chikne
Well-known
Again, what you might see or think as "decisive moment", others might call "non-decisive moment", but fairy nuff 🙂
Was HCB Really "All That"???
- Thread starter NickTrop
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 189
- Views 22K
Again, what you might see or think as "decisive moment", others might call "non-decisive moment", but fairy nuff 🙂
Spider67
Well-known
There's a series of books named "Bluff your way through....." giving people some hinmts how to behave, what to say in ordfer to pretend expertise in various fields like the occult etc.
If they wrote a book on photography it would contain a chapter like "Pleasing the purist crowd" it would read somehow like that:
"Never forget to mention HCB. Actually you could well pass for an expert using only this particular name. Sneer at those who call him Henri Cartier Bresson. Look down at those who don't know him. All you have to know HCB invented street photography and used a Leica. This provides a good grip whenever another photographer is mentioned who does street photography or uses a Leica you can always add or finish by saysing "..but she/he's no HCB". Be sure to know about the decisive moment, easy to remember as it's the moment seen on any of HCB's photographs. I you are really daring or reckless in your wish to excel you could drop in a conversation that HCB himself never used the term "decisive moment" in his writings"
So yes there's a certain value in thinking about great photographers as humans and not as gods.
If they wrote a book on photography it would contain a chapter like "Pleasing the purist crowd" it would read somehow like that:
"Never forget to mention HCB. Actually you could well pass for an expert using only this particular name. Sneer at those who call him Henri Cartier Bresson. Look down at those who don't know him. All you have to know HCB invented street photography and used a Leica. This provides a good grip whenever another photographer is mentioned who does street photography or uses a Leica you can always add or finish by saysing "..but she/he's no HCB". Be sure to know about the decisive moment, easy to remember as it's the moment seen on any of HCB's photographs. I you are really daring or reckless in your wish to excel you could drop in a conversation that HCB himself never used the term "decisive moment" in his writings"
So yes there's a certain value in thinking about great photographers as humans and not as gods.
M. Valdemar
Well-known
I've listened to "Hot Rats" hundreds of times. If that isn't a work of near-genius, I don't know what is.
"Willy the Pimp" is especially good, and so is "Peaches in Regalia".
"Willy the Pimp" is especially good, and so is "Peaches in Regalia".
williams473
Well-known
Thanks for the person who posted the image of the hand holding the Cartier-Bresson negative that we've been talking about - there's no real "irony" that one of his most famous images is "cropped." In fact, it wasn't cropped to leave out any signifcant visual information of the recorded image. The fact is, Cartier-Bresson himself, in "Just About Love" which someone posted a link to here a month or so ago, said that it's funny, but he wasn't even looking through his camera when he made that image. He had the camera shoved through a gap in the boards of a fence, and you can see in the actual negative the board of the fence is what "crops" out the left side of the negative - it wasn't an decision on the part of Cartier-Bresson to leave out any visiable information after the fact, because the boards of the fence would just print out as a black line with a blurry edge because the camera was right up against it. In the same conversation he still stood by his opinion that if you don't have what you want in the viewfinder when you take the picture, why are you taking the picture? If you don't have it in, don't shoot - move.
In this case, he is as befuddled as anyone that one of his most famous images was made basically shooting from the hip, but even so, it wasn't cropped in the sense that he eliminated significant visual information from the frame. Cartier Bresson is my all time favorite, so I just wanted to clarify.
In this case, he is as befuddled as anyone that one of his most famous images was made basically shooting from the hip, but even so, it wasn't cropped in the sense that he eliminated significant visual information from the frame. Cartier Bresson is my all time favorite, so I just wanted to clarify.
Last edited:
NickTrop
Veteran
As for the "cropped" image discussed here. HCB didn't make his own prints. So how do we know he cropped or didn't crop any of his images? Did HCB even know if his images were cropped? He outsourced that part of the creative process of photography. Too much grunt work, I guess, for the rich Frenchman - too tedious. He just wanted to run around exotic locales and France and take pictures.
M. Valdemar
Well-known
Holy Cow, now this is a great photo. I don't care who took it. If I never heard the name HCB I would stop in my tracks and look at this photo.
How much of it is talent, and how many great photos depended on "being there" at a historical moment, I don't know, but to me a great photo stuns you for a moment.
