Can you explain why HCB chose this photo?

[Arthurwg]

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.

It's not my opinion, just trying to suggest a possible reason the two different compositions. It certainly doesn't matter to me.

 

[Don_ih]

It's not my opinion, just trying to suggest a possible reason the two different compositions. It certainly doesn't matter to me.

The two different compositions result from the same source they always result from for anyone: I don't know if I like it better this way or that, I'll decide later. It's not really a mystery. It's just weird that both compositions were published.

As for the idea that his photos are regarded highly due to promotion: consider the fact that you can promote a piece of dog feces as the next great chocolate bar but no one is going to eat it. His photos could be promoted because they were good, not the other way around.

 

[Harry Callahan]

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.

Yes, that`s true. But it may be possible that you still have to compensate for a non-reflex viewfinder, as the camera lens will be offset to your eye. The on-top-viewfinder will look at a slightly different angle at the scene, unless it is set at infinity - but then it is even more offset than the internal non-reflex viewfinder.

 

[Pieter12]

Yes, that`s true. But it may be possible that you still have to compensate for a non-reflex viewfinder, as the camera lens will be offset to your eye. The on-top-viewfinder will look at a slightly different angle at the scene, unless it is set at infinity - but then it is even more offset than the internal non-reflex viewfinder.

I don't think parallax is a factor at the distance of the photo in question.

 

[Harry Callahan]

Yes, but camera-lens-offset to viewfinder could be.

 

[Harry Callahan]

I mean there is a similar effect as with a stereoscopic camera. Both lenses are pretty close to each other, still viewing angle is different, and overlay of branches in the foreground and houses in the background will differ between the right and the left stereoscopic picture.
If you use a non-reflex camera, the viewfinder will show a little different overlay of post and house than the camera lens will record - and an on-top-viewfinder will show an even bigger difference in overlay of foreground and background.

To compensate you had to look with your eye only, put the camera to your head and then move your head accordingly to compensate the camera lens being offset to the non-reflex viewfinder.
The further distant your subject is, the less it will mater but i was surprised how well the fence post is placed into the middle of the garden house in the recent picture - and the fence post is pretty close to the camera.

Offset of an on-top-viewfinder may be problematic here - even if the on-top-viewfinder does have proper parallax-compensation adjusted. Proper parallax compensation will show you what part of your subject will be on the neg, but it cannot show you if the fence post is in the middle of the garden house, because the non-reflex-viewfinder will look at the subject from a different angle than the camera lens.
This picture here is upright format, meaning the viewfinder was to the left or right of the taking lens, depending on how HCB did hold the camera.
If this picture was horizontal format, a non-reflex-viewfinder, on-top-viewfinder with or without proper parallax compensation wouldn`t matter - assuming the non-reflex-viewfinder is right above the taking lens (which it apparently isn`t with an old Leica, but some other cameras do, like a LF camera with on-top-viewfinder for example) - it wouldn`t be a problem to place the fence post.

But with upright format, a fence post closer to the camera and an on-top-viewfinder this should become problematic, whether parallax compensation is properly adjusted or not.

 

[Don_ih]

@Harry Callahan , I refrained from any further comment until I went out and tested it. The negatives are drying. I took photos of near fenceposts, attempting to line them up with distant utility poles. I used a Leica IIIa and with the viewfinder and an auxiliary finder. I took about eight photos or so.

Nothing lined up how I wanted it to.

The negatives are drying. If there's anything worth showing, I'll post a photo.

 

[snusmumriken]

@Harry Callahan , I refrained from any further comment until I went out and tested it. The negatives are drying. I took photos of near fenceposts, attempting to line them up with distant utility poles. I used a Leica IIIa and with the viewfinder and an auxiliary finder. I took about eight photos or so.

Nothing lined up how I wanted it to.

The negatives are drying. If there's anything worth showing, I'll post a photo.

I’m impressed by your scientific spirit! So @Harry Callahan was right? It wasn’t an easy idea to pursue with an early Leica, and the existence of two negatives is therefore readily excused. (I would probably have taken several for insurance even if using an SLR).

 

[cliveh]

If HCB was able to view this thread, I think he would wonder WTF is going on.

 

[snusmumriken]

If HCB was able to view this thread, I think he would wonder WTF is going on.

I think he’d open his eyes really wide like he did in interviews, and mumble “It is strange, a mystère”.

 

[Don_ih]

So @Harry Callahan was right?

Yes.

This is about as close as I got, and it was using the viewfinder:

(It's overdeveloped fp4. I used the time I use for fp4+ but this film is from a bulk roll of fp4 and I forgot how long it should have developed for - probably a minute less).

In the viewfinder, the electrical pole in the distance (there's a baseball field between the fence and that pole) was in line with the centre of the fence post. I was about 8 feet away from the fence.

If HCB was able to view this thread, I think he would wonder WTF is going on.

I imagine you're somewhat correct - but I think it's more likely he'd find it all hilariously stupid.

 

[MattKing]

If HCB was able to view this thread, I think he would wonder WTF is going on.

Well, considering that he is dead, I should hope so!
Talk about a "Decisive Moment"!

 

[BrianShaw]

@Harry Callahan , I refrained from any further comment until I went out and tested it. The negatives are drying. I took photos of near fenceposts, attempting to line them up with distant utility poles. I used a Leica IIIa and with the viewfinder and an auxiliary finder. I took about eight photos or so.

Nothing lined up how I wanted it to.

The negatives are drying. If there's anything worth showing, I'll post a photo.

