/rangefinder. Capa used multiple bodies to allow for multiple lenses and in case the film ran out at a bad moment.

 

[findwolfhard]

Well, I believe it`s a matter of "philosophy" and personality, if a I might call it so. Reading HCB`s essay "The decisive moment" once in a while helps to regain the idea that photography was seen as a cultural act not as a pastime. And all the famous photographers were in abundance of talent and commitment. That distinguishes them from the lesser gifted and the amateurs. Where are the folks that even come close to the ones like
HCB, E.W.S, Franck, Erwitt, Capa, Doisneau, Faas . just as they come to my mind.
By the way ? What about Josef Koudelca? I loved his fotos from the 70ties and 80ties.
Best regards Wolfhard

 

[Prosaic]

wonder what he could have done with some really good equipment...

Taking a sharp shot here.

 

[Steve Meltzer]

I think it's totally wrong to say that Capa's work was not partly driven by the technology he had at his disposal. The aesthetic of his work as well HCB snd others was a direct result of the speed of use, portability, and size of contax and Leica RF's, as well as advances in film technology. These pictures could not have been taken by the large format cameras and the slow film of a generation earlier. The size of the cameras also made a difference, they were less imposing and made it easier to get close to your subject.

The type of work that he did not exist before 35mm photography - that is not a coincidence.

I beg to differ and Jacques Henri Lartique's work at the turn of the century certainly has the kind of decisive moment and visual freedom that you attribute to a later generations Leicas.

Its the photographer's eye that matters, gear is just the tool.
Steve

 

[ruben]

Capa was a great photographer and photojournalist, but we shouldn't feel demeaned by his talent. We can celebrate his achievements and still feel good about our own work - at least I do.

Hi Oldprof,
I think a lot of time passed since I saw any of your postings. May I say welcome back ? Well I will say it for me.

I think your post is touching the most essential issue: Us.

No doubt most of the chances are that none of us will achieve his greatness, but for each one of us, what attitude or approach we embrace in our daily creation is the most important of all.

And I think you are right. I cannot imagine any master of photography looking at serious photographers and judging them by their equipment or achievements, but by their dignity towards photography.

I don't feel bad at all for my pictures being several farenheit degrees below Capa's, as we were born and grown under very different circumstances, with very different built in talent.

On the contrary, I feel proud of Capa being one the highest torches enligthening our trade.

Cheers,
Ruben

 

[Pherdinand]

prosaic, i guess you were kidding 🙂

I guess the sharpness of the shot multiplied by the sharpness of the bullets is a physical constant.

 

[Toby]

I beg to differ and Jacques Henri Lartique's work at the turn of the century certainly has the kind of decisive moment and visual freedom that you attribute to a later generations Leicas.

Its the photographer's eye that matters, gear is just the tool.
Steve

This quote from www.lartigue.org

"1904 The cameras given to him by his father are increasingly sophisticated, light and easy to handle. Now he can shoot anything, even in motion"

In other words Lartigue could not have made some of his most famous images without the technical advancements in the camera technology of the time. The photographer's eye certainly matters and buying an expensive camera won't make you a great photographer. However, the quality of the cameras you have available makes a huge difference, technology has always enabled creative photographers to be more creative, just as the discovery of new pigments and paints was instrumental in the birth of the impressionist movement.

 

[chris91387]

Taking a sharp shot here.

something interesting happening in this image.

look about 2/3 up in the frame. it's more than just normal slow speed blur but rather almost a doubling up...like a flash went off and stopped some of the action (a mortar?). but it didn't happen in the foreground.

great thread, stephen.

- chris

 

[VinceC]

>>something interesting happening in this image.

look about 2/3 up in the frame. it's more than just normal slow speed blur but rather almost a doubling up...like a flash went off and stopped some of the action (a mortar?). but it didn't happen in the foreground.<<

That might be related to the verticle travel of the Contax shutter with a slow shutter speed. The negatives were badly overheated in drying (by a lab tech) and so the surviving images have many difficult-to-duplicate artifacts. Most frames were melted away completely.

 

[ClaremontPhoto]

By the way I studied pj in NY with Robert's brother Cornell and whenever someone in the audience asked what camera was used to make which picture, CC would grimace and ignore the questioner. Once he got a bit annoyed at this person and said, " Why does it matter to you so much what camera was used? Look at the picture, that's what matters."
Steve

That's made my day. Thank you.

 

[Steve Meltzer]

Jon

That kind of stuff made my life. What I learned from CC and Roman Vishniac and Duane Micheals and Gene Smith was that it was all about the picture and to the extent that it didn't matter what anyone else thinks of it or how its used, it simply something a photographer, a true photographer, has to do. Has to.

I have to take pictures. Long ago passed the point of should I or could I.

Steve

 

[varjag]

something interesting happening in this image.

look about 2/3 up in the frame. it's more than just normal slow speed blur but rather almost a doubling up...like a flash went off and stopped some of the action (a mortar?). but it didn't happen in the foreground.

great thread, stephen.