M. Valdemar
Well-known
Now this photo is also very good. You also had to "be there" to take it. Would HCB have made a better photo if he were in the same spot?
Hey, I envy a "rich Frenchman" who can wander around the world and witness important historical events taking photos.
Where can i sign up?
Hey, I envy a "rich Frenchman" who can wander around the world and witness important historical events taking photos.
Where can i sign up?
V
varjag
Guest
And now, what's wrong with that and how's that inartistic? If you have idea that breathing Dektol fumes in red light is creative, fine - many people think like that. But again, many don't.
williams473
Well-known
I think Nick just enjoys trying to upset people. Lots of short, general statements clearly out of touch. He takes a great photographer who he knows a lot of people admire and insults him. I'm not upset - his tactis are obvious.
BUT, to answer your question Nick, if you had spent any time in a darkroom you would know how any photographer who ever got their hands wet can tell his images are full frame and not cropped.
BUT, to answer your question Nick, if you had spent any time in a darkroom you would know how any photographer who ever got their hands wet can tell his images are full frame and not cropped.
M. Valdemar
Well-known
How many people condemned to "dull care"* and lives/jobs of drudgery would turn into geniuses if freed to pursue a life of art and introspection?**
* Thanx and a tip of the Hatlo hat to Winsor McCay ("if I could only put down this valise")
** OK, maybe not so many, but a few. If you want to look at the "art" of the masses, take a gander at the tens of thousands of Flickr Disneyland albums taken with Canon Rebels.
.
* Thanx and a tip of the Hatlo hat to Winsor McCay ("if I could only put down this valise")
** OK, maybe not so many, but a few. If you want to look at the "art" of the masses, take a gander at the tens of thousands of Flickr Disneyland albums taken with Canon Rebels.
.
Last edited:
Marc-A.
I Shoot Film
Yes, HCB was all that ... so?
Yes, HCB was all that ... so?
It seems that HCB is the one we love to loath. First of all, let me tell you that I’m not a big fan of HCB; at least, I prefer Doisneau, Ronis, Koudelka, Salgado or Lange.
Now, one shoudl remind some facts in order to make fair criticism of HCB's work:
- He started to shoot in the 1930’s and was one of the most brilliant photographers of his time.
- Because of that, he has been copied and copied again, and now his pictures belong to our common photographical knowledge.
- Obviously, triggering the shutter button is something anybody can do; does that imply that anybody can be HCB? Of course no! Anybody can hold brushes; does that mean anybody can be Van Gogh?
- Any informed amateur can copy HCB now. Does that mean any amateur could have been HCB? Of course no! Any good painter can reproduce the Sunflowers by Van Gogh (as a matter of fact, nowadays in China, there are professional painters who can copy the Sunflowers in 15minutes); does that mean any good painter could have been Van Gogh?
If you want to play the game "Was HCB all that?”, change the name and put instead “Is Koudelka is all that”, “Was Winogrand is all that” etc. Anybody in RFF could make a Koudelka or a Winogrand, and as a matter of fact a lot of photographers here make the same … but they make a Koudelka, a Winogrand, a HCB AFTER Koudelka, Winogrand or HCB. Afterwards, it’s easy to say: “oh I could have done the same? The puddle picture? The bicycle picture? Well I could have done that.” But these are just empty words …
I totally agree with Valdemar: a great photographer is someone who is where the event is. And it’s the most difficult thing to achieve: forcing one's way, anticipating the action, foreseeing the good frame etc. That’s what turns someone who can shoot into a photographer.
Yes, HCB was all that ... so?
It seems that HCB is the one we love to loath. First of all, let me tell you that I’m not a big fan of HCB; at least, I prefer Doisneau, Ronis, Koudelka, Salgado or Lange.
Now, one shoudl remind some facts in order to make fair criticism of HCB's work:
- He started to shoot in the 1930’s and was one of the most brilliant photographers of his time.
- Because of that, he has been copied and copied again, and now his pictures belong to our common photographical knowledge.
- Obviously, triggering the shutter button is something anybody can do; does that imply that anybody can be HCB? Of course no! Anybody can hold brushes; does that mean anybody can be Van Gogh?
- Any informed amateur can copy HCB now. Does that mean any amateur could have been HCB? Of course no! Any good painter can reproduce the Sunflowers by Van Gogh (as a matter of fact, nowadays in China, there are professional painters who can copy the Sunflowers in 15minutes); does that mean any good painter could have been Van Gogh?
