Erik van Straten
Veteran
Cartier-Bresson would never use digital camera's. He liked (and sold) only silver gelatine prints. It is not possible to make silver gelatine prints from digital files.
Erik.
Erik.
What would HC Bresson Do?
- Thread starter bizarrius
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 122
- Views 5K
ctham
Member
Actually, that isn't true: http://www.digitalsilverimaging.com/
It may not be "traditional", but it is silver gelatin prints made from digital files.
As for HC-B, he'd probably laugh at the poll, but it is good fun to speculate 🙂
Erik van Straten
Veteran
In fact I knew this, but it a very expensive way. For Cartier-Bresson that was no problem, but for me it is.
Erik.
Scrambler
Well-known
Artist not equipment
Artist not equipment
I believe HCB saw photography as a shortcut way of doing a sketch. We can bang on about equipment quality but I have always seen his use of his original Leica as his discovery of a technique to reduce the quality of photography while increasing the timeliness. After all most cameras of the era had larger (= higher definition) films or plates, many with lenses highly regarded even today. The game-changing features of the Leica were its small size, rapid turnaround between photographs and large depth of field. HCB rather famously zone focused so I don't think the rangefinder element came into it for him.
Today HCB would use his iPhone (the least conspicuous camera, simply because everyone uses it) and then render in monochrome on his Mac. He would develop an app to eliminate the autofocus and instead have 2-3 zone focus buttons, plus minimal shutter lag.
Or perhaps with modern "left-brain" training he would have been a better sketcher and would never have taken up photography.
It was his artistic eye not his equipment that made him a great photographer.
Imho.
Artist not equipment
I believe HCB saw photography as a shortcut way of doing a sketch. We can bang on about equipment quality but I have always seen his use of his original Leica as his discovery of a technique to reduce the quality of photography while increasing the timeliness. After all most cameras of the era had larger (= higher definition) films or plates, many with lenses highly regarded even today. The game-changing features of the Leica were its small size, rapid turnaround between photographs and large depth of field. HCB rather famously zone focused so I don't think the rangefinder element came into it for him.
Today HCB would use his iPhone (the least conspicuous camera, simply because everyone uses it) and then render in monochrome on his Mac. He would develop an app to eliminate the autofocus and instead have 2-3 zone focus buttons, plus minimal shutter lag.
Or perhaps with modern "left-brain" training he would have been a better sketcher and would never have taken up photography.
It was his artistic eye not his equipment that made him a great photographer.
Imho.
Chris101
summicronia
There is also a DIY method of silver printing a digital file:
http://www.danburkholder.com/Pages/main_pages/book_info_main_page1.htm
KM-25
Well-known
For starters, the opening statement about "Big photographers use it" tells me that you spend far too much time on the Internet instead of out in the real world, in short, its kind of a load of BS, totally unfounded.
I have used digital for over 17 years, most of my career, but I use more film now days because I like the process, the result and the fact that it never has to touch a computer, it has nothing to do with a big photographer.
And I think that if HCB were alive today, he would be too old to shoot or care for that matter but if the age were lower, say, 60-70, he would still shoot film because he was not the next greatest fad, technology or gear type of guy. Add to that he did not much care for color, I doubt he would appreciate nor bond very well with the often distracting and overwhelming myriad of options on a digital camera, ability to see the image right away included.
HCB was about pure and very simple but highly stylized photography, not about gear like many on here are, I have full confidence he would have passed on digital...
dave lackey
Veteran
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Very true. And even better with (let's say) a Kodak Retina. It's the 'quality threshold' criterion, the level at which better camera = better pics or better photographer = better pics.
Boaz,
R.
BobYIL
Well-known
Contrary to what many people believe of him, Henri Cartier-Bresson was meticulous about his signature in his photography and he was utterly conservative in maintaining his style. I remember from the days of the HP3 on that he was consistently using Ilford hi-speed films up until the HP5 as long as they were available on his “path” or carrying them in 30ft rolls to cut in hotel rooms. He never used a lightmeter and always rated his film at 400ASA, not even needed to push higher. His favorite developer was (almost always) Harvey’s 777 (a soft working, fine grain formula) and his processing/printing was done by first Pierre Gassman and later (through the end of ‘60s I think) by Voja Mitrovic. His lens was the collapsible Summicron from the day it was introduced until he left photography for painting. This lens has been several times to Wetzlar for cleaning and recoating, the same lens... His printing paper was Ilford Multigrade for most of the prints. How many photographers we know of such exacting standards? (When I met Marc Riboud in 1979 I was told he was already into painting but seeming around with a CL.)
Look at his photographs especially the prints in the exhibitions; you will note a long and smooth gradation of mid-grays until highlights. This was also a part of his style. Mr. Cartier-Bresson was one of the rare photographers who cared to have a distinct signature in his photographs to be recognized as much as he cared his face to be not recognized.
What would he be using in our day? Do you know any digital camera including the M9 to duplicate the tones we enjoy with fine B&W film photography?
Look at his photographs especially the prints in the exhibitions; you will note a long and smooth gradation of mid-grays until highlights. This was also a part of his style. Mr. Cartier-Bresson was one of the rare photographers who cared to have a distinct signature in his photographs to be recognized as much as he cared his face to be not recognized.
