Re: Cartier-Bresson article

[AreBee]

stamper,

The problem with looking at images of photographers from years of yore is that they saw the world with a set of "rules" in mind...

There are no rules for good photographs, there are only good photographs.

Credit: Ansel Adams

[stamper]

stamper,

There are no rules for good photographs, there are only good photographs.

Credit: Ansel Adams

Correct! By all means look at HCB's photographs....but try not to be influenced by them.

[AreBee]

stamper,

By all means look at HCB's photographs....but try not to be influenced by them.

Why?

[stamper]

stamper,

Why?

If you had read my earlier posts there is a clue there?

[AreBee]

stamper,

If you had read my earlier posts there is a clue there?

I can see a statement of personal preference and several questions, but must have missed that you have a clue.

[stamper]

stamper,

I can see a statement of personal preference and several questions, but must have missed that you have a clue.

Unlike yourself I am willing to make a statement of personal preferences and pose questions. Unfortunately you prefer to snipe and are unwilling/unable to contribute anything to the thread.

[AreBee]

stamper,

Unlike yourself I am willing to...pose questions.

Unlike yourself my questions are not assertions terminated with a question mark.

Unfortunately you prefer to snipe and are unwilling/unable to contribute anything to the thread.

You have eyes but cannot see.

[stamper]

stamper,

Unlike yourself my questions are not assertions terminated with a question mark.

You have eyes but cannot see.

Go practice your trolling somewhere else.

[Christopher Sanderson]

The sniping stops here or I will ban the lot of you.

[AreBee]

Chris,

For what it is worth, I apologise.

[Nelsonretreat]

Does anyone honestly think that looking at his images will improve their photography? Nobody can hope to replicate them mostly because they were taken in a bygone era. The "decisive moment" is simply plain common sense and luck is probably more important. Personally speaking most of my "best" images were luck and the planned ones never really came to fruition. It is simply all about looking and seeing. 

As a landscape photographer I couldn't agree more. There isn't really a 'decisive moment' Most of it is driving round for days on end and being lucky enough to be in the right place at the right time!

[Nelsonretreat]

Digital has been a game changer?

This is a really interesting starting point for a whole new thread! There is no doubt that the world of photograhy has changed because of digital but I'm  not sure the aesthetics of photographiy has changed. The means by which you take a photograph, in theory, should be irrelevant but. in practice, probably does has an influence. I started with film 45 years ago (Voightlander Prominent!) and tried to return to it about 8 years ago.  I found it incredibly difficult to go back for lots of reaons and now rarely use my film camera.

[RSL]

Does anyone honestly think that looking at his images will improve their photography? Nobody can hope to replicate them mostly because they were taken in a bygone era. The "decisive moment" is simply plain common sense and luck is probably more important. Personally speaking most of my "best" images were luck and the planned ones never really came to fruition. It is simply all about looking and seeing. 

Exactly right, Robert. If anybody doubts that, HCB himself said, "It's always luck," check this reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z4qZ3Z8shZE&feature=related. He added: "You just have to be receptive. That's all." If you've ever done street  photography you realize that's exactly how it works. "It's always luck. You just have to be receptive. That's all."

What you can learn from Henri's photographs is how important composition is. Three things make a successful photograph: (1) Interesting subject matter, (2) Good composition, and (3) Good light. If you're really good at composition and you understand light, even #1 doesn't matter a lot. With the right composition and beautiful light you can turn something boring into something striking.

[stamper]

Exactly right, Robert. If anybody doubts that, HCB himself said, "It's always luck," check this reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z4qZ3Z8shZE&feature=related. He added: "You just have to be receptive. That's all." If you've ever done street  photography you realize that's exactly how it works. "It's always luck. You just have to be receptive. That's all."

What you can learn from Henri's photographs is how important composition is. Three things make a successful photograph: (1) Interesting subject matter, (2) Good composition, and (3) Good light. If you're really good at composition and you understand light, even #1 doesn't matter a lot. With the right composition and beautiful light you can turn something boring into something striking.

[/b][/i]

This is plain commonsense and I don't think you have to look at Henri's photographs to realize this. Most of what he composed was a long time ago and I think that most photographers will look at something modern and learn composition from that especially if they know the scene.

[GrahamBy]

[/b][/i]
look at something modern and learn composition from that especially if they know the scene.

Is it possible we are discussing different things here? At one level there are certain compositional features, not all of which are readily codified into simple rules, which give a photo impact, whatever the subject matter. For me, at least.

