Re really ought to reconsider drinking his tea right over his camera. Gives me the willies.
He used top of the camera external viewfinders. Even at times with the M series.
1935 :
View attachment 386906
1957 :
60s :
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?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. "
Of course, that’s what everyone does.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.
Re really ought to reconsider drinking his tea right over his camera. Gives me the willies.
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. ".
'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. ...
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.
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.
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".
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".
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.
how do we know "success"?
Use your eyes and your own judgment.
Okay. I dislike that image. It is not visually pleasing. It is not successful.
Exactly. So why are you talking about it?
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.
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".
He used top of the camera external viewfinders. Even at times with the M series.
1935 :
View attachment 386906
1957 :
60s :
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?