Re: Cartier-Bresson article

[stamper]

With respect to composition and HCB - and others of his ilk - how many here think that modern equipment plays an important part in composition. Henri used Lenses that are antiquated by today's standards, especially long lenses. Primes lenses were popular in by gone days. Composing an image with a wide angle prime and standing further away and framing the same field of view with a zoom at a longer focal length is a different approach? In a nutshell what I am stating - perhaps controversially - using modern lenses means that in a lot of instances the compositional aspects of photography is different from - and better - than it was decades ago?

[stamper]

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

http://www.in-public.com/photographers

http://davidduchemin.com/?action=printpage%3Btopic%3D170.0

There are others but these two are helpful. Looking at images from photographers of yore is pleasurable but the difference in equipment between the old and new makes a difference in the way we approach photography. Using a film camera and a digital camera may mean there is a difference in approach. The small mirrorless cameras is an all new ball game and I read on here, and other sites, about photographers changing their approach to photography. In a nut shell photography has moved on and this imo includes composition?

[stamper]

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.


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.

Isaac did Henri use DOF scales? I don't know enough about him but I suspect not.

http://photo.net/leica-rangefinders-forum/003d78

So much has changed from his day it surprises me that photographers are still attracted to him? Some find his images unsurpassed and others less so. His methods are undoubtedly outdated and how do you adapt modern methods to his way of shooting?

[kencameron]

In a nutshell what I am stating - perhaps controversially - using modern lenses means that in a lot of instances the compositional aspects of photography is different from - and better - than it was decades ago?

Certainly, the lens provides the opportunities and constraints within which the photographer composes, so different or new lenses provide different or new opportunities and constraints. But I don't think that means any change to what we recognise as good or bad composition. Surely that will always be about things like balance, movement, pattern, tone values, symmetry and (intended) departure from it, guidance of the eye within the frame, how the composition carries the meaning. Painters and draftsmen have always had absolute control over "focal length" and "field of view" and all that stuff. They can do ultra wide, telephoto, macro as they choose and over the years have explored the compositional opportunities provided by different approaches, within and beyond the laws of optics. It is similar with music. Electronics has provided lots of exciting new ways of making and combining sounds, but that doesn't mean better (or worse) music.

[stamper]

Certainly, the lens provides the opportunities and constraints within which the photographer composes, so different or new lenses provide different or new opportunities and constraints. But I don't think that means any change to what we recognise as good or bad composition. Surely that will always be about things like balance, movement, pattern, tone values, symmetry and (intended) departure from it, guidance of the eye within the frame, how the composition carries the meaning. Painters and draftsmen have always had absolute control over "focal length" and "field of view" and all that stuff. They can do ultra wide, telephoto, macro as they choose and over the years have explored the compositional opportunities provided by different approaches, within and beyond the laws of optics. It is similar with music. Electronics has provided lots of exciting new ways of making and combining sounds, but that doesn't mean better (or worse) music.
[/quote

This is where subjectivity comes into play. Some members on here have doubted how good, or bad, Henri was and in modern times is he really worth paying lip service to?

[Rob C]

Well, I don't see it as a matter of lip service at all: I see it simply as a recognition of someone with a very good eye doing something that was of its time, but not as a unique photographer - he was one of many within the genre.

His main contribution, looking backwards, seems to have been in bringing the entire genre into public focus. Many of his contemporaries did similar work, but never did attain the glory that he did - another lesson to the PC brigade: you can't all be voted No1, even if you are pretty damned good.

It's not simply a matter of his times, either. Yes, we know Paris, India, Africa and all his favourite places have changed, some beyond recognition; the common thread, though, for his era as ours, is that it's about design and seeing, as it ever was.

I don't think it's got much to do with camera or lens as far as 'look' goes. He just used what was easiest, fastest and most comfortable for the task; after all, it was he who persuaded so many others to abandon the Rollei, a machine that is perfect for some work, but not exactly for anything that requires stealth and speed (relax, Viv, we still love you!).

Basically, he just used the best, simple tool for the job.

As for the rest of us today, we are just playing at what he did for real. And the proliferation of digi cameras doesn't seem to have raised the level one iota. We just catch more, sharper, but meaningless images.

Rob C

[RSL]

. . . the proliferation of digi cameras doesn't seem to have raised the level one iota. We just catch more, sharper, but meaningless images.

+2 or 3

[Rand47]

As for the rest of us today, we are just playing at what he did for real. And the proliferation of digi cameras doesn't seem to have raised the level one iota. We just catch more, sharper, but meaningless images.

Thank you...  I've been struggling to know how to respond to this thread, but this rang so true. 

Rand

[Zorki5]

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

I do. At the very least, they inspire.

[Isaac]

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

http://www.in-public.com/photographers

"He roams his city, Leica and 35mm lens at the ready, alert to those rare moments where serendipity and circumstance seem to magically collide. … He abides by a strict code: a simple set of unbreakable rules. He never moves, alters, or stages anything once it is within his viewfinder, and he never uses Photoshop." page 144 "The World Atlas of Street Photography"

In what way has looking at Matt Stuart's photographs improved your photography? What do you do differently now that you've looked at his photos?

Isaac did Henri use DOF scales? … His methods are undoubtedly outdated and how do you adapt modern methods to his way of shooting?

