Johnny Canuck2 said:
Another Englishism you wouldn't understand Joanie....hactuarsey.
And methinx you prolly already know I'm very likely older than you!
The Impassioned Eye - Henri Cartier Bresson
- Thread starter zenie
- Start date
Another Englishism you wouldn't understand Joanie....hactuarsey.
And methinx you prolly already know I'm very likely older than you!
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
boskysquelch said:Another Englishism you wouldn't understand Joanie....hactuarsey.
And methinx you prolly already know I'm very likely older than you!
Don't bet on it.
And if you're speaking to a non Englishman, then you should talk english.
Johnny Canuck2 said:
bleurgh I'm 43 in couple of months and speaking da boskysquelch...get's meh by with alot of nationalities ..all for free etc etc etc etc
As an aside ,,,I think I've already mentioned somewhere here,,,but the last photographer I assisted(James Mortimer) let me go because he'd been found by Bresson's last assistant and thought I was ready to go alone whereas, although she'd worked for Bresson for 5 years or so, they weren't..kudos to meh I was told at the time... eh?
Haven't worked in that field since*, but she is very successful.
*my choice...
I have serious doubts about HCB's work.. I went to see the Tete a tete exhibition with my 14 ( at the time) year old daughter and it was a little like the Emporers new clothes... her remarks, whispered, "but they are just snap shots!"
.
All portraits of famous people but never the less, snap shots. His visit to Mexico with a group of photographers, all the time he had company, no photographs, everyone left and HCB stayed behind and managed to get some photos. I believe his supposed candid shots were posed, and as he was on his own, easily contrived.
His early work was good but his training to paint and his claims to be an Artist and, almost, need to excel created its own pressures.
You have to consider Paris at the time, 1930s, the mass of artists, writers, photographers, the huge amount of work, the transistion, the developement of the various faction , again, created a massive pressure. The collection of painter, everyone from Picasso to Dali, Writers from Scott Fitzgerald to Cocteau.. all gathered in Paris around that period. The Left bank cafes were the home for the art world. Within all of this was HCB,
The other photographers of the time, Brassai Doisneau, Lartique, Atget, ManRay all achieved fame, Brassi with his one man exihbition to man ray with his ' shavings' all created new and exciting images, Within all of this HCB was not a leading light, if anything the opposite. His 'fame' and the, now famous, description 'The decisive Moment ' was coined by an art lover called Levy and was used to desribe HCB American exhibition, run simultaniously with his Paris exhibiton which was in the English translation was called 'On the Run'. a totally different conatations from the Decisive Moment,
I did a lot of research into several of his photographs, even visiting the sites and even the names of the sites had, literally, been moved around the corner to give the photgraph a ' better ' name, more cosmopolitan.
The early photographs and HCB's claims that he used the whole negative did not match the negative of the day, the available film speed, the optics all contributed to create doubts about the supposed ' Decisive Moment'
Not only was HCB present in Paris during the deelopement, he visited England to study, the influence and the proression of his work... Hmm
The supposed photograph that created the impetus for him to become involved in photography does not and has not achieved any fame in its own right.
.
All portraits of famous people but never the less, snap shots. His visit to Mexico with a group of photographers, all the time he had company, no photographs, everyone left and HCB stayed behind and managed to get some photos. I believe his supposed candid shots were posed, and as he was on his own, easily contrived.
His early work was good but his training to paint and his claims to be an Artist and, almost, need to excel created its own pressures.
You have to consider Paris at the time, 1930s, the mass of artists, writers, photographers, the huge amount of work, the transistion, the developement of the various faction , again, created a massive pressure. The collection of painter, everyone from Picasso to Dali, Writers from Scott Fitzgerald to Cocteau.. all gathered in Paris around that period. The Left bank cafes were the home for the art world. Within all of this was HCB,
The other photographers of the time, Brassai Doisneau, Lartique, Atget, ManRay all achieved fame, Brassi with his one man exihbition to man ray with his ' shavings' all created new and exciting images, Within all of this HCB was not a leading light, if anything the opposite. His 'fame' and the, now famous, description 'The decisive Moment ' was coined by an art lover called Levy and was used to desribe HCB American exhibition, run simultaniously with his Paris exhibiton which was in the English translation was called 'On the Run'. a totally different conatations from the Decisive Moment,
I did a lot of research into several of his photographs, even visiting the sites and even the names of the sites had, literally, been moved around the corner to give the photgraph a ' better ' name, more cosmopolitan.
