HCB Appreciation

[RezaLoghme]

I found this interview excerpt, but I don't have the actual source:

“The 50mm corresponds to a certain vision and at the same time has enough depth of focus, a thing you don’t have with longer lenses. I worked with a 90mm. It cuts much of the foreground if you take a landscape, but if people are running at you, there is no depth of focus. The 35mm is splendid when needed, but extremely difficult to use if you want precision in composition. There are too many elements, and something is always in the wrong place. It is a beautiful lens at times when needed by what you see. But very often it is used by people who want to shout. Because you have distortion, you have somebody in the foreground, and it gives an effect. But I don’t like effects.”

Out of interest, I tried to find the original source. Google only brought Overgaard's (excellent) blogpost about HCB, from which you seem to have copied the slightly rephrased quote. "His" quote starts with "“The 50mm corresponds to". It is the only version starting with "The". So you seem to have copied his quote (without mentioning his website as a source).

ChatGPT helped to find the original source, where there quote starts with "It corresponds to...":

In June 2013, The New York Times published a two-part rediscovered 1971 interview between Sheila Turner-Seed and Henri Cartier-Bresson. The second part is titled “Henri Cartier-Bresson: ‘There Are No Maybes’” and includes the line you’re asking about — his explanation of why he preferred the 50 mm focal length: “It corresponds to a certain vision and at the same time has enough depth of focus…”.

Henri Cartier-Bresson: 'There Are No Maybes'

In 1971, Sheila Turner-Seed interviewed Henri Cartier-Bresson and other luminaries for a series of film strips that were lost until her daughter rediscovered them decades later.

archive.nytimes.com

 

[snusmumriken]

Don’t you feel that photo - amazing as it is - sits uncomfortably among his other work? I have always felt that. Whether that’s because it was taken with the longer lens we may never know, but personally I suspect that is the reason.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

So you seem to have copied his quote (without mentioning his website as a source).

Yes, I didn't mention his website as source since he doesn't mention his source, meaning I can't consider him a source .

As I mentioned, I do have two books of interviews of HCB at home. I remember clearly that in at least one of them he talks about using a 35mm, a 50mm and a 90mm. But since I'm not at home at this moment, I can't quote it exactly (which then would be a source).

All this said, honestly, it's not like it's information hidden in the deepest past of the dark web. That he used these three focal length is pretty common knowledge.

 

[RezaLoghme]

Yes, I didn't mention his website as source since he doesn't mention his source, meaning I can't consider him a source .

As I mentioned, I do have two books of interviews of HCB at home. I remember clearly that in at least one of them he talks about using a 35mm, a 50mm and a 90mm. But since I'm not at home at this moment, I can't quote it exactly (which then would be a source).

All this said, honestly, it's not like it's information hidden in the deepest past of the dark web. That he used these three focal length is pretty common knowledge.

Now we have the original source.

 

[nikos79]

As I mentioned, I do have two books of interviews of HCB at home. I remember clearly that in at least one of them he talks about using a 35mm, a 50mm and a 90mm. But since I'm not at home at this moment, I can't quote it exactly (which then would be a source).

I have the same book of his interviews and this is true. Here is the exact thing he said:

"My shooting technique is an instinctive reaction. Naturally, I take advantage of the possibilities of different lenses, but I don’t carry a suitcase full of them: an Elmar 50 mm, a wide-angle 35 mm, and an 85 mm—these are my tools, with, of course, the latest, the f/1.5, for night photography. I take advantage of these various depths, I open or close the shutter, or I leave a full aperture: it depends on my needs. I like my pictures to be sharp, or rather, acute . . . That being more a style than a technique. . . . Too many photographers pay more attention to technique and forget style, which is much more important. I have never run a “studio.” And when I make a portrait, I do not “pose” my subject, I observe and I press the shutter when the character surges forth."

However Alex I am not convinced this photo was taken with a 90mm. I find it difficult to tell. Wouldn't the separation of the faces in the foreground and background be less prominent?

 

[nikos79]

I have more:

"On a story, which lenses do you bring?

The two 50 mm, the 35 mm, and a 135 mm. Nearly always I work with standard lenses. For landscape, you often need a telephoto (I usually use the 135 mm) so that you can get rid of the uninteresting foreground. The depth of field of a telephoto lens is minimized for action pictures. I don’t work much with a wide-angle lens. There are so many things in the same plane that it makes it difficult to compose."

