Has anyone, including Clive who introduced the pertinent post, explained how HCB was able to have 32 shots of the same man jumping the same puddle unless he got the same man to do it 32 times?
I suppose that if the man was passing that puddle 32 times in a matter of hours then unprompted he might have had to jump it 32 times so HCB just had to stay there long enough to take 32 shots and there was no collusion between HCB and the man. Having just given a possible explanation of how this came about without any "construction" I can't help but feel this is somehow stretching reality
So, someone please remove the uncertainty about how the 32 shots were taken.
pentaxuser
Your friend might remember incorectly:
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/be/95/c9/be95c9b17b26cf1b486972e8b8246bb3.jpg
.. and did HCB crop the hell out of the negative? Yes. And who cares, really..
Video itself is interesting, but anybody noticed how Pete puts words in HCB's mouth? I wish I spoke French and similar interview was shown, so HCB could try to do better. And what is the purpose of posting this video? It is well known that HCB was very critical of his own work and did not allow most frames to be shown because ... they were NOT the ones he seems to be saying they all were.
If one wants to take this interview as an indicator of success shooting rate of HCB, then perhaps another view of same video might help alter that impression. No doubt HCB was an artist and had an eye he used to create images. It helped him create what he left to the rest of us. He was also not dumb, knew what self promotion means, and that is basically what I get from it. Again, clear language barrier does help evaluating it, nor did I expect him telling Pete how many bad frames he shot.
I need to look something up and I do not think it was in MoMA book. The story is quite different on his negatives, he had thousands that he did not allow to be published, and he was so critical and controlling, not so many of all taken have been shown to public. This can be spun in different ways, but street photography is like no other genres.Apparently at one point in his life he cut out all the good negatives from his collection and threw away all the rest because he wanted to store them in a single shoe box. He later regretted that as he didn't leave any extra film on the sides which made it very difficult to print. He also destroyed all his paintings before he took up photography seriously.
I don't recall reading anywhere that decisive moment meant taking a single shot. What he did was situate himself in position for a composition he liked, raised his camera and waited for something to happen that added a "moment" component to his composition. He didn't go crazy with shooting (like I would have armed with a DSLR) but did take a few to get that iconic one that we might see.
Great video in his own words (check around 7:00 min where he talks about "decisive moment" and number of shots):
Video itself is interesting, but anybody noticed how Pete puts words in HCB's mouth? I wish I spoke French and similar interview was shown, so HCB could try to do better. And what is the purpose of posting this video? It is well known that HCB was very critical of his own work and did not allow most frames to be shown because ... they were NOT the ones he seems to be saying they all were.
If one wants to take this interview as an indicator of success shooting rate of HCB, then perhaps another view of same video might help alter that impression. No doubt HCB was an artist and had an eye he used to create images. It helped him create what he left to the rest of us. He was also not dumb, knew what self promotion means, and that is basically what I get from it. Again, clear language barrier does help evaluating it, nor did I expect him telling Pete how many bad frames he shot.
Good think you brought up Fan Ho. He shows great compositions each and every time. Can't call any perfect because at that point it is beyond a subjective opinion, but his photographs are striking. Many, one would think, could have been framed and composed in camera without need for later cropping, yet some aspect ratios clearly show he did crop even if he never admitted it. But end result strikes the viewer and leaves long lasting impression, which is what matters most.I think we confuse two different things when thinking of decisive moment:
What I believe it is not: some precious moment, taken by ninja photography skills and by only by skills, not by luck in any ways.
What I think it means: a moment that only happened once, never happened before and will never happen again. (quote from Constantine Manos, altough he calls it "magic moment") - No matter if it was a pure luck, no matter was it cropped (Fan Ho too says "he likes to crop").
yet some aspect ratios clearly show he did crop even if he never admitted i
Yes, but when aspiring photographers meet the accomplished, they ask because that is part of their learning process. And the new usually appreciate the elders when they choose to share. I didn't mean one needs to amplify his process all over the place, but when they speak about their technique it frequently is an eye opener to the up and coming.It is not about admitting, it is just that not everything needs to be described. I prefer artists who don't explain things. Erwitt said something like that the purpose of photograph is just that you don't need to explain by words.
In the interview video few posts back Fan Ho talks about one picture which he cropped to totally different subject from the frame than he was shooting the frame.
Sometimes it is just a fact. And sometimes people brag about their cropping (or lack of cropping)....Telling the world "I compose in camera and never crop" is more of a show off than a true master.
Oh Wow...... imagine if the ships had cooperated as well.!Here is for a "decisive moment"
Just a pity that you did not clear this up about 6 weeks ago when you first mentioned 32 shots of the puddle jumper and not a puddle jumper which led me to think that it was the same personI did not say it was 32 shots of the same man.
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?