The early photographs and HCB's claims that he used the whole negative did not match the negative of the day, the available film speed, the optics all contributed to create doubts about the supposed ' Decisive Moment'
Not only was HCB present in Paris during the deelopement, he visited England to study, the influence and the proression of his work... Hmm
The supposed photograph that created the impetus for him to become involved in photography does not and has not achieved any fame in its own right.
you fergot to mention Magnum?
No, magnum were a group of Photographers working more as a agency than single freelance. There are lots of legends about HCB but in comparision with the photographers of the day. His work appeared dated and did not have the same originality of say, Atget and didn't have the social commnet seen in the work of other photographer in France.
HCB's photographs were a result of his circle of friends, the named writers and philosophers of the time and not like his earlier work.
The Prado Sidewalk, Marsielle, for the time, the composition, the use of triangles to accentuate the figure, also in a triangular cape, the juxaposition, the use of the graduation with the triangles of trees each side of the character and carefully printed to create a almost a halo around the figures head and hat.... but that compostional skill seems to be lacking in his later work.
Brassai's stairs of Montmartre... the lighting, the graduation, and bearing in mind when this was taken. year not night time, the film speed, again, the optics . etc,,,
But, it's all a matter of taste. what appeals in the way of composition, the framing and at that time, most of all the printing... But Doisneau's humour, his use of people, capturing a moment.. His sense of fun, to look closer at people... works a lot better for me as a photograph of people of the time than say, the HCB photographs used in the tete a tete collection.
HCB's photographs were a result of his circle of friends, the named writers and philosophers of the time and not like his earlier work.
The Prado Sidewalk, Marsielle, for the time, the composition, the use of triangles to accentuate the figure, also in a triangular cape, the juxaposition, the use of the graduation with the triangles of trees each side of the character and carefully printed to create a almost a halo around the figures head and hat.... but that compostional skill seems to be lacking in his later work.
Brassai's stairs of Montmartre... the lighting, the graduation, and bearing in mind when this was taken. year not night time, the film speed, again, the optics . etc,,,
But, it's all a matter of taste. what appeals in the way of composition, the framing and at that time, most of all the printing... But Doisneau's humour, his use of people, capturing a moment.. His sense of fun, to look closer at people... works a lot better for me as a photograph of people of the time than say, the HCB photographs used in the tete a tete collection.
Paul Russell
Psychogeographer
Descartes said:
Well, you went to see an HCB exhibition of his portrait work. His portrait stuff is not held in such high regard as his "street stuff".
Descartes said:
Have you got any links for this?
With a couple of exception, it's widely acknowledged that he did not allow his images to be cropped. Quite a few of the reproductions in books have the sprocket holes visible, which is making the point a bit too forcefully.
Descartes said:
Yes, you believe it. After a previous discussion on these boards, I checked with a discussion forum of photography experts. The closest anyone could come to any evidence about shots being posed (apart from the portraits of course) was some vague rumours about the St Lazare picture. The one with the man jumping over the puddle. By coincidence this is one of the few shots HCB says was cropped. He was sticking his camera through some railings and part of the railings showed up in the picture.
Not that the "decisive moment" pictures were necessarily taken on the spur of the moment. Of course, for the stairwell/bicycle picture above he very likely thought, "nice background" and waited for something to come along that fitted in. Waiting, not staging.
As David Bailey said (about HCB in general)
"I think it was a calculated moment - I've seen his contacts - he knew the picture was going to happen .... "
If, for example, you stand by a puddle, he continued "you know that someone will jump over it eventually"
Paul Russell
Psychogeographer
Descartes said:
In contrast, it's now common knowledge that many of Doisneau's candid-looking shots were staged/choreographed. Doisneau was so well known on the streets he had a great cast!
The kiss sequence used paid actors.
His reputation as a photographer has suffered as a result.
He also cropped big time - even for the loose portraits of famous friends. I've seen some origs vs finished product where he chucked away one-third of the picture.
Not that I don't like a lot of his pictures.
Shimmying Wanda/Gyrating Wanda is one of my favourite pictures.
Paul Russell
Psychogeographer
Descartes
You say:
The 'negative of the day' used by Cartier-Bresson was 35mm film stock with a camera frame of 24 by 36mm the same as today. I can not find the film speed for this but it was sufficiently fast to allow filming movies at 24 frames a second. I guess it would have been at least 50 ASA (ISO). 'Decisive Moment' pictures were certainly obtainable. Many amateur cameras were using cameras for 'snap shooting' from 1900 onwards using Kodak film.
