HCB Appreciation

[nikos79]

Or how about our native ISO?

 

[nikos79]

As for our native resolution I remember reading somewhere it is above 100 MP

 

[nikos79]

I think I got some first numbers after searching a bit (they might be wrong)
Focal Lens: 43mm
Aperture: f2.1-f8 (mostly between f2.1-f3.8)
ISO: 1 (!) - 800,000 (mostly during the day between 100-1000)

So HCB better have done some modifications to his Leica

 

[koraks]

(they might be wrong)

They're meaningless for the most part since human vision is only a small part optics; all of what you see is ultimately heavily post-processed in the visual cortex.

Better figures would be:
Focal length: arbitrary zoom
Aperture: lots
ISO: whateverz

 

[nikos79]

They're meaningless for the most part since human vision is only a small part optics; all of what you see is ultimately heavily post-processed in the visual cortex.

Better figures would be:
Focal length: arbitrary zoom
Aperture: lots
ISO: whateverz

Sure these estimates were oversimplified and approximated used mostly as a funny analogy
But in an essence there is some science behind them

 

[Alex Benjamin]

The idea that a 50mm lens corresponds to human vision is a myth that has become reality only by being endlessly repeated.

In the real world, the eye is a combination of a wide-angle lens and a pretty powerful telephoto lens — a combination impossible to recreate in a camera lens.

If memory serves, there's a passage in one of Barry Thornton's books in which he demonstrates this very convincingly. But just a tiny bit of research on the web will also point to the same facts.

 

[nikos79]

The idea that a 50mm lens corresponds to human vision is a myth that has become reality only by being endlessly repeated.

In the real world, the eye is a combination of a wide-angle lens and a pretty powerful telephoto lens — a combination impossible to recreate in a camera lens.

If memory serves, there's a passage in one of Barry Thornton's books in which he demonstrates this very convincingly. But just a tiny bit of research on the web will also point to the same facts.

Indeed according to ChatGPT:

In practice, your experienced visual field isn’t fixed at any focal length — it behaves like:

• A wide angle for context
• A telephoto for detail
• And an infinite variety in between, depending on attention

No physical camera lens can do that automatically and simultaneously.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

One of the biggest differences between photos and sight is that we see in 3D while a photo is 2D. That loss reduces the awe we can experience but can't capture in a photo. Anyone who's photographed Inspiration Point in Yosemite or the Grand Canyon has experienced this.

 

[snusmumriken]

I can’t help feeling this discussion is over-complicating a simple matter. Human vision is a flexible phenomenon, and the field of view we are conscious of, and our visual acuity, depend on how much we concentrate on a central subject. HCB wasn’t concentrating solely on a central subject, he liked to make compositions within a frame. And as he more or less explained - see quote in post #1208 - he found it easiest to contrive the kind of composition that satisfied him within the field of view of a 50mm, given wider or longer lens options. He found that with a 50, he could exise the elements that interested him from surrounding distractions, and without a feeling of tunnel vision. Some of us find the same. It isn’t necessary to suppose that his vision was different from anyone else’s, or that his head was wired up differently.

 

[cliveh]

Perhaps HCB was more interested in simplicity of image capture, rather than the complexity of camera optical functions.

 

[nikos79]

there is also another thing:
50mm is the more discreet or neutral lens. It doesn’t overwhelm with its form. I have the feeling HCB preferred things simple, no contrast exaggeration or dark room manipulations and the choice of a 50mm supports this philosophy

 

[Don_ih]

How about we get back to photos?

Srinagar, Kashmir, 1948

 

[cliveh]

How about we get back to photos?

View attachment 416941
Srinagar, Kashmir, 1948

The version in the Family of Man book is not as good as this and I think he took several images with this being his best choice. Look how he has chosen the angle where the background floats neatly above the head of the woman with her hands offering the view before her and the timing of the figure on the left looking at her. This together with the balance of the three figures in the right of the composition. Also the soft tonal graduations with no black to enhance the delicacy of the image.

 

[snusmumriken]

Here’s another HCB photo that exists in more than one version. We discussed the better-known version earlier in this giant thread. I found this image from a previous print sale on mutualart.com

 

[Don_ih]

Here’s another HCB photo that exists in more than one version.

Maybe the same setting but not the same photo. The contact sheet shows he took numerous photos right there with those kids. Each one is a different photos.

Are you sure this isn't the one that was already posted? It's the one you usually see.

 

[snusmumriken]

OK, it's a different negative, obviously, but the same subject. This is the one I usually see.

 

[cliveh]

OK, it's a different negative, obviously, but the same subject. This is the one I usually see.

View attachment 417055

I could be wrong, but I would bet this was one of the first he took in this sequence. Once they notice him their activity is more muted.

 

[Elmarc]

16 frames in total but these are single negatives contacted so the true sequence is not necessarily as is.

 

[Don_ih]

16 frames in total but these look like single frames made into a contact sheet so the true sequence is not necessarily as is.

And he could've shot an entire roll. Who knows what that "contact sheet" even is.

 

[Don_ih]

@snusmumriken , you may remember the thread about the photo of trees that you started, two different photos were posted and confused for one another.

 

[cliveh]

I don't know why he took all those other shots, he must have realised he already had the keeper, or perhaps not.

 

[Elmarc]

And he could've shot an entire roll. Who knows what that "contact sheet" even is.

Around 1940 HCB cut all his 'keepers' into single frames (I think they amounted to almost 1500) and destroyed all the remainders. At some point much later, these single negatives were contacted.

 

[Don_ih]

Around 1940 HCB cut all his 'keepers' into single frames

Pretty easy to tell he wasn't a darkroom guy. There's no better way to ensure a negative gets scratched and dirty than cut it out of its strip.

 

[snusmumriken]

@snusmumriken , you may remember the thread about the photo of trees that you started, two different photos were posted and confused for one another.

Oh yes! And it was you spotted the difference.

I guess we could quite likely make a small industry of these comparisons, but I'm beginning to feel it isn't kind to his memory. Some of the discrepancies may just be due to Magnum staff getting the wrong negative. Some may be due to HCB changing his mind. There is even this one, which exists in laterally flipped versions:

I have a hazy memory of reading or hearing somewhere - or did I dream it? - that the photo was taken in a mirror, which made the writing puzzling for the viewer, as in this signed print (also from mutualart.com). IIRC, HCB was later persuaded that it made sense to flip this one image, and that doing so would not violate his artistic intregrity. In The Europeans, the image is printed with the barber on the right and the lettering readable left to right.

On second thoughts, I rather regret making these comparisons. They are fascinating in a way, but they distract unnecessarily from appreciation of HCB. So let me point out the quickness of mind and hand required to recognise and capture this barber shot, and to get it straight too. It's a total marvel.

 

[nikos79]

Personally I wouldn’t care that much about how a photo was taken. He might have taken it by pressing the shutter by mistake or he might have waited for a whole month for it to happen as he wanted.
But by him choosing it, he makes a statement, that this photo fits into his artistic vision and that is the most important thing for me, suddenly the photo becomes valuable as a window or piece to his oeuvre