If you want to play the game "Was HCB all that?”, change the name and put instead “Is Koudelka is all that”, “Was Winogrand is all that” etc. Anybody in RFF could make a Koudelka or a Winogrand, and as a matter of fact a lot of photographers here make the same … but they make a Koudelka, a Winogrand, a HCB AFTER Koudelka, Winogrand or HCB. Afterwards, it’s easy to say: “oh I could have done the same? The puddle picture? The bicycle picture? Well I could have done that.” But these are just empty words …
I totally agree with Valdemar: a great photographer is someone who is where the event is. And it’s the most difficult thing to achieve: forcing one's way, anticipating the action, foreseeing the good frame etc. That’s what turns someone who can shoot into a photographer.
M. Valdemar
Well-known
I've never made art, so I don't know.
All my work has been photography and writing (now mostly writing) for financial compensation.
Posting comments on forums is the closest thing to "art" that I do. I take photos that please me but rarely post them, except on one other forum.
I agree, though, that the images of the masses in the form of monstrous gluts of endless photostreams is art in itself, I guess, the same way that the public expresses itself and it's highest aspirations by, say, for example, electing George Bush twice.
All my work has been photography and writing (now mostly writing) for financial compensation.
Posting comments on forums is the closest thing to "art" that I do. I take photos that please me but rarely post them, except on one other forum.
I agree, though, that the images of the masses in the form of monstrous gluts of endless photostreams is art in itself, I guess, the same way that the public expresses itself and it's highest aspirations by, say, for example, electing George Bush twice.
M. Valdemar
Well-known
The first one to do something actually creates the visual language.
Yes, lots of people can "shoot" now but who created the mental paradigms that even allow you to comprehend what an image is?
Yes, lots of people can "shoot" now but who created the mental paradigms that even allow you to comprehend what an image is?
M. Valdemar
Well-known
Here's the future of photography.
Everyone will record everything, from every angle, in a continuous stream. Everything will be infinitely retrievable, an electronic Akashic Record.
Good photographers will turn into good archivists/editors.
Rewind to the day you met your wife and just pick which images you like.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sousveillance
Everyone will record everything, from every angle, in a continuous stream. Everything will be infinitely retrievable, an electronic Akashic Record.
Good photographers will turn into good archivists/editors.
Rewind to the day you met your wife and just pick which images you like.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sousveillance
Marc-A.
I Shoot Film
About the rich Frenchman argument: why all rich kids are not HCB? If there was an obvious link between wealth and talent, then all rich kids (or a major part of them) should be great artists? It’s not the case. Weegee was poor, HCB was rich; Salgado was rich, Doisneau was poor ... they all are outstanding photographers, and being rich is not what made them master photographers. Besides, IMHO, being rich makes it less easy to be an artist: when you are a “bourgeois”, you are expected to have a “serious” job … being an artist is just considered as a debasement for rich people.
About the cropping thing, it’s a well known fact that HCB’s pictures were often marginally cropped. Besides, it’s true he did not make his own prints, but let me tell you that he was/is not the only one (Salgado for instance works with different pro labs in Paris that I know). What is important is not who makes the print, but who thinks it.
About the cropping thing, it’s a well known fact that HCB’s pictures were often marginally cropped. Besides, it’s true he did not make his own prints, but let me tell you that he was/is not the only one (Salgado for instance works with different pro labs in Paris that I know). What is important is not who makes the print, but who thinks it.
chikne
Well-known
What a refreshing read =)
Nh3
Well-known
I know that he had to stick the lens through a fence and also the part cropped is basically black - he did not crop any visible part of the picture which had detail.
I don't think it diminishes from the impact of that photo... It was not as a bad as i thought. 🙂
MikeL
Go Fish
30 years from now......
"MV's true contribution was his ability to show us decisive moments, not just the single dimensionality of HCB et al. His ability as an editor to select the simultaneous moments occurring in front of and behind a person wearing an omnisensor dramatically altered the consciousness of many editors and ..................... Some could argue his work was the final nail in the coffin of people's interest in 'single' moment imagery."😉
chikne
Well-known
Nh3
Well-known
But you have agree that even the left side was black so the frame on that side would be black as well.
He knew there would be a fence blocking part of the lens yet he still went for it!