If you check the proportion of the prints from Cartier Bresson you will see that they are correct for the 2 by 3 format of the negative.
Also if you look you can see a thin black border around the image inside the white border that is produced by the printing frame. which holds the paper. This black line is the unexposed edge of the film produced by increasing the film frame of the enlarger to just bigger than the image. He had this done to emphasise that there was no cropping.
You also suggest that his earlier photographic work demonstrates a skill in composition learnt from his training as a painter that it lost in his later work. Why would anyone lose a skill after using it for years?
You say:
The 'negative of the day' used by Cartier-Bresson was 35mm film stock with a camera frame of 24 by 36mm the same as today. I can not find the film speed for this but it was sufficiently fast to allow filming movies at 24 frames a second. I guess it would have been at least 50 ASA (ISO). 'Decisive Moment' pictures were certainly obtainable. Many amateur cameras were using cameras for 'snap shooting' from 1900 onwards using Kodak film.
If you check the proportion of the prints from Cartier Bresson you will see that they are correct for the 2 by 3 format of the negative.
Also if you look you can see a thin black border around the image inside the white border that is produced by the printing frame. which holds the paper. This black line is the unexposed edge of the film produced by increasing the film frame of the enlarger to just bigger than the image. He had this done to emphasise that there was no cropping.
You also suggest that his earlier photographic work demonstrates a skill in composition learnt from his training as a painter that it lost in his later work. Why would anyone lose a skill after using it for years?
Paul Russell
Psychogeographer
I agree with everything else Hocus, but I don't think a black border is necessarily proof that a photo is non-cropped.
I remember seeing a documentary where HCB was talking about the photos in one of his exhibitions.
As I mentioned, he explained that the St Lezard picture was cropped because of the railings he was poking his camera through showed up on the final image.
I seem to remember he was adamant that this was the only picture cropped in the whole exhibition. Perhaps he felt a bit guilty and wanted to confess about that one picture!
Anyway, I've got that St Lezard pic in two books, and it's still got a big black border round it...
So probably he had a very strict "no cropping" ethos (and went ballistic with picture editors if they dared crop) but dropped his rule once (or a couple of times?) to save a great picture.
Anyway, I guess this is trainspotting! He was a great photographer who very almost never cropped his pictures.
I remember seeing a documentary where HCB was talking about the photos in one of his exhibitions.
As I mentioned, he explained that the St Lezard picture was cropped because of the railings he was poking his camera through showed up on the final image.
I seem to remember he was adamant that this was the only picture cropped in the whole exhibition. Perhaps he felt a bit guilty and wanted to confess about that one picture!
Anyway, I've got that St Lezard pic in two books, and it's still got a big black border round it...
So probably he had a very strict "no cropping" ethos (and went ballistic with picture editors if they dared crop) but dropped his rule once (or a couple of times?) to save a great picture.
Anyway, I guess this is trainspotting! He was a great photographer who very almost never cropped his pictures.
Hocus Eye. said:
Hi Paul
The St Lazare picture has the smudgy out of focus image of the railing visible on the left of the picture. That is what Cartier-Bresson spoke about, (I read about this somewhere recently) it spoiled the frame but he does not crop it out, it is visible. If he was going to crop it only partially why wouldn't he crop it out completely?
Yes it is possible to fake the black border effect but it is a bit of a hassle and the story would be out on the grapevine if he had had that done.
The St Lazare picture has the smudgy out of focus image of the railing visible on the left of the picture. That is what Cartier-Bresson spoke about, (I read about this somewhere recently) it spoiled the frame but he does not crop it out, it is visible. If he was going to crop it only partially why wouldn't he crop it out completely?
Yes it is possible to fake the black border effect but it is a bit of a hassle and the story would be out on the grapevine if he had had that done.
Paul Russell
Psychogeographer
I just watched the video again.
The pic that he is pointing to in the video looks like the same extent as the one below. There is a shading visible to the left (the start of the fence). Hard to tell exactly with my video. He mentions poking his camera through the fence.
The interviewer mentions that it is the only one in the exhibition without a black border and he says
"that's because it's not the whole frame, all this is out of focus [he motions considerably beyond the left-hand side of the picture]".
So it sound clear that a lot more of the railing to the left has been cropped out, to the point where it just creeps into the picture.
The copies in the two books I have do have a border - just looks nice on the page like that.
The pic that he is pointing to in the video looks like the same extent as the one below. There is a shading visible to the left (the start of the fence). Hard to tell exactly with my video. He mentions poking his camera through the fence.
