Can you explain why HCB chose this photo?

[MattKing]

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.

Back in the day, many SLRs designed for the advanced amateur were designed with mounted slides in mind, and with most commercial processing, including Kodachrome processing by Kodak, that meant the images on film were at least slightly cropped by the mounts.

 

[Harry Callahan]

"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."


Yes, but with a modern SLR inaccuracy starts at the edges of the image - being somewhat of a precaution. If there is a little more on the neg than you can see in the viewfinder, you won`t miss anything of your subject - and you can crop if there is too much on the neg, if you print. Slides of course is different.

But with a modern SLR it was much easier to place the fence post in the middle of the garden house or elsewhere than with a non-reflex camera showing a smaller image in the viewfinder.

 

[snusmumriken]

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.

This is a ridiculous squabble. I practised statistics professionally throughout my career. Frequency is indeed a rate: number of occurrences per something. In my post the ‘something’ was a lifetime. A wondrous number of perfectly framed photos per lifetime, despite the limitations of the viewfinder.

 

[BrianShaw]

It’s all discussion, not ridiculous squabble. The challenge of the discussion lies in the words/concepts that require value judgement and assumptions.

 

[Don_ih]

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:


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

It's not difficult unless your eyesight is bad. Don't forget that the scene will be pretty close to whatever you see when you're standing there. If you look only with the eye you're going to put to the viewfinder, you'll see what the picture will be.

As for the parallax adjustment on the viewfinders ... it's great if you can remember to change it.

 

[cliveh]

It is ridiculous to even be discussing parallax with regard to the OP photograph.

 

[Don_ih]

It is ridiculous to even be discussing parallax with regard to the OP photograph.

No, it isn't. Since the photo is in portrait and the out-of-focus fence is pretty close, parallax has some vaguely marginal almost-relevant place in this discussion.

 

[BrianShaw]

I don't know I actually like it. It looks kind of like a drawing (or painting) with the foreground plants blurry. I like the composition that seems to divide the image into 3 sections top to bottom. In fact it's the first image of HCB that I like.

The more I read this thread, the more I think my opinion of the image is changing… and coming into agreement with @Chan Tran

Whether there are 3 or 4 sections to the image, the repetition of form, the branches, throughout keep me looking again and again. Maybe it is a successful photo after all.

 

[MattKing]

I always appreciate more the photos that "grow" on me.

 

[Arthurwg]

It is quite wondrous how he managed to nail the framing so precisely and so often, given the inaccuracy of any Leica viewfinder.

Do we know for sure that the picture(s) were printed full frame? Maybe he cheated on his own standards.

 

[snusmumriken]

Do we know for sure that the picture(s) were printed full frame? Maybe he cheated on his own standards.

It would be incredibly cynical to doubt it. I can’t see why you would, without some solid reason? You may as well question whether he took all the photos himself, or whether he really used such a small camera.

 

[Don_ih]

Also, what does it even matter? He was a proponent of composing in the camera - that doesn't mean he always got it exactly right.

 

[BrianShaw]

In at least one famous photo, he cropped. Not that it matters much as cropping improved the image significantly. But it does seem to dispel the myth that he "never" cropped.

Learn Street Photography Through the Eyes of Henri Cartier-Bresson

Learn composition, understand "the decisive moment", and discover whether to crop or not from Henri Cartier-Bresson AKA 'The Godfather of Street Photography'.

www.dostreetphotography.com

This is an old discussion of the topic on another forum. I find the insights of Roger Hicks to be quite interesting. Roger was a fairly bright guy regarding photography and photographers. There are many pages to peruse...

HCB and Cropping

I picked up a book of some of his photos the other day. After some research I found out he never cropped anything. My question; Did he have a perfect level built in his head or just avoid horizons most of the time? I notice that the shots I have seen would not have been improved by cropping...

rangefinderforum.com

 

[MattKing]

If an image required cropping, there is a reasonable likelihood that HCB mostly wouldn't have considered it worth presenting.
Some of that probably came from the fact that when HCB started, 35mm film was considered to be too small to permit much cropping if one needed high quality - thus the emphasis on getting maximum benefit out of the negative.
It is actually quite striking how so many/all of his iconic images share that 3:2 aspect ratio. It is a bit like looking at the work of cinematographers, who with relatively rare exceptions, were confined to the same size of frame.

 

[snusmumriken]

In at least one famous photo, he cropped. Not that it matters much as cropping improved the image significantly. But it does seem to dispel the myth that he "never" cropped.

Learn Street Photography Through the Eyes of Henri Cartier-Bresson

Learn composition, understand "the decisive moment", and discover whether to crop or not from Henri Cartier-Bresson AKA 'The Godfather of Street Photography'.

www.dostreetphotography.com

This is an old discussion of the topic on another forum. I find the insights of Roger Hicks to be quite interesting. Roger was a fairly bright guy regarding photography. There are many pages to peruse...