What would he be using in our day? Do you know any digital camera including the M9 to duplicate the tones we enjoy with fine B&W film photography?
Roger Hicks
Veteran
If he didn't use a meter, it's a bit difficult to say that he used a consistent ISO speed. And his printers have said, at various times and to various people, that his negatives were not always perfect: sometimes quite a long way from perfect. But a good printer can wring excellent quality out of less-than-perfect negative. He used a number of lenses --- the Summicron was still far in the future when he started -- so if I were you I'd query the sources of your information.
Cheers,
R.
Cheers,
R.
BobYIL
Well-known
Sure..
In May 1967 Popular Photography as was reported by Bob Schwalberg, about his precision for determining the correct exposure:
""One afternoon we sat together in my Wetzlar apartment discussing films and developers. Cartier-Bresson repetedly referred to the fact that he exposed Ilford HP3 film at 400 ASA. I cut in to ask, since he almost never uses an exposure meter, how could he claim to be exposing at 400 or any other ASA? He insisted, however, that he exposed consistently at 400 ASA.
At this point I picked up a Norwood exposure meter, twisted the bubble toward Cartier-Bresson with the scale facing me, and asked for the exposure at 400 ASA. Without hesitation, he told me exactly what the Norwood did. Slightly taken aback, but not yet defeated, I aimed a flexible desk lamp so as to crosslight my face, and again demanded the 400 ASA exposure. Cartier-Bresson took perhaps 10 seconds before replying: 'Well, it depends on whether you mean the right or left side of your face. On the right it's about 1/15 at f/2; the left is probably close to f/2.8 at 1/30.' Both answers were bang-on, and thereafter I accepted his 400 ASA as being at least as reliable as my meter's."
HCB had a long photographic life and I was able (in freshman year) to find some information about his preferences first starting with 1963; Pierre Gassman was taking care of his prints those days. And as for the collapsible Summicron, he switched to it since its introduction and used it until his retirement, then he gave his very last camera, an M6 with "that" junk looking collapsible Summicron with tape wound around the aperture ring to one of his friends with a note; a famous note. I was so eager those days about the master's "secrets" and some other things I have heard from Mr. Marc Riboud when I met him in Istanbul in 1979.
In case you really are interested in further sources I can find them but I need a little time to dig into my dusty "archive" notes, however I have met some of them on the internet in the recent years too. In our time he was the idol for many of us.
Last edited:
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Well, I've met quite a lot of people who can give you a correct exposure quite a lot of the time, and I can do it myself, but it's always statistical, i.e. 90% right... 95% right... etc.. Plenty are worse than I, but plenty are better too, such as Jane Bown and the lateTerence Donovan. Pegging a skin-tone exposure to a relatively common lighting situation is something I'd expect of anyone who had been guesstimating exposures for 45 years (as HCB had at that point), but that's not a lot to do with ASA/ISO speeds, which are only tangentially related to incident readings, so I'd have my doubts there too.
The Summicron was introduced in 1953, and even if he'd used the Summitar 'star' (the precursor of the Summicron) in prototype form in 1950, he'd still have been using other lenses for longer than the Summicron at the time of the interview (1932-1950, as against 1950-1967).
Bob Schwalberg was no more immune to myth and mystery than most competent journalists, let alone hero-worshippers (I was so eager those days about the master's "secrets") and having talked to one of HCB's printers, I'd put more faith in the printer's opinion than in Bob's.
Don't get me wrong. HCB was very, very good. But not actually infallible. And I completely agree that film gives vastly better results in B+W than digi. But who's to say that 21st century HCB would use B+W instead of colour? There are so many counterfactual conditionals in the basic question that it is all but worthless.
Cheers,
R.
Teuthida
Well-known
Correct. He farmed all his work out to PICTO in Paris. George Favre, the resident guru there, processed and printed it. HCb apparently couldnt have cared less about the darkroom.
George has told me that HCBs negatives were often very bad, a function of shooting without a meter. so yes, HCB was human like the rest of us.
donbga
Newbie
Actually HCB did shoot some color film for assignment work. I saw the tear sheets at a recent HCB exhibit at the High museum in Atlanta. I believe the magazine was Life or Look.
donbga
donbga
Newbie
HCB came from a privileged background. He could afford any camera he wanted to use.
donbga
donbga
Newbie
Sorry, but that's not true. More than one lab offers digital files printed directly to silver gelatin.
donbga
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Quite. But also, as far as I recall, he started using Leicas before the Contax I was introduced, and the Contax I wasn't really a very usable camera next to the Leica. Nor was the II (1936) in my opinion, though Contax lovers disagree.
Cheers,
R.
ajuk
Established
Why can't I vote that he'd use both?
_mark__
Well-known
Didn't he abandon Leica and use a point and shoot before he gave up photography altogether in favour I drawing?
Teuthida
Well-known
I met HCB at a gallery showing in Paris in late 2003. He had an Olympus Stylus Epic in his hands. Asked him what he had in it. He said HP5.
Similar threads