At another level, there is what makes a photo saleable in the current context, which is rather more about fashion and expectation, creating surprise. Bailey cutting heads off would seem to fall into this category.

[david loble]

Read this last night: "Once upon a time Henri Cartier-Bresson staged a photograph of a man...stepping over a pool of water." Lyle Rexer, photograph, March/April 2016
I have no idea where Rexer gets his information, the article in which it appears is on the fashion photographer Hiro, but we have heard the assertion before.
If it was staged then the place and composition were all-important. For some photographers the place comes first, waiting comes next and finally the right action takes place. See also Sam Abell The Life of A Photograph on Youtube. Abell talks of his father's dictum to compose and wait. Personally, that notion appeals to me in my version/attempt at street photography and I don't think it has gone out of style.

David

[RSL]

[/b][/i]

This is plain commonsense and I don't think you have to look at Henri's photographs to realize this. Most of what he composed was a long time ago and I think that most photographers will look at something modern and learn composition from that especially if they know the scene.

The point is that Henri's composition was some of the very best. Long ago doesn't matter. You can look at paintings from the fifteenth century and learn something about composition. Good composition is good composition no matter which century or decade it comes from.

[Isaac]

I have no idea where Rexer gets his information…

Why do people just make up stuff sometimes?

…“I did remember that I saw his contact sheet of this picture (means Behind the Gare Saint-Lazare), I am so surprised that people these days doubt that picture is a “Set Up Picture”, I know it is NOT because I read the contact sheet from Henri Cartier-Bresson for that picture.” David Hurn told me that Henri Cartier Bresson was actually stand in a same place and waiting people to jump over the water, he captured every best moment and choose the “Best of the Best” moment to become this most famous picture - “Behind the Gare St. Lazare”.

Everyone thought his was a pure chance, a piece of luck. Once again, it was but only to a certain degree. The contact sheet showed us that HCB had tried some 10 times to obtain that shot. With other cyclists, passers-by, pedestrians and such. He then chose the best one out of all those other ones and it became this incredibly famous image. [Th]e rest of them never saw the light of day.

If you want to imagine Cartier-Bresson staging a photograph then imagine how easy it would be to ask friend André to take a step back -- but wouldn't Cartier-Bresson just move himself?

[Isaac]

Does anyone honestly think that looking at his images will improve their photography?

I don't have a problem with looking at images and learning but to me modern examples would be better than…

Honestly which "modern" photographs have you looked-at with the aim of improving your photography?



I look at other photographers work to enjoy and understand what they've done; I look at my work with the aim of improving my photography.

I see that to improve my photography, I must prevent myself from focus-stacking at the sharpest aperture from far-horizon to foreground -- because there will never be enough DoF in the foreground but, in the moment, I keep making that mistake (as-if stubborn hard-work will overcome physics).

To break that habit, I've printed out relevant DoF tables (and weather-proofed them) as a physical reminder that I must start in the foreground, and accept the compromise of somewhat less-sharp but none-the-less adequate DoF.

Personally speaking most of my "best" images were luck and the planned ones never really came to fruition. It is simply all about looking and seeing.

For me, photography is always secondary to some other activity, so "planning" makes it more likely that I will succeed when I'm tired and distracted and being rushed.

[kencameron]

. Most of what he composed was a long time ago and I think that most photographers will look at something modern and learn composition from that especially if they know the scene.

Most of what HCB composed was not so long ago in terms of the history of the visual arts. Thanks to the internet we all live in a virtual museum in which a significant and increasing proportion of everything that has ever been done is readily available, for pleasure and/or learning. The advantage of modern work is that it will be immediately accessible because the cultural context necessary for understanding doesn't have to be learned. On the other side, with older work, time has usually done some weeding out of mediocrity, and some qualities are partly independent of cultural context. I would argue that composition is like that. When I look at the composition of landscapes by Van Ruysdael or Claude or Cezanne, I find varieties of excellence that I also find in modern landscape (or other) photography and that I try, vainly, to emulate in my own work (but the trying keeps me awake). Photographers who only look at modern photography will no doubt be able to learn a great deal from it, and good luck to them, but there is a whole world of pleasure and instruction to be found both in older photography and in other forms of visual art. We learn from what we love (and what we don't care for) wherever we find it.


I also think there is a truth in the following (mis)quotation:


What should they know of photography
Who only photography know


But that is another discussion.