Hi Don. What a great demonstration. A couple of questions, though. What focal length lens did you use, and how far was that near pole? I read somewhere that HCB tended to use 80mm (or so) lens for landscapes. Would this potentially impact your findings? Please don’t misunderstand my question; it’s not to throw a monkey wrench or insult your effort.

 

[Harry Callahan]

@Don_ih, thank you very much for testing. I don`t own any Leica and a camera system being similar to test this... i don`t know.
But i looked with my eyes at objects being like 15ft away, having another object behind like 50ft away. Moving my head left and right about an inch showed recognizable shift in overlay of both objects - so i was pretty sure that i`m right.
Your test is a bit more extreme than the kitchen garden picture. Your fence post likely is closer to the camera and the electrical pole is further away than the garden house.
Therefore the kitchen garden picture should have been a bit easier to take - still you had to compensate for the viewfinder being offset.
I have been thinking about this: You had to look at the subject with one eye only and compose, then put the camera to the eye and move your head - depending how you hold the camera - to the right or left, just the distance that is between the taking lens and the viewfinder to compensate. Then you no longer can see the line-up in the viewfinder, but the taking lens will capture it.

If HCB was able to view this thread, I think he would wonder WTF is going on.

I think he’d open his eyes really wide like he did in interviews, and mumble “It is strange, a mystère”.

Or he said something like:

"Finally you SLR-spoiled kids realize how hard it was to get these compositions right."

But as i know nothing about him, i probably am wrong on this one. And the question also is what happens to the line up if you use an 80mm lens...

 

[Don_ih]

80mm (or so) lens for landscapes. Would this potentially impact your findings?

It might be a bit easier to line things up with a 90mm lens (not sure where he'd get an 80mm lens for a Leica? Was there an 80mm Hektor?), since you'd be farther away from the near object. But the offset would still exist.

I have been thinking about this: You had to look at the subject with one eye only and compose, then put the camera to the eye and move your head - depending how you hold the camera - to the right or left, just the distance that is between the taking lens and the viewfinder to compensate.

In practice, I think that is almost impossible.

Say in my picture: I wanted the post in the middle. But if I shift to the side, it's not in the middle. If I angle the camera to move it to the middle, the far pole won't line up. There's some almost unknowable spot where the post is in the middle and the pole lines up with it. I could only really know that if I looked through the lens ---

or that's my current take on it.

 

[Harry Callahan]

I`m not an expert on optics and i really had to think about this... but i have the feeling that it would be even harder with a longer focal lens.
Oh, i assumed you only wanted to line up the post and the pole - but wanting both in the middle makes it even harder with a non-reflex.

There was something for non-reflex movie cameras called "rack-over" or "rackover".
The camera is mounted on a plate enabling it to slide left and right. The distance is limited to the offset between non-reflex finder and taking lens.

Before the shot you slide the camera to the right (the right you have when standing behind the camera), look through the viewfinder and check the framing and possible line up, then slide the camera back to the left and shoot.
When shooting you no longer can check framing or line up, but before you can make sure about both.

That`s about how HCB must have made it, but without this rack-over-mechanism.

He must have looked at the subject with one eye, composing and lining up, holding the camera to his head and then move the head accordingly to compensate viewfinder-offset - assuming that a longer focal lens won`t help on this problem.

 

[BrianShaw]

With all of that thinking, planning, and manipulation it’s a wonder that he got any pictures at all. What if he just looked through the viewfinder and quickly thought “interesting”… then snapped a picture. We might be overthinking his photographic genius.

 

[Harry Callahan]

"With all of that thinking, planning, and manipulation it’s a wonder that he got any pictures at all. What if he just looked through the viewfinder and quickly thought “interesting”… then snapped a picture. We might be overthinking his photographic genius."



Yes, one picture with a certain line-up may be coincidence. But here we have two, one with the fence post right between garden house and black wall - and one with the fence post in the middle of the garden house.
Both line-ups make some sense and apparently HCB did not take just one picture.

I think in the interview i read he said something like "people don`t take enough time, people don`t look enough".
Therefore i assume these line-ups to be by intention - respectively the publication of these two pictures.

But probably we`ll never know for sure, as HCB apparently didn`t wanted to talk about his pictures.

 

[Don_ih]

With all of that thinking, planning, and manipulation it’s a wonder that he got any pictures at all.

Well, I was just investigating the difficulty of lining things up. Maybe if you held a Leica the way Dennis Stock did, you'd always get things lined up.

 

[Arthurwg]

We might be overthinking his photographic genius.

That must be an understatement.

 

[snusmumriken]

With all of that thinking, planning, and manipulation it’s a wonder that he got any pictures at all. What if he just looked through the viewfinder and quickly thought “interesting”… then snapped a picture. We might be overthinking his photographic genius.

I agree. And then several things follow. First, he thought this one "interesting" enough to include for show in at least two selections; second, it's inherent in the 35mm approach that one can afford to take extra variants in the hope that one turns out as you intended; and third, one doesn't have to show the ones that didn't work out.

 

[cliveh]

I agree. And then several things follow. First, he thought this one "interesting" enough to include for show in at least two selections; second, it's inherent in the 35mm approach that one can afford to take extra variants in the hope that one turns out as you intended; and third, one doesn't have to show the ones that didn't work out.

In terms of taking extra variants, I understand when younger and learning his craft, he took many more images to define his timing (puddle jumper prime example), but later in life he was more discerning and certainly not a spray and prey specialist as many digital photographers are. many of his images are the result of 2 or 3 variants.

 

[Harry Callahan]

Well, I was just investigating the difficulty of lining things up. Maybe if you held a Leica the way Dennis Stock did, you'd always get things lined up.

View attachment 387204

If you compose/line up with your right eye first, this could work.