Can you explain why HCB chose this photo?

[warden]

He used top of the camera external viewfinders. Even at times with the M series.

1935 :

View attachment 386906

1957 :

60s :

Re really ought to reconsider drinking his tea right over his camera. Gives me the willies.

 

[snusmumriken]

His take on himself was " I am indeed special, I do things others are not capable of, I do master class on using a camera and composition, what I capture is iconic etc. "

Where have you got this? Can you point me to an interview or recorded conversation or piece of writing where he said something along these lines? Did he ever do masterclasses?

What he hid from public view, tons of if, was part of that deliberate projection. What he hid was precisely not to show how human he was.

Of course, that’s what everyone does.

As I’ve already said, I have no wish to beatify the man, but I think you have an unfairly negative take. (Sorry, pun not intended.)

 

[snusmumriken]

Re really ought to reconsider drinking his tea right over his camera. Gives me the willies.

I guess he had to lift the camera up and down with the cup, as the strap was wrapped around his wrist.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

His take on himself was " I am indeed special, I do things others are not capable of, I do master class on using a camera and composition, what I capture is iconic etc. ".

Actually, when one does take the time to read interviews with him — Aperture has published them, so easy to do —, what one gets is exactly the opposite of this.

 

[BrianShaw]

What @Hassasin describes is good marketing, nothing more and nothing less. Many famous people who produce product, and their agents, can be described with the same words. Less famous people either aren’t as good at their craft or not as good at marketing. It’s not a slur or insult.. it describes a business intent and method.

 

[snusmumriken]

'Wondrous' is a bit strong.

The two versions we have seen differ in ways you can see in the VF. The fence-post crosses the edge of the little building, or crosses it in the middle; you can see more or less of the diagonal strut at the left; there is or isn't half of an extra tree at the left end of the row; there is a broad or narrow stripe of empty snow at the bottom.

People are talking about Cartier-Bresson as if every element must have been deliberately positioned to the millimetre; because he was this great master. But in the moment, he was presumably satisfied with each of the versions. Seems to me some of these compositional differences just weren't that important to him; which is good - you can't usually dictate that closely to a landscape. The tree is where it is. But in any case, I don't think this can be a landscape taken for its beauty or compositional satisfaction. It's not that good in those ways. This is a photo of a significant place, taken largely to record that place, and arranged as nicely as that place allowed on the day: sometimes content is important as well as form.

It was his frequent success in composition that I described as wondrous, not this specific photo. I agree that this one doesn’t leap out as a strong image, which was the whole point of this thread. And I agree about the content. But as regards millimetre precision, he is on record as saying that the difference between a strong composition and a weak one may be a difference of millimetres in the camera position - and I think that’s absolutely right. An involuntary movement can make that difference. Or you may take a photo, and then see that a small move to the right makes a better one, so you take that too. Thankfully that nice Mr Barnack made sure we have plenty of film.

 

[BrianShaw]

It was his frequent success in composition that I described as wondrous, not this specific photo. ...

Or large body of successul and well marketed photographs.

"Frequent success" is essentially a satistical measure and we really have not much idea about the frequency of his success in terms of, say, percentage of images taken/made/shot.

 

[Pieter12]

It was his frequent success in composition that I described as wondrous, not this specific photo. I agree that this one doesn’t leap out as a strong image, which was the whole point of this thread. And I agree about the content. But as regards millimetre precision, he is on record as saying that the difference between a strong composition and a weak one may be a difference of millimetres in the camera position - and I think that’s absolutely right. An involuntary movement can make that difference. Or you may take a photo, and then see that a small move to the right makes a better one, so you take that too. Thankfully that nice Mr Barnack made sure we have plenty of film.

I find it difficult to believe that anyone can compose within millimeters with a Leica viewfinder. The lines themselves are too thick. It's all hyperbole.

 

[MattKing]

Or large body of successul and well marketed photographs.

"Frequent success" is essentially a satistical measure and we really have not much idea about the frequency of his success in terms of, say, percentage of images taken/made/shot.

I'm not sure that "frequent" is a statistical measure.
"consistent" might be.
But even if the descriptor of HCB's successes is merely "a whole bunch", it still is resonates.

 

[BrianShaw]

I'm not sure that "frequent" is a statistical measure.
"consistent" might be.
But even if the descriptor of HCB's successes is merely "a whole bunch", it still is resonates.

No disagreement about the resonation.

But... even simple count is a "simple" statistical measure:

Frequency (statistics) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Consistency is something altogether different:

Consistency (statistics) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[MattKing]

I don't think we have the data to analyze HCB's successes "statistically" - for that you need numbers, not descriptors of quality such as "frequent" or even "consistent".

 

[BrianShaw]

I don't think we have the data to analyze HCB's successes "statistically" - for that you need numbers, not descriptors of quality such as "frequent" or even "consistent".

We vehemently agree, except on the term "frequent/frequency". (Having graduate-level statistical background possibly makes me a bit literal on that topic. LOL) That's why I mentioned in Post #407 that his "large body of successful and well marketed photographs" is what is "wonderous" rather than "frequent successes", whatever that means.

EDIT: Getting back to the question of this thread, it seems that we don't even have the data (or information; there is a difference) to determine if the photograph in question is successfull or not. All we know is that it has been shown and reproduced in books. That fact alone makes me feel that it is successful using some metric of success. And then we have our personal opinions of if its succesful to us individually...