HCB and Cropping

I picked up a book of some of his photos the other day. After some research I found out he never cropped anything. My question; Did he have a perfect level built in his head or just avoid horizons most of the time? I notice that the shots I have seen would not have been improved by cropping...

rangefinderforum.com

Yes, yes, we all know that. It is the exception that proves the rule. Presumably any one of us could challenge Magnum to prove that any particular photo was full-frame. The fact that so many of his exhibition prints and published photos show the film perforations due to film loading errors makes that seem unnecessary to me. Sure, that could have been a fabrication, but how likely is that?

 

[cliveh]

For us purists, we compose full frame and hope to print full frame. But it is only our general MO and not a rule. Cropping is not a sin and may sometimes be desired, or in HCB case of the puddle jumper, an absolute must, as he couldn't get all of his camera through the hole in the fence.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

18 pages and counting. Never has so much been said about such an inconsequential photograph.

 

[BrianShaw]

18 pages and counting. Never has so much been said about such an inconsequential photograph.

That’s a wonderous amount of discussion and interest. By that metric alone the image should be elevated to the “consequential” status.

 

[Pieter12]

Someone should engage a medium to ask HCB himself.

 

[BrianShaw]

Someone should engage a medium to ask HCB himself.

Seance or ouija?

 

[Pieter12]

Seance or ouija?

Whatever you can do.

 

[snusmumriken]

Triumph of the trolls, I guess.

 

[Hassasin]

Are trolls the ones who choose not to lose sleep over HCB and his self-proclaimed one-of-the-kind persona? A thread about a photo hardly anyone noticed until this started. Curiosity is free and fine, but blaming trolls, whoever they are, for hitting 18 mostly salivating pages over the greatness of HCB does not make a lot of sense. HCB hit some winners, and in his interviews he surely thinks a lot of himself. He was lucky to have come from a well off family, he had the luxury of shooting at will as he pleased, he chose to be highly selective of what he allowed public to see. It was his choice and his right, but if there is smoke, it's likely hiding something.

If HCB's photography is honestly stacked up against his contemporaries (to narrow this down to just direct "competition"), I don't see him winning all that much. It does not take away skill or vision he had. But being part of Magnum auto-promotes many images into iconic status, regardless of their actual documentary or aesthetic value. Significant part of HCB's recognition is marketing not true value. Having gone through probably all, certainly most, of his published albums, I fail to see what is being widely reported. In my opinion exceptions drive opinions of HCB, as is the case of many others, but putting all of his work into one general average ... it's ... about average.

I'm likely in a narrow minority saying above, yet to this I always have one thing to say - ANDRE KERTESZ. The man was in a different league, if entire creative life is considered.

If David Beckham were ever judged by skill, he would have never reached status he had. Is HCB a product of creative marketing before everything else?

 

[BrianShaw]

When all else fails and everyone doesn’t step in line, start name calling. A classic response. Sad. A sense of humor/humor is a terrible thing to waste.

 

[cliveh]

Are trolls the ones who choose not to lose sleep over HCB and his self-proclaimed one-of-the-kind persona? A thread about a photo hardly anyone noticed until this started. Curiosity is free and fine, but blaming trolls, whoever they are, for hitting 18 mostly salivating pages over the greatness of HCB does not make a lot of sense. HCB hit some winners, and in his interviews he surely thinks a lot of himself. He was lucky to have come from a well off family, he had the luxury of shooting at will as he pleased, he chose to be highly selective of what he allowed public to see. It was his choice and his right, but if there is smoke, it's likely hiding something.

If HCB's photography is honestly stacked up against his contemporaries (to narrow this down to just direct "competition"), I don't see him winning all that much. It does not take away skill or vision he had. But being part of Magnum auto-promotes many images into iconic status, regardless of their actual documentary or aesthetic value. Significant part of HCB's recognition is marketing not true value. Having gone through probably all, certainly most, of his published albums, I fail to see what is being widely reported. In my opinion exceptions drive opinions of HCB, as is the case of many others, but putting all of his work into one general average ... it's ... about average.

I'm likely in a narrow minority saying above, yet to this I always have one thing to say - ANDRE KERTESZ. The man was in a different league, if entire creative life is considered.

If David Beckham were ever judged by skill, he would have never reached status he had. Is HCB a product of creative marketing before everything else?

HCB does not have a self-proclaimed one-of-the-kind persona and he or magnum have never auto-promoted his images into iconic status. The general public do that. I am sorry that you are unable to recognise his talent. If you spend a lifetime taking pictures, you get quite good at it. HCB is certainly not the product of creative marketing, he just has a natural talent.