As I said: I look at other photographers work to enjoy and understand what they've done - I don't look at other photographers work with the aim of improving my photography - I look at my work with the aim of improving my photography.

There's no reason for me to care if Cartier-Bresson used DoF tables or to care that you think his methods are outdated -- I'm not trying to use Cartier-Bresson's methods to improve my photography.

[RSL]

. . .I look at my work with the aim of improving my photography.

Let's see some of your work, Isaac. That would give us a chance to help you improve it.

[Isaac]

Let's see some of your work, Isaac. That would give us a chance to help you improve it.

I've already seen what you have to offer.

[RSL]

But we haven't seen what you have to offer. We've heard about it -- from you -- but we've never seen it.

[kencameron]

And the proliferation of digi cameras doesn't seem to have raised the level one iota.
Rob C

Of course not. We don't get better (or worse) at any art as a result of changes in its technology.

[Rob C]

Of course not. We don't get better (or worse) at any art as a result of changes in its technology.

Half my point: the remainder being that the huge increase in quantity of images, because they are now pretty much free to produce, hasn't led to a noticeable increase in great pictures. It may be just a personal choice, but I spend a lot more time and effort looking at past masters than at new people. The few times that I venture into a wider landscape I recoil. What strikes me is that a big deal is made over practically nothing at all. This might be because the people pushing the new stuff tend to be galleries, with an obvious marketing agenda, whereas the people I love came from a commercial world, and their work was there because the clients believed it did it for them; the pictures were there to shift something other than themselves.

I have to include myself there, the personal difference being that in post-professional life I now shoot some genres that I previously liked but never had time to try out for myself in my own manner, whatever that is. Perhaps more accurately: I would never have spent money on such genres, so digi has removed one problem, but replaced it with another: the vast ammount of time spent sitting on my ass in front of a monitor. In some ways, it's both therapeutic as well as destructive.

Rob C

[GrahamBy]

There is a comment by Sieff that he and his colleagues saw commissions as a chance to do personal work. In other words, there was a compromise on both sides: the magasines allowed him the freedom of his creative choices, he made sure the models were wearing the appropriate clothes even if they were rather small in the frame Often the best photos in his opinion were not used by the mag, but they liked what they did use enough to keep paying him.

And so the HC-B picnic photo, which was not used by the newspaper that commissioned it.

Anyway, one difference is that HC-B was operating in a world where there was much less risk of reproducing, consciously or not, the work of others. Even if Lartigue had already made lots of photos of people jumping over things, which were themselves just better versions of what was already a popular theme, no one could do a google image search to prove that he was derivative. Similar when someone pointed out to JL Sief that an early reportage shot he did of a school-room looked a lot like a Doisneau, he was able to honestly reply "Who is Doisneau?" (They later became excellent friends).

Now... as an example, I saw a rather impressively posed and lit nude on the site of a Lyonnais photographer I know indirectly. It wasn't until months later that I realised that it was an almost exact copy of a Mapplethorpe. I'm guessing it was an explicit wink, but then he didn't mention the Mapplethorpe version. Probably there were earlier versions of the same shot, but of course if a big name does something, their version becomes the reference: which is one way of interpreting Picasso's comment that a poor artist borrows, a great artist steals.

[kencameron]

Half my point: the remainder being that the huge increase in quantity of images, because they are now pretty much free to produce, hasn't led to a noticeable increase in great pictures.
Rob C

Are you confident that you would know if it had? With unimaginable numbers of images being taken every second. It is not that I have any different view to yours - I just don't see how one could possibly have an informed view. And if it isn't an informed view, then the only thing left is surely a prejudice, or something like that.

[GrahamBy]

You can get some idea by going to a site like 500px, which is already self-selecting "enthusiast" photographers. If you slect a category like Black & White you further de-select the happy-snaps. What is interesting is that you can choose to look at "popular", "upcoming" or "fresh" images. You can actually see more interesting work by looking at "Fresh", which is unselected... the most popular photos are very often (not always!) utterly derivative.

Note that if you use a mobile device, the entire "Nude" category and anything deemed to have adult content will be hidden.

What is overwhelming is the vast quantity of technically competent photos of all types, most of which seem to be trying to ape existing famous photos.
Going instead to the facebook pages of local photographers who are scraping some sort of living from their work while having pretensions to art, I find pretty much the same as in the Popular section of 500px... "popular" is another term for "large market", after all.

On the other had, the showings in the local galleries are rather different: they seem to be trying desperately to find originality (understandable), but often by going down the road of banality, ie "my photo is different because the subject and composition are mediocre." They are justified by the list of grants and awards the photographer has amassed, but they seem oriented to be collected in the hope of appreciating value rather than to have something you'd want to look at on the wall.

Not that this is specific to photography, there was a rather good recent article in the Guardian on "Why all modern abstract painting looks the same"... and the conclusion was that it was chasing a marketing niche: the inoffensive painting that will fill the wall above the sofa, show you have culture, and lets you imagine that it will be a good investment.

[RSL]

... the most popular photos are very often (not always!) utterly derivative.

Right on, Graham. As any wedding photog can tell you, there's a huge market for clichés

[GrahamBy]

Right on, Graham. As any wedding photog can tell you, there's a huge market for clichés

Not That There's Anything Wrong With That.

I mean come on, it's not like getting married is an incredibly original idea