- chris

That emulsion on this negative was melted by processing accident at LIFE labs didn't help. One can't judge the initial sharpness of a capture by a surviving negative from destroyed roll.

 

[peterm1]

Capa is something of a personal hero of mine. I recently bought a bio on him called "Blood and Champagne." The title seems to sum him up. I liked not only his photography and his philosophy - that if your picture is no good, get closer, but his larger than life personality. Always kinda reminds me of Rick on Casablanca - tough, cynical but heart of gold, hurt in love (the love of his life Gerda Taro a Polish photojournalist was killed in an accident during the Spanish war.)

I don't know that I would call Capa the consummate professional ( he played life far too hard for that) but he has a real "Mensch" as they say and died with his boots on photographing the Indo-China war.

I saw an interview with HC Bresson on Youtube recently and while he was guarded I gained the view that his opinion of Capa was a bit negative (although there was still admiration too.) In relation to his work at Magnum he commented something to the effect that while he and other journalists made the money and "Shim" Seymour knew how to invest it and find new sources, RC just spent it.

Incidentally the interesting thing about his famous D Day photos is that today I think it might be possible to digitally rectify some of the damage. The emulsion melted so the pictures while they were hanging in a drying closet so they all "ran" in the same direction due to gravity. There is software which allows you to fix pictures blurred due to severe image movement or for whatever reason . I am not sure if the kind of software that is commercially available to non pros would work or is powerful enough but I have seen results of some top end software used by police to sharpen the extremely blurry photo of a speeding car so the number plate could be read. As long as the injury to the picture has a pattern to it (ie all the blur runs in one direction) it should be able to be "unwound" by the software by repositioning pixels to the the correct location. There was also some software of this sort used this year to arrest a pedophile who blurred his face in photos in a "swirl" pattern which totally obliterated his features - or so he thought. The police used software to reverse the process and produce an image of the mans face. That kind of software should work one would think at least for the published images which were still recognisable.

 

[VinceC]

>> I liked not only his photography and his philosophy -that if your picture is no good, get closer, but his larger than life personality. Always kinda reminds me of Rick on Casablanca - tough, cynical but heart of gold, hurt in love (the love of his life Gerda Taro a Polish photojournalist was killed in an accident during the Spanish war.) I don't know that I would call Capa the consumate professional but he has a real "Mensch" as they say and died with his boots on photographing the IndoChina war.<<

His story is immensely fascinating. Andre Friedmann and his girlfriend/work partner Gerda Pohorylle invented an imaginery "famous American photographer" named Robert Capa to better sell their work. Eventually, Friedmann adopted the name and the persona. Pohorylle took on the name Gerda Taro to make her work more saleable. Her death in wartime Spain devastated him but at the same time prepared him emotionally for World War II. Just as Ernie Pyle, the writer, was emotionally prepared for the war by the fact that his longtime wife was committed to an insane assylum. Doing this kind of work is much less about the equipment set than about the mindset.

 

[ruben]

I feel this thread became a discussion about the role of technology in photography, while in the middle we have left unattended a highly important aspect of Capa: he was a war photographer, highly involved with international politics, and much of the most important of his era.

Not that this encompasses it all, but he was among those in our trade that risk their own skin. He was not the only one and I would not like to make comparizons. But these breed deserves our utmost respect.

Respect is not bounded to blind loyalty. Yet somehow this gear talk at this thread belittles a great man, and his breed among us. I think that for gear talk we could use other great photographers, who lived a more comfortable life.

Sorry for communicating this, but this is my feeling.

Cheers,
Ruben

 

[VinceC]

Here's a picture of Taro:

© International Center of Photography -- Posted for historic value.

 

[crawdiddy]

Incidentally the interesting thing about his famous D Day photos is that today I think it might be possible to digitally rectify some of the damage. There is software which allows you to fix pictures blurred due to severe image movement or for whatever reason . I am not sure if the kind of software that is commercially available to non pros would work or is powerful enough but I have seen results of some top end software used by police to sharpen the extremely blurry photo of a speeding car so the number plate could be read. As long as the injury to the picture has a pattern to it (ie all the blur runs in one direction) it should be able to be "unwound" by the software by repositioning pixels the the correct location. There was also some software of this sort used this year to arrest a pedophile who blurred his face in photos in a "swirl" pattern which totally obliterated his features - or so he thought. The police used software to reverse the process and produce an image of the mans face. That kind of software should work one would think at least for the published images which were still recognisable.

...concerning the digital manipulation of Capa's D-Day images in order to sharpen them....

But it would be wrong to do it. I don't mean to sound moralistic, or to treat Capa's work as some sort of religious artifact. But it's Art. You can manipulate it digitally, in order to extract data from it. At that point, you've crossed over into Science. It may be interesting, and you may learn things form it, but it has nothing to do with the Art.

 

[M. Valdemar]

No, why not try to recover the intended images from Capa's destroyed negatives? I wonder if fragments of some of the really badly damaged ones still exist?

And Roman Vishniac was a wonderful photographer, rarely mentioned these days.