Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => The Coffee Corner => Topic started by: Rajan Parrikar on May 10, 2014, 09:17:01 pm
-
"All photography is an accident."
Debunking the Myth. (http://pindelski.org/Photography/2014/05/10/debunking-myth/)
-
By no means an accident. Sure luck is involved, but skill is the main foundation.
-
Looking is the main foundation! See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z4qZ3Z8shZE&feature=related
-
Luck favors the prepared...
-
"…you will learn not only that there was no timing involved, HC-B couldn’t even see the subject when he pressed the button! "
Cartier-Bresson: "I couldn't see a thing through the viewer". Is there any reason to think that "HC-B couldn’t even see the subject" with his eyes (http://www.brianrose.com/journal/moment_lg.jpg) ?
(Hold the camera portrait. Align the view finder with the gap in the fence. Check what's in the frame. Move the camera sideways. Align the lens with the gap in the fence. Can't see a thing through the view finder. Watch what's happening through the gap in the fence. Click. Click. Click.)
…“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 (http://mrfox44.blogspot.com/2013/04/some-random-time.html) 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 (http://morganmoller.wordpress.com/2013/05/09/street-photography-is-the-hardest-branch-of-photography-cartier-bresson-still-teaches-us-every-day/) and it became this incredibly famous image. [Th]e rest of them never saw the light of day.
As-in -- Be Aware of “Pregnant Moments” (http://erickimphotography.com/blog/2012/05/27/10-things-magnum-photographer-david-hurn-can-teach-you-about-street-photography/)
-
Of course, Isaac. I think the translation of what HCB said might have been a bit off. What he was saying is that he couldn't see the scene through the split-image viewfinder. After all, the Leica isn't an SLR. But he certainly could see the scene through the crack in the fence.
-
I think the translation of what HCB said might have been a bit off.
Why? afaict Thomas Pindelski's blog post just takes Cartier-Bresson's translated words out-of-context.
When Cartier-Bresson is asked "You couldn't see the man leaping?" and answers "No.", Thomas Pindelski takes that to mean he couldn't see the man leaping at all but Cartier-Bresson is still talking about what he could see in the view finder.
-
Reading comprehension problem, Isaac? That's almost exactly what I said. Translation doesn't necessarily mean language.
-
You got to love it when Isaac continues to argue with us even when we (occasionally) agree with him? :)
-
Reading comprehension problem, Isaac?
Not on my part.
-
Debunking the Myth. (http://pindelski.org/Photography/2014/05/10/debunking-myth/)
So far, Thomas Pindelski hasn't seen fit to accept this comment on his blog: Cartier-Bresson: "I couldn't see a thing through the viewer". Is there any reason to think that "HC-B couldn’t even see the subject" with his eyes ?
I suppose it would undermine what he wants to say about photography; and what he wants to say about photographers who can no longer answer his lil barbs.
-
You got to love it when Isaac continues to argue with us even when we (occasionally) agree with him? :)
Passive aggressives just can't help themselves. ;D
Rand
-
I don't care if he could see the leaping man or not, and to be concerned with whether or not be could is to entirely miss Cartier-Bresson's point as well as to miss the essential mechanic of street.
Be open, be receptive. Shoot when you think it's right. You can't do it consciously. There are elements you will see but they are never the whole of it. Who cares if the leaping man was one of the things he saw consciously or not?
-
Hear, hear, Andrew. Exactly! That's the thing we all can learn from HCB. As he said: "You have to be receptive. That's all."
-
You can't do it consciously.
The things we do "consciously" are usually things we haven't mastered.
There are elements you will see but they are never the whole of it. Who cares if the leaping man was one of the things he saw consciously or not?
Yes, there will usually be elements that were not seen; but the puddle-jumper is a large part of the photo, not a small incidental detail.
Apparently Cartier-Bresson used the fence as a hide and took several photos of puddle-jumpers -- method not magic.
-
The point, though, is that in the very best street photos, there is a strong element of serendipity. Our methods, our skills and talents, can produce work that is only so good. Only by making a lot of that work, and by embracing the possibility of luck, do we occasionally produce greatness.
This, I believe, is what HCB means. Skill and talent surely must be there. But also there must be luck. In the greatest pictures, there is always luck.
Also, I think you are completely on the wrong track to propose that mastery tends toward unconscious activity. Surely, for the trivia of the work. Setting the shutter speed, mixing the plaster, kneading the dough, we don't think much of it. But for mastery we need to strive to be conscious of what matters. If we slide and are unconscious of the texture of the dough as we knead, our bread becomes mediocre. It seems inconceivable that HCB was not intensely conscious of what was in the frame. But still it's luck. It's always luck. And then the word he leaves out: too.
-
…what HCB means. … But also there must be luck. In the greatest pictures, there is always luck.
Intentionally so, for a surrealist ;-)
If we slide and are unconscious of the texture of the dough as we knead, our bread becomes mediocre.
