VinceC
Veteran
> 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. <
The photograph of the man jumping over the puddle was taken in 1932, using probably a Leica I -- crummy viewfinder by later standards, no rangefinder. I don't think that, using such a camera, you could assert that you would never crop. Later, with improved viewfinders, when you had years and decades of learning your lenses, you could make a decision in your work to not crop. But with a Leica in 1932, early in your career, it wasn't always easy to predict exactly what would be on the negative.
I don't think it diminishes from the impact of that photo... It was not as a bad as i thought. <
The photograph of the man jumping over the puddle was taken in 1932, using probably a Leica I -- crummy viewfinder by later standards, no rangefinder. I don't think that, using such a camera, you could assert that you would never crop. Later, with improved viewfinders, when you had years and decades of learning your lenses, you could make a decision in your work to not crop. But with a Leica in 1932, early in your career, it wasn't always easy to predict exactly what would be on the negative.
two40
Member
A while ago someone posted this HCB photo on DPC and it got really bad votes and comments. As soon as the 'HCB' name wasn't attached to a photo the regular punters of the site, who consist of rather high quality photographers, didn't rate it at all. Someone did reckognise it and a mass edit of comments followed.
antiquark
Derek Ross
Haha, sounds like a similar story to the infamous HCB "DeleteMe" thread. The comments that follow are hilarious:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/andrerabelo/70458366
http://www.flickr.com/photos/andrerabelo/70458366
Matthew Allen
Well-known
I assume you've all seen this - probably the single funniest TOP post ever - but it bears reposting:
http://theonlinephotographer.blogspot.com/2006/06/great-photographers-on-internet.html
Matthew
Last edited:
white.elephant
Established
Look, I have no way to defend what I'm about to say, but . . .
I never studied the History of Photography. My long-held passion for photography recently rekindled (six months ago or so). In March, the Bravo cable network had a week-long series of specials on photographers. Newton, Mapplethorpe (sp?) and HCB, among others. Now I knew of HCB, but I can't say I ever closely looked at his work. I mainly knew the well-known landscape photographers. Street photographers had never captured my attention. I say all this as a way of stating that, until I saw that HCB special on Bravo, I was fairly unaware of HCB and his reputation.
I saw the special and came away impressed with the man. His photos were nice, sure, but the man and his thought process impressed me.
The next time I went into a Borders, I looked for a book of his work. I found a big one, sat down in a chair, and looked through it.
Page after page after page after page of brilliant images. Uncropped, as others in this thread have mentioned. Images that leapt off the page. One after another. Holy smoke.
Look, his reputation meant nothing to me. Nada. But after looking through this volume of work, I don't care what equipment he had or how much money his family had or how many rolls of film he had to shoot to get those images, they moved me greatly. Made me care about 'street photography' in a way I never thought of before. Made me want to try it.
Was he a great artist? Look, if you watch the Charlie Rose episode (you can find it on You Tube), cartier-Bresson himself denies he is a great artist.
But did he take many, many amazing images? In this man's opinion, absolutely.
M. Valdemar
Well-known
So you think Borders is a public library? Buy the book, Mr. Cheap Charlie.
jan normandale
Film is the other way
Nice comment. I guess you have never, ever in your entire life looked at a book or magazine and put it down and walked out. C'mon this is just a photography forum. Isn't it?
It's definitely OT and it's personal. Have a coffee.
NickTrop
Veteran
You're allowed to like HCB. My intent wasn't to diss the guy. My questions were, hey - the guy got to do what few (if any) can do, run around and take a ton of pictures with black and white film loaded into his Leica. If you were in a position to do that for your entire life, wouldn't you have a pretty nice portfolio at the end of the day (life) too? If you were born in to wealth and got to fish out on a lake every day of your life you'd be a pretty damned good fisherman over time, and catch quite a few big ones. If that were the case, would you deserve icon status as a fisherman?