 

[nikos79]

"And the ideal lens?

The 50 mm. Not the 35 mm: it’s too big, too wide! With that, photographers all think they are Tintoretto. Even if everything is sharp, it still is a distortion. With the 50 mm, you keep a certain distance. I know, they are going to say again that I am a “classic.” I don’t care: to me, the 50 mm remains the closest thing there is to the human gaze. You can shoot everything with it—streets, landscapes, or portraits. When you have the eye of a painter and a visual grammar, you work with a 50 mm without even thinking that with a 35 mm you’d get more depth of field. Painting, drawing, photography, documentary fi lm: to me, it’s all one."

 

[nikos79]

"I would say that many pictures are not sharp—not because they are out of focus, but because even the smallest movement of the finger pressing the shutter is often enough to make a well-focused picture “unsharp.” For example, I was using the Leica Summarex 85 mm at f/15, standing with one foot on the back of a chair and the other foot just anywhere. I was not balanced. This was in India at the time Gandhi was going to break his last fast—just before he died. I got my picture, and it was blurry (shot at 1/15th of a second). But it was rather nice, I think. Harper’s Bazaar used it as a double-page spread. But blurry or not, sharp or not, a good picture is a question of proportions, of connections between black and white."

 

[RezaLoghme]

Thank you for the quotes!!!!

He was nicely provocative. Hope the "street" photographers would be offended by his disdain for 35mm lenses

 

[nikos79]

Thank you for the quotes!!!!

He was nicely provocative. Hope the "street" photographers would be offended by his disdain for 35mm lenses

You re welcome
I didn't understand what he meant:
"With that, photographers all think they are Tintoretto"

 

[nikos79]

Myself I mostly shoot with a prime 40mm. Like to think it falls easily in between.
I found 50mm not very easy, you need to be very good in composition

 

[snusmumriken]

I didn't understand what he meant:
"With that, photographers all think they are Tintoretto"

Take a look by at some Tintoretto paintings. He tended to paint large gatherings of people with a wide perspective.

 

[Arthurwg]

50 way to tight for me.

 

[GregY]

50 way to tight for me.

Me too.....

 

[nikos79]

Me too.....

you mean for the photo discussed or for yourself?

 

[Alex Benjamin]

an Elmar 50 mm, a wide-angle 35 mm, and an 85 mm—these are my tools

The two 50 mm, the 35 mm, and a 135 mm

Thanks. I wasn't sure about the 135mm, and I couldn't check.

I'm surprised about the 85mm, as my memory was telling me 90mm. I forgot Leica made an 85mm lens. I guess this would be the Summarex f/1.5.

Naturally, I take advantage of the possibilities of different lenses

Like I said: he knew his tools, how to use them and when.

However Alex I am not convinced this photo was taken with a 90mm. I find it difficult to tell. Wouldn't the separation of the faces in the foreground and background be less prominent?

I'm pretty sure it was either the 85mm, the 90mm or even the 135mm.

The compression is pretty major: the three figures on the left are almost on the same plane, and the sense of depth is given by, on the one hand, the different position of each face, and, on the other, by the fact that Cartier-Bresson's position is slightly elevated (camera looking slighly downwards), making the front mourners lower than the back ones, hence creating the image of a circle. He couldn't have done that if he had been on the same horizontal plane as the front mourner.

I may be wrong, of course, There's an easy way to find out. Get five or six friends, try shooting a similar scene with a 50mm, and see how close you have to be to the subject to recreate it — same size, same framing.

If, as I suspect — I can't do it, I only have a 35mm lens with me for the next two weeks — you do need to be pretty close, ask yourself if you would go this close shooting mourners doing a religious ceremony at a funeral. Then ask yourself if Cartier-Bresson would.

 

[cliveh]

Thanks. I wasn't sure about the 135mm, and I couldn't check.

I'm surprised about the 85mm, as my memory was telling me 90mm. I forgot Leica made an 85mm lens. I guess this would be the Summarex f/1.5.



Like I said: he knew his tools, how to use them and when.



I'm pretty sure it was either the 85mm, the 90mm or even the 135mm.

The compression is pretty major: the three figures on the left are almost on the same plane, and the sense of depth is given by, on the one hand, the different position of each face, and, on the other, by the fact that Cartier-Bresson's position is slightly elevated (camera looking slighly downwards), making the front mourners lower than the back ones, hence creating the image of a circle. He couldn't have done that if he had been on the same horizontal plane as the front mourner.