If you're constantly asking yourself - Does the dough feel right? Does the dough feel right? - I'll get my bread elsewhere :-)
-
If you're constantly asking yourself - Does the dough feel right? Does the dough feel right? - I'll get my bread elsewhere :-)
I am. And I am an outstanding baker.
-
Finally some food for thought in this thread!
-
Oh dear. Shame, shame, Slobodan.
-
Oh dear. Shame, shame, Slobodan.
No! Really, his was one of the more meaningful comments in this thread.
-
If you're constantly asking yourself - Does the dough feel right? Does the dough feel right? - I'll get my bread elsewhere :-)
I am. And I am an outstanding baker.
So it's not -- "Be open, be receptive. [Bake] when you think it's right. You can't do it consciously." ?
Also, I think you are completely on the wrong track to propose that mastery tends toward unconscious activity.
Not "unconscious" but subconscious.
-
Sorry, Russ, forgot to add a winking smiley, but I think Eric got it anyway.
The arrival of bread finally provided some red meat to the thread (I hope I am getting my metaphors right) ;D
-
(I hope I am getting my metaphors right) ;D
Maybe mixing metaphors is like mixing dough. Sometimes you have to bang on the table.
-
Baking is not street photography. I know you're just having fun, Isaac, but your track record as an annoying pedant makes it hard to share your pleasure.
-
Baking is not street photography.
Were your comments about baking merely a distraction from the muddle you've made with -- "Shoot when you think it's right. You can't do it consciously." -- and -- "we need to strive to be conscious of what matters".
Please just try to express those thoughts more clearly.
It seems inconceivable that HCB was not intensely conscious of what was in the frame.
In the case of "Behind the Gare St. Lazare" it seems as though Cartier-Bresson took the time to frame the scene as best he could, and then took several photos of puddle-jumpers. (But "I couldn't see a thing through the viewer" so what he hoped to be in the frame may not have been what was in the frame.)
We can always say how lucky that there was a puddle, and a gap in the fence, and puddle-jumpers, and any of the other contingencies of a contingent world. We could say how unlucky (or lucky) not to get the puddle-jumper in focus.
-
You have made the muddle, Isaac, by selecting a phrase here and a sentence there. Very little I write makes sense when it is hacked to pieces. Time to let it go.
-
There's nothing particularly remarkable about a sequence of separate comments becoming a muddle.
If you don't wish to express those thoughts more clearly, then you don't.
-
Isaac, no offense meant personally here, but statistically speaking from my perspective, what is going on here is this:
- I am talking to someone who doesn't care at all about what I am saying, who wants only to count coup, and who thinks I am a moron
- Thus, if I spend 10-20 minutes organizing my thoughts and writing them down carefully, you will spend 5-30 seconds skimming what I write
- Then you will nitpick some imagined contradiction or whatever
- Then you will award yourself 1 point in the imagined competition
- Finally you will see if you can get me to spend another 10-20 minutes further clarifying
This is a losing game for me, and one I cannot win. I would "win" if I was able to explain to you what I meant, but since you're not actually listening and don't care what I mean, this is actually impossible. Not actually "you" but the statistically most likely "you" in a scenario of this sort.
I am, I trust you will understand, not interested in playing.
If you are in fact one of the rare people who's actually interested in what I wrote, well, I am sorry. I don't re-write things any more. You will have to go over my remarks more carefully and attempt to puzzle out what I meant. It's all there.
-
This is what Isaac does instead of going out and shooting pictures, Andrew. You're spinning your wheels.
-
For crying out loud... stop the pissing contest! You are both unbelievably tiresome. This started as an interesting thread, totally ruined by your asinine childish feud.
-
If you are in fact one of the rare people who's actually interested in what I wrote, well, I am sorry. I don't re-write things any more.
While I might well puzzle over the words of Cartier-Bresson, I hope you'll understand that if you can't be bothered expressing your thoughts more clearly then I can't be bothered puzzling over your words.
-
Isaac, no offense meant personally here, but statistically speaking from my perspective, what is going on here is this:
- I am talking to someone who doesn't care at all about what I am saying, who wants only to count coup, and who thinks I am a moron
- Thus, if I spend 10-20 minutes organizing my thoughts and writing them down carefully, you will spend 5-30 seconds skimming what I write
- Then you will nitpick some imagined contradiction or whatever
- Then you will award yourself 1 point in the imagined competition
- Finally you will see if you can get me to spend another 10-20 minutes further clarifying
This is a losing game for me, and one I cannot win. I would "win" if I was able to explain to you what I meant, but since you're not actually listening and don't care what I mean, this is actually impossible. Not actually "you" but the statistically most likely "you" in a scenario of this sort.
I am, I trust you will understand, not interested in playing.
If you are in fact one of the rare people who's actually interested in what I wrote, well, I am sorry. I don't re-write things any more. You will have to go over my remarks more carefully and attempt to puzzle out what I meant. It's all there.
Andrew,
The "Ignore This User" function works wonderfully well. "Poof!"
Regards,
Rand