The interviewer mentions that it is the only one in the exhibition without a black border and he says
"that's because it's not the whole frame, all this is out of focus [he motions considerably beyond the left-hand side of the picture]".
So it sound clear that a lot more of the railing to the left has been cropped out, to the point where it just creeps into the picture.
The copies in the two books I have do have a border - just looks nice on the page like that.
Hocus Eye. said:Hi Paul
The St Lazare picture has the smudgy out of focus image of the railing visible on the left of the picture. That is what Cartier-Bresson spoke about, (I read about this somewhere recently) it spoiled the frame but he does not crop it out, it is visible. If he was going to crop it only partially why wouldn't he crop it out completely?
Yes it is possible to fake the black border effect but it is a bit of a hassle and the story would be out on the grapevine if he had had that done.
Paul Russell
Psychogeographer
Hi Hocus
Apart from having video footage of HCB himself saying that it was not full frame, if you Google "Cartier-Bresson Gare St Lazare", there are a few mentions.
OK, not the prettiest site:
http://www.agallery.com/Pages/photographers/cartier-bresson.html
"All of Cartier-Bresson's compositions are done at the time of exposure, and all of his photos (except Behind the Gare St. Lazare, 1932) include the black border of the negative, indicating that no cropping is done in the darkroom."
I'll shut up about this picture now!
Edit: It would be a good trivia question for sad people like me.
Apart from having video footage of HCB himself saying that it was not full frame, if you Google "Cartier-Bresson Gare St Lazare", there are a few mentions.
OK, not the prettiest site:
http://www.agallery.com/Pages/photographers/cartier-bresson.html
"All of Cartier-Bresson's compositions are done at the time of exposure, and all of his photos (except Behind the Gare St. Lazare, 1932) include the black border of the negative, indicating that no cropping is done in the darkroom."
I'll shut up about this picture now!
Edit: It would be a good trivia question for sad people like me.
editor said:
<editor quietly sobs to himself. Why can't I take pictures like that?!>
The bastard!
He probably went back there 20 times, there is a gap in the railings and he waited with a slow shutter speed for an interesting subject to fill it, he probably got someone to ride past dressed all in black in fact ;-). Less decisive moment more decisive planning IMO. How come the figure is all black, there is light on the facing of the curb stones so there should be detail on this side of the rider.
Blagsta said:Were Atget and Cartier-Bresson contemporaries?
both were alive in the C20th?
Blagsta said:
Then yoooz is a contemporary tooz.
btw if that was the case Hagal then the shot wunt work...duuuuur!!!1
...angle of incidence n all that...
Absolutely no doubt to my mind that HCB marketed himself very well. Magnum etc...
To view his work today it's difficult to appreciate what it was exactly in it's own times. He has been over sold, over hyped and talked about to much. A result of his own marketing genius as much as his photographic genius. There were and are better photographers but, he was so prolific on the taking and the selling fronts.
It has been commented that he objected highly to Martin Parr joining Magnum. Perhaps he saw him as a threat and an equal on the marketing side. Personally, I think Parr has over sold himself in the UK on a similar scale. Just that the world moves faster today and we get bored more quickly.
I rate HCB very highly for both reasons mentioned. However, he is far from the best of his time for me.
To view his work today it's difficult to appreciate what it was exactly in it's own times. He has been over sold, over hyped and talked about to much. A result of his own marketing genius as much as his photographic genius. There were and are better photographers but, he was so prolific on the taking and the selling fronts.
It has been commented that he objected highly to Martin Parr joining Magnum. Perhaps he saw him as a threat and an equal on the marketing side. Personally, I think Parr has over sold himself in the UK on a similar scale. Just that the world moves faster today and we get bored more quickly.
I rate HCB very highly for both reasons mentioned. However, he is far from the best of his time for me.
The photo and its original title include the name of the Avenue... but it was actually taken from Rue la Angleterre, The railings, the clock and the roof skyline can still be matched. The film speed of the day, as informed by Kodak, was 25 asa. This was the declared film speed and did not allow for any deterioration due to storage etc, a more accurate would have been any where between, a low figure of 5 and a top figure of 15
Given the time of day and the generally overcast amosphere the exposure would not have allowed for the movement to be captured so cleanly.
If you scan in the figure and reverse it and compare both together... opps not the same... even on the examples posted the seperation between the jacket The position of the arms, the very short arm to the rear of the body.
The figure has a marked resemblance to his Art tutor, the poster in the background, Railowsky, with the Ballerina shown leaping in the opposite direction, nice juxtaposition but? the almost complete stillness of the water, further evidence of the slow shutter speed.
