How can I talk about the original? I never saw it. I was looking at the one posted by the OP. There's no way for me to know that it was a poorly copied version. If the original looked like that, it should not have made it into the book.
Can you explain why HCB chose this photo?
-
A
- Thread starter snusmumriken
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
Want to Buy For parts/broken nikon bodies and lenses
- Started by Gram Nylén
-
For Sale FS: Beseler Printmaker 35 condenser head, Beseler 50mm lens and other parts
- Started by dirkfletcher
-
Sold FS: (broken) Horseman 6x12 Back
- Started by dirkfletcher
-
For Sale FS: Tamron 150mm f/6.3 Lens
- Started by B.S.Kumar
-
Sold SOLD!
- Started by B.S.Kumar
Forum statistics
How can I talk about the original? I never saw it. I was looking at the one posted by the OP. There's no way for me to know that it was a poorly copied version. If the original looked like that, it should not have made it into the book.
So what did you mean by it "shouldn't have been include in the book"? You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but maybe you could clarify what it is based on. I think a bit of critical thinking would have indicated the image posted was not the original, but a mediocre copy at that.
Yeeeees, but my mud is... erm - thinking - ... much "muddier" than yours - ha.
The first picture has more composition, because of the camera angle and the crop. The black wall and the small fence on the left do form a vanishing point which is pretty much in the middle of the picture, while in the recent picture this vanishing point no longer is in the middle (the fence post is in the middle of the garden house though) - therefore the first picture is more structurized/centralized...
... and it seems that HCB did chose this one. At least in this 79 exhibition.
In the end it does show that he also tried several things, carefully. This (these) is not a snapshot.
OP
OP
He also chose or approved the photos for both editions of The Europeans, where the second version figures. And I’m willing to bet that it features again in the Paysages book that @Alex Benjamin mentioned earlier in this thread.
Last edited:
OP
OP
Perhaps. Or maybe the preferred negative was lost or damaged.
You're beating a dead horse. Have a nice day.
One of those might not be a leg…
This is a topic where people will have minor disagreements and not be able to conclude much, anyway. There's value in the discussion. Some very interesting things have been said. But it wasn't ever going to go anywhere.
The horse was DOA. A bunch of armchair critics judging a poor snapshot of what may be a marginal photograph without seeing it reproduced in the book cited, in context, in sequence or any attempt to do so.
OP
OP
Why am I suddenly thinking of Statler and Waldorf?
I see. Maybe he changed his mind about image section and composition in 79...
... anyway i am starting to wonder how good you can see whether the fence post is in the middle of the garden house - or right between the black wall and the garden house - looking through the viewfinder of an old Leica camera.
Seems like the Leica G did not have a reflex finder , the finder is not right above the lens but offset and did this camera have parallax correction?
These pictures must have been pretty hard to shoot.
That photo would have been a Leica IIIC at the latest. From that distance, the scene would have looked almost the same in the viewfinder as in the photo. The difference between the two photos is actually just a jump to the left - he maintained the relationship between the horizontal and vertical lines. It's possible he took more shots, stepping along that side of the fence. I think the most interesting thing to see in this instance would have been the sequence of shots he took.
That photo would have been easy to take with that camera.
I don`t quite understand, do you mean he did use a IIIC - or that the IIIC was the latest model by Leica in 44?
I mean the latest model was the IIIc (from 1940). He could just as easily have been using a IIIa or IIIb - all those cameras take the same photos. Well, straight up through IIIg, all the cameras give the same results.
OP
OP
It is quite wondrous how he managed to nail the framing so precisely and so often, given the inaccuracy of any Leica viewfinder.
I see. My point is that it should be hard with such a non-reflex, non-parallel-to-the-lens (maybe non-parrallax-corrected?) and rather small viewfinder to precisely put the fence-post in the middle of the garden house - or right between the black wall and the garden house. Yes, camera only needs to move a few inches, but to check this in the viewfinder of an old Leica must have been hard.
My point.
Maybe that`s also a reason for there being at least two pictures of this subject - maybe he just had to guess framing - and maybe that`s also a reason why he didn`t wanted to show too many contact sheets as these also contained "missed" shots because of this viewfinder-problem?
Last edited:
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".
OP
OP
I agree that for the subject distance in this photo, the viewfinder would have been a reasonable guide to what appeared on the negative. All the same, it’s a small viewfinder image, and any sensible person would take several shots for insurance.
What I meant in my post #393 was more to do with what was in and what was out at the edges of the frame. HCB (almost) never allowed his photos to be cropped, yet they very often fit exquisitely in the frame. Besides the parallax shift, the viewfinder shows slightly more of the subject at closer range than will apppear on the negative.
I presume the viewfinder of Barnacks is optimised for infinity? On the parallax-corrected M3 the framelines are optimised for infinity, on the M6 they are optimised for close subjects. I don’t know about other models, but I know they all compromise one way or the other.
I assume that HCB overcame these problems by familiarity and judgement, but to say that doesn’t make it any less wondrous.
'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.
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.
He used top of the camera external viewfinders. Even at times with the M series.
1935 :
1957 :
60s :
1935 :
1957 :
60s :
Posting the photo for discussion, like you did, would be considered fair use.For the record, I wasn’t sure about the copyright situation. I don’t want a nasty letter from the lawyers acting for Magnum. I reasoned that a photo of a page from the book might be forgivable. Reproduction quality varies hugely between the 1980 book, the 1997 re-issued The Europeans and the various versions viewable online, but there’s no getting away from the fact that technically both negatives lack that “bourgeois thing”, sharpness.
If I may: HCB was indeed a human, except that's not how he portrayed himself in the public eye. 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. ". 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.
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |