• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

HCB Appreciation

Latest Gallery

Street photo Nashville

A
Street photo Nashville

  • 2
  • 0
  • 54
Rome

H
Rome

  • 2
  • 2
  • 67

Recent Classifieds

Forum statistics

Threads
202,547
Messages
2,842,176
Members
101,375
Latest member
JoannaG
Recent bookmarks
0
nikos79 said:
Not a joke at all, I really believe this photo would be better without the "blurred" bike that works more as an effect
Click to expand...
Okay, I see. I can't say I understand it as such, because in my view, what remains if you take out the cyclist is a more lifeless arrangement of forms that doesn't hold my attention very long. I also feel that the blank spot that results from the removal doesn't balance well with the rest of the composition. But perhaps this is because I'm so accustomed to the original image that it'll always feel there's something missing if it's removed; it's difficult to 'unsee' the image as I know it. Even so, I suspect that the unbalance resulting from removal is inherent, not just a result of my conditioning to this particular image.
 
Don_ih said:
His decisions in making the print everyone gets to see are irrelevant to the people looking at those finished prints. Why? Because the viewer is not privy to the alternatives. The viewer is presented the result of all the choices made by the photographer and is not involved in the decision-making process. Appreciating his methods and ideology is swell, but it doesn't improve a particular photo. You don't have to like all his photos to appreciate his skill and methodology - just like you don't have to care about his skill and methodology in order to like one of his photos.
Click to expand...

HCB insisted that the edge of the entire negative be visible in the print. So that it was also visible that this crop had been determined during the moment of recording. It is therefore