Many popular artists develop a "halo effect" and a mythology around them and you're "expected" to hold them in icon status if you're interested in painting, music, art, photography - etc. How much of his appeal is because you're genuinely moved by his work, and how much is it because it's a requisite expectation if you're "in to" a particular art form? Are you being intellectually honest?
People talk about "the decisive moment" like it's something deep. Nice catch-phrase, but is it really all that meaningful? Isn't this overstating something obvious? Sartre it ain't imo.
|
Last edited:
M. Valdemar
Well-known
I guess jokes need smiley faces and disclaimers these days.
Ororaro
Well-known
In case you didn't know, you always sound sarcastic. So yes, smileys would be helpful in your case, I guess.
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
Short answer:
HCB wasn't "all that". He was "some of it"; the important parts.
HCB wasn't "all that". He was "some of it"; the important parts.
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
Exactly. Also, the "rich kid" part (while I myself can't possibly relate to one --yet :wink wink:--) just underscores the knocker's insecurities (among possibly other things). You'd have to take that silly argument further to say that "rich kid"s are expected to have their works perceived as great works just because they're "rich kid"s.
Anybody who's been aware of the current "mortgage crisis" can see that what most of them touch turn into ***-***, and expect the government to bail them out at the proletariat's expense.
The whole class-ification is pointless, inane and completely missing the point they're missing.
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
I can't type "p00-p00"? F@rk.
Nh3
Well-known
Well, you finally had to mention Sartre in your post. That was a total give away.
Ironically, you're trying to be cool for throwing rocks at a photography icon. You think just because everyone loves HCB, then by arguing that he was not "all that" (which is a meaningless phrase invented by bubble-headed teenage girls with no vocubalry) you could feel like a rebel and someone who thinks outside the herd.
I also don't understand why everyone feel the need to post here justifying that HCB was really "all that".
Al Patterson
Ferroequinologist
You just gotta love the word filter here...
Pablito
coco frío
I guess "diss" was a "joke" then....
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showpost.php?p=811157&postcount=13
.......yawn.........
dll927
Well-known
The main result of this thread is to show how many different opinions there can be on a subject.
HCB was not the first and only spoiled brat born into humanity. And a lot of them probably had a lot less influence. Both Ansel Adams and Edward Weston lived in Carmel, CA, which is not exactly a low-income burg.
True enough, with enough shutter clicking, one is bound to come up with some worthwhile pictures. Getting them published may be another story. But it's probably also true that in his time there weren't many around doing what he did. And I doubt that 'large-format' guys could be called street photgraphers, if indeed that's what HCB was. So Brassai, et. al, worked in a somewhat different melieu.
He was notoriously publicity-shy, claiming that he didn't want to be recognized. Yet he largely stayed away from telephoto lenses, which don't work terribly well on Leicas anyway. He was quoted as saying that the 90mm lens was the lens that "shortened the foreground", so he wasn't spying on anyone.
Whose "favorite photographer" he was or wasn't is probably totally beside the point.
HCB was not the first and only spoiled brat born into humanity. And a lot of them probably had a lot less influence. Both Ansel Adams and Edward Weston lived in Carmel, CA, which is not exactly a low-income burg.
True enough, with enough shutter clicking, one is bound to come up with some worthwhile pictures. Getting them published may be another story. But it's probably also true that in his time there weren't many around doing what he did. And I doubt that 'large-format' guys could be called street photgraphers, if indeed that's what HCB was. So Brassai, et. al, worked in a somewhat different melieu.
He was notoriously publicity-shy, claiming that he didn't want to be recognized. Yet he largely stayed away from telephoto lenses, which don't work terribly well on Leicas anyway. He was quoted as saying that the 90mm lens was the lens that "shortened the foreground", so he wasn't spying on anyone.
Whose "favorite photographer" he was or wasn't is probably totally beside the point.
chikne
Well-known
Hilarious!!
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
Oy. V. G.
ferider
Veteran
Your "wealthy Dude" also spent 3 years in a POW camp and joined the French Resistance afterwards. His photos that impressed me most were taken at the end of WWII.