Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => Discussing Photographic Styles => Topic started by: Chairman Bill on September 12, 2013, 12:30:15 pm
-
I've recently added to my photography book collection (and the HCB collection in particular) with Henri Cartier-Bresson's An Inner Silence, a book of his portraits, reproduced in a rather nice tritone. A beautiful book, full of beautiful photography. But here's the thing - many of them are appallingly focused.
As I read through the book, I was struck by the numbers of photographs that, were they mine, would never have seen the light of day, because the focus was so off. Some are sharply in-focus, but plenty more have the point of focus anywhere but the face, let alone the nearest eye. Having noted that, I then looked at some of his composition, and decided that some of that left a bit to be desired too.
OK, well nobody should be above criticism, and I've seen enough of HCB's work to be impressed with his photographic skill, but somehow, criticising him for what many would consider basic errors/faults, just seems wrong.
Am I missing something?
-
I don't think it's wrong to criticize, Bill. But you also have to take into account the equipment and the technique Henri was using for some of those shots. Leica rangefinders, even now, take a second to focus. If you want the kind of portrait Henri was after, by the time you lift the camera and focus, what you were after has disappeared. So he did what I do on the street with my E-P1, he pre-focused. Considering the speed of the film he was using in the early days, f/3.5 (wide open on early, collapsible, Leica rangefinder lenses) was essential for most of his portraits, so he didn't have much depth of field to save him.
Finally, a whole lot of those shots were sudden decisions. His picture of the Curies is a classic example. He came through the door, lifted the camera, and made the shot, before they'd even been introduced. As a result, he got something unique. His portrait of Ezra Pound is better as far as focus is concerned, but if you can believe what Henri wrote about it, he sat in front of Ezra for twenty minutes and neither of them said a word to each other.
In the end, a lot of his portraits are technically faulty, but in most cases he captured something about his subjects that a formal portraitist like Yosuf Karsh would have missed.
-
Bill, if you criticise a mythological being the world will be up in arms whether you are right or wrong.
It's a bit like suggesting that Sir Paul McCartney is a worn out old Butlin's busker, well past his use-by date.
W
-
a mythological being
No, just a saint :-)
-
OP, that is how it is with many of a photog. Their best work is shown first, worst work last. HCB was not know for great portraits anyway.
In any case, you can get some nice shots all messed up when it comes to focus and blur...
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/photobooth/110321_elisabeth-_p4656crop.jpg
-
... but in most cases he captured something about his subjects that a formal portraitist like Yosuf Karsh would have missed.
Different, very different techniques but in some cases the same end result - 'that fleeting moment' - no better example than than the preamble to Karsh's photograph of Winston Churchill.
-
“Sharpness is a bourgeois concept”
― Henri Cartier-Bresson
-
It's a bit like suggesting that Sir Paul McCartney is a worn out old Butlin's busker, well past his use-by date.
According to my information, Walter, Paul is the world's oldest cute boy, not an old busker.
'that fleeting moment' - no better example than than the preamble to Karsh's photograph of Winston Churchill.
Quite right, Manoli. That Churchill classic happened because Karsh jerked the cigar out of Winston's mouth, so he, Karsh, was ready and focused.
“Sharpness is a bourgeois concept”
― Henri Cartier-Bresson
Henri isn't the only one who's expressed that opinion. When it comes to people pictures I'd agree. With landscape, uh uh.
No, just a saint :-)
Isaac, go shoot some pictures.
-
Bill, if you criticise a mythological being the world will be up in arms whether you are right or wrong.
It's a bit like suggesting that Sir Paul McCartney is a worn out old Butlin's busker, well past his use-by date.
W
I didn't know Butlin's paid that well; learn something every day!
Rob C
-
... It's a bit like suggesting that Sir Paul McCartney is a worn out old Butlin's busker, well past his use-by date.
He isn't!? Except as a no-prenup marital material, of course ;D
-
Isaac, go shoot some pictures.
Repeating a command demonstrates impotence.
-
Repeating a command demonstrates impotence.
Or a deaf(ish) dog?
;-)
Rob C
-
Or unbridled arrogance.
-
Well, we know that not being able to post a picture on LuLa demonstrates photographic impotence.
-
Maybe he doesn't know HOW to post a picture?
-
... I was struck by the numbers of photographs that, were they mine, would never have seen the light of day, because the focus was so off. Some are sharply in-focus, but plenty more have the point of focus anywhere but the face, let alone the nearest eye. Having noted that, I then looked at some of his composition, and decided that some of that left a bit to be desired too.
Interesting observations -- if you gave examples of specific photos then maybe we could look online (although without expecting to see what's really in focus from a web-sized image, we should see composition).
It's difficult not to evaluate old photographs anachronistically: we are so accustomed to current technical possibilities, we are so accustomed to current styles in photography.
I suppose the charitable approach is to ask - What does this picture achieve? - and allow that as the photographer's likely intention.
-
Maybe he doesn't know HOW to post a picture?
How about I somehow find one of his pictures (if any), host it, and then he just provides a link to it? He is pretty good at it. ;)
-
Isaac - mostly his composition is masterful, but a few just seemed very ordinary, but maybe that's just be comparison to the others.
The focus issue is something that I think Russ has addressed adequately - equipment of the time, the nature of the image requiring maybe zone focussing (not a precise art) & quick reactions to capture 'the moment', rather than a posed shot. My observation is really that I'd probably bin the out of focus stuff, but maybe I should reconsider in light of HCB's work. Then again, with current kit, there's less excuse to not nail focus.
-
Then again, with current kit, there's less excuse to not nail focus.
Unless, of course, we do so intentionally -- Blur to the Rescue (http://books.google.com/books?id=S3uz1_BEsgsC&lpg=PA1&pg=PA1#v=onepage&q=Blur%20to%20the%20Rescue&f=false), "People Pictures: 30 Exercises for Creating Authentic Photographs".
-
How about I somehow find one of his pictures (if any), host it, and then he just provides a link to it? He is pretty good at it. ;)
Then again maybe he doesn't take any pictures. Jose Mourinho is one of the world's top football managers but didn't actually play football. ;)
-
Then again maybe he doesn't take any pictures. Jose Mourinho is one of the world's top football managers but didn't actually play football. ;)
Yeah, but he's from Portugal.
Any asshole can kick a ball, as has been proven time after time. Just look at the guys doing that and tell me I'm mistaken.
Rob C
-
OP, that is how it is with many of a photog. Their best work is shown first, worst work last. HCB was not know for great portraits anyway.
In any case, you can get some nice shots all messed up when it comes to focus and blur...
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/photobooth/110321_elisabeth-_p4656crop.jpg
MoMA has a great collection of HCB's portraiture work, roughly about 150+ images. You need to see them before you form your own judgement. Let me quote Mark Twain, “What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know. It's what we know for sure that just ain't so.”
-
MoMA has a great collection of HCB's portraiture work, roughly about 150+ images. You need to see them before you form your own judgement. Let me quote Mark Twain, “What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know. It's what we know for sure that just ain't so.”
That should be tattood on the back of every politician's hand.
Rob C
-
That should be tattood on the back of every politician's hand.
Is it already tattooed on the back of your hand?
Let me quote Mark Twain...
Have you found a solid attribution?
-
Is it already tattooed on the back of your hand?
Nope, deep in my mind where I see it when I need to see it.
Thankfully, I'm not much into politics, so can apply it to other ventures instead.
http://youtu.be/6U-H3hPYBmA
Rob C