I may be wrong, of course, There's an easy way to find out. Get five or six friends, try shooting a similar scene with a 50mm, and see how close you have to be to the subject to recreate it — same size, same framing.

If, as I suspect — I can't do it, I only have a 35mm lens with me for the next two weeks — you do need to be pretty close, ask yourself if you would go this close shooting mourners doing a religious ceremony at a funeral. Then ask yourself if Cartier-Bresson would.

You are probably right about 90mm, but not 85mm or 135mm. A Leica M has frame lines for 90mm, not the others.

 

[RezaLoghme]

You are probably right about 90mm, but not 85mm or 135mm. A Leica M has frame lines for 90mm, not the others.

No 135mm frame lines on M3, M4 and M6?

 

[Pioneer]

I can certainly with preferring a 50. Whether I am shooting RF or SLR over 80 % of my photos are taken with the 50. However I will say that as I have gotten older I find that I like the 28mm view as well.

 

[nikos79]

@Alex Benjamin ok i am convinced, he couldn’t have been that close!

I really like his interviews book. It seems that for him he was photographing for the experience of life and not the other way round (living to photograph). His approach of signifying the every day life and capturing moments full of life is what I really like.

By the way check this image of an old Swiss photographer I like. Very Bressonian right? He was Yves D’Alain from the famous Montreux of the Jazz festival

 

[Don_ih]

A Leica M has frame lines for 90mm, not the others.

The universal viewfinder (seen mounted on this M) can be set for 85.

My guess is this photo (also Japan 1965):

was also taken with something longer than a 50. Perhaps also this photo (also Japan, 1965):

Unless, of course, he was standing on a stepladder somewhere in the middle of the racks of bicycles these guys are messing with.

 

[cliveh]

"And the ideal lens?

The 50 mm. Not the 35 mm: it’s too big, too wide! With that, photographers all think they are Tintoretto. Even if everything is sharp, it still is a distortion. With the 50 mm, you keep a certain distance. I know, they are going to say again that I am a “classic.” I don’t care: to me, the 50 mm remains the closest thing there is to the human gaze. You can shoot everything with it—streets, landscapes, or portraits. When you have the eye of a painter and a visual grammar, you work with a 50 mm without even thinking that with a 35 mm you’d get more depth of field. Painting, drawing, photography, documentary fi lm: to me, it’s all one."

AMEN

 

[Alex Benjamin]

"And the ideal lens?

The 50 mm. Not the 35 mm: it’s too big, too wide! With that, photographers all think they are Tintoretto. Even if everything is sharp, it still is a distortion. With the 50 mm, you keep a certain distance. I know, they are going to say again that I am a “classic.” I don’t care: to me, the 50 mm remains the closest thing there is to the human gaze. You can shoot everything with it—streets, landscapes, or portraits. When you have the eye of a painter and a visual grammar, you work with a 50 mm without even thinking that with a 35 mm you’d get more depth of field. Painting, drawing, photography, documentary fi lm: to me, it’s all one."

AMEN

Cartier-Bresson reminds me a lot of Glenn Gould. Like Gould in music, HCB's photographic brain is wired a certain soecific, unique way. Makes him see things in a way nobody else sees them, the way Gould heard things the way nobody else heard them.

Problem is when they confuse the information their brain tells them with universal truth. That's when they become the least interesting, strict and dogmatic. And sometimes downright stupid (what Gould had to say about Mozart, Beethoven or Chopin is beyond laughable).

Winogrand used a 28mm. Saul Leiter mostly used a 90mm and a 150mm. They both did great photography. As did others, who did not adhere to HCB's nonsense.

I don't get the AMEN...

 

[GregY]

you mean for the photo discussed or for yourself?

in answer to the previous post "50 way to tight for me."....Arthurwg

 

[albireo]

Cartier-Bresson reminds me a lot of Glenn Gould. Like Gould in music, HCB's photographic brain is wired a certain soecific, unique way. Makes him see things in a way nobody else sees them, the way Gould heard things the way nobody else heard them.

I seem to remember reading there is some evidence for neurodivergence (in this case autism spectrum disorder) for Gould - he was never formally diagnosed because he died well before Asperger's Syndrome was added to the DCM.

Were any similar cues available for HCB?