 

[MattKing]

Perhaps the difference comes from the distinction between "frequent", and "frequency".
No graduate level statistics here, but even under-graduate (math/physics) efforts gave me a sense of the specificity that statistical analysis demands - usually.
With HCB, I wonder how much our impression of "frequent/frequency" comes from the distortion imposed by when his work was made available to the world, in contra-distinction with when it was actually created.
The book that brought rise to this thread is in the nature of a retrospective, as was the HCB gallery show I enjoyed a few years ago. That sort of effort tends to compress our sense of time, and increase our sense of "frequent".

 

[Don_ih]

I think statistical analysis is not necessary (I actually think it's totally pointless and meaningless) when it comes to judging the success of Cartier-Bresson's photography. The photo that provides the topic of this thread is an anomaly. It it a strange example of a pretty lousy composition.

Most photographers that are well known are known more or less on the basis of a few good photos.

Cartier Bresson took many many good photos. Just go look at them.

When it comes to creativity, the number of attempts is irrelevant. Only the successes count.

 

[BrianShaw]

Perhaps the difference comes from the distinction between "frequent", and "frequency".
No graduate level statistics here, but even under-graduate (math/physics) efforts gave me a sense of the specificity that statistical analysis demands - usually.
With HCB, I wonder how much our impression of "frequent/frequency" comes from the distortion imposed by when his work was made available to the world, in contra-distinction with when it was actually created.
The book that brought rise to this thread is in the nature of a retrospective, as was the HCB gallery show I enjoyed a few years ago. That sort of effort tends to compress our sense of time, and increase our sense of "frequent".

Probably a lot. But if you want to spend the evening mincing words, I'd challenge the word "distortion". To know distortion there must be a measure and metric. How aboput substituting hte word "difference"?

The statistical discussion is not the point that was being made, by me at least...

 

[Don_ih]

How frequently he hit the mark, how many good photos out of attempts - it's all meaningless. He could see what would be a good photograph, if done correctly. Very few people can.

 

[BrianShaw]

I think statistical analysis is not necessary (I actually think it's totally pointless and meaningless) when it comes to judging the success of Cartier-Bresson's photography. The photo that provides the topic of this thread is an anomaly. It it a strange example of a pretty lousy composition.

Most photographers that are well known are known more or less on the basis of a few good photos.

Cartier Bresson took many many good photos. Just go look at them.

When it comes to creativity, the number of attempts is irrelevant. Only the successes count.

Yes, but how do we know "success"? I'd say that shown and published is one metric. Much better measure of success than a self-declaration, or a critics judgement (although that could mean a lot in and of itself).

 

[Don_ih]

how do we know "success"?

Use your eyes and your own judgment.

 

[BrianShaw]

Use your eyes and your own judgment.

// JOB

I dislike that image. It is not visually pleasing. It is not successful.

//

 

[Don_ih]

Okay. I dislike that image. It is not visually pleasing. It is not successful.

Exactly. So why are you talking about it?

 

[BrianShaw]

Exactly. So why are you talking about it?

Liking something is not the only basis for critical analysis. I thought you knew that.

EDIT: I'm actually not talking; I'm writing about it... because I find the discussion interesting.

 

[Don_ih]

You didn't conclude it was not successful due to not liking it. You stated it was not successful. There was no "ergo".

Critical analysis, if you want to get into it, has absolutely nothing to do with statistics. It has only to do with the work in question, within the context of other related works (including work produced by its creator). It has nothing to do with work produced by its creator that is not available for consumption by any audience.

"Liking something" is actually not relevant to critical analysis at all.

 

[BrianShaw]

You didn't conclude it was not successful due to not liking it. You stated it was not successful. There was no "ergo".

Critical analysis, if you want to get into it, has absolutely nothing to do with statistics. It has only to do with the work in question, within the context of other related works (including work produced by its creator). It has nothing to do with work produced by its creator that is not available for consumption by any audience.

"Liking something" is actually not relevant to critical analysis at all.

Correct, and nobody said it did. Statistics was only mentioned as related to the term "frequent successes" in an earlier post (407).

 

[Harry Callahan]

What inaccuracy? The viewing lens is slightly to the side of the centre of the camera - mainly because the rangefinder cam is in the way. And, the greater the distance to your subject, the less discrepancy between what you see and what the viewfinder sees. The distance between one of your eyes and the other is greater than the distance between the centre-line of the lens and the viewfinder - which is about 5/16".

Yes, but the garden house must have been pretty small in the viewfinder which again makes it harder to properly place the fence post. This is why i also referred to a reflex finder, there everything would be bigger and better visible. An offset viewfinder then adds to the problem a bit.
But:

He used top of the camera external viewfinders. Even at times with the M series.

1935 :

View attachment 386906

1957 :

60s :

Such on-top-viewfinders often have parallax-correction, making it a bit easier again.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Most 35mm SLRs don;t show 100% of the view in the viewfinder unless you are using an expensive pro camera. Most are let;s say around 90-95%. So you can't see the edges of the photograph until you process the film. Also, the size varies. So while SLR's are better than a typical Leica viewfinder and you don't have to deal with parallax, it's still not an exact science.