The Leica camera of the day, 1932, the viewfinder was a seperate viewfinder, on the earlier cameras a pull up oblong to frame the shot. The current model for 1932 would have been the Leica 1 interchangable, Model C original produced in 1931, that's if HCB was using the latest cameras, the lenes availble were the 35mm f3.5 Elmar, a long focus 135mm f4.5, the 50mm f2.5 Hektor and later in 1931, the 90mm, f4 Elmar
Nothing super quick, again remebering the quality of the optics and the reproduction. Early 1932, saw the introduction of 'the' leica, lenses automatically coupled to focusing.. but still manual... LOL.
The original is in the Menil Collection, Houston and measures, 15.75inches by
11' 7/8ths inches...
It's not about losing the talent for composition, it's more the person taking the easy option, or his photographs being selected for him.
Given the time of day and the generally overcast amosphere the exposure would not have allowed for the movement to be captured so cleanly.
If you scan in the figure and reverse it and compare both together... opps not the same... even on the examples posted the seperation between the jacket The position of the arms, the very short arm to the rear of the body.
The figure has a marked resemblance to his Art tutor, the poster in the background, Railowsky, with the Ballerina shown leaping in the opposite direction, nice juxtaposition but? the almost complete stillness of the water, further evidence of the slow shutter speed.
The Leica camera of the day, 1932, the viewfinder was a seperate viewfinder, on the earlier cameras a pull up oblong to frame the shot. The current model for 1932 would have been the Leica 1 interchangable, Model C original produced in 1931, that's if HCB was using the latest cameras, the lenes availble were the 35mm f3.5 Elmar, a long focus 135mm f4.5, the 50mm f2.5 Hektor and later in 1931, the 90mm, f4 Elmar
Nothing super quick, again remebering the quality of the optics and the reproduction. Early 1932, saw the introduction of 'the' leica, lenses automatically coupled to focusing.. but still manual... LOL.
The original is in the Menil Collection, Houston and measures, 15.75inches by
11' 7/8ths inches...
It's not about losing the talent for composition, it's more the person taking the easy option, or his photographs being selected for him.
Descartes
You say:
You are judging the available light on the day from the photograph. Of course the general greyness could be a result of the fact that the picture is a bit underexposed. It could have been the well known "cloudy bright".
You say that Kodak claimed 25 ASA for the film of the period. Then you want to give reasons to reduce that effective speed. There is no reason to do this, Cartier-Bresson would not be storing the film to its disadvantage and might even have it push-processed to suit his purposes. There was a lot of work going on at the time to produce improved developers for such film. I think that 25 ASA was perfectly attainable.
Using the old system of setting your shutter speed to the same number as the ASA number, HCB could set his aperture to f/11 for "cloudy bright" and get correct exposure. Even if it was half as light as this he could go for f/8. His fastest lens aperture would have been f/3.5 . Even in this half as bright condition he could have upped his shutter speed to 1/60th of a second and still have about half a stop of leeway. The action shot was easily possible.
And Paul, yes if Cartier-Bresson himself says on film he cropped it then of course he did.
You say:
You are judging the available light on the day from the photograph. Of course the general greyness could be a result of the fact that the picture is a bit underexposed. It could have been the well known "cloudy bright".
You say that Kodak claimed 25 ASA for the film of the period. Then you want to give reasons to reduce that effective speed. There is no reason to do this, Cartier-Bresson would not be storing the film to its disadvantage and might even have it push-processed to suit his purposes. There was a lot of work going on at the time to produce improved developers for such film. I think that 25 ASA was perfectly attainable.
Using the old system of setting your shutter speed to the same number as the ASA number, HCB could set his aperture to f/11 for "cloudy bright" and get correct exposure. Even if it was half as light as this he could go for f/8. His fastest lens aperture would have been f/3.5 . Even in this half as bright condition he could have upped his shutter speed to 1/60th of a second and still have about half a stop of leeway. The action shot was easily possible.
And Paul, yes if Cartier-Bresson himself says on film he cropped it then of course he did.
Paul Russell
Psychogeographer
Descartes said:
Eh, what are you saying here?
Descartes said:
Isn't the real original the negative?
Paul Russell
Psychogeographer
Hocus Eye. said:And Paul, yes if Cartier-Bresson himself says on film he cropped it then of course he did.
Hope that didn't ruin your day or anything Hocus.
who did the picture this comes from? ...same era...ish...but was a fake....
I give up.
Who was it?
Who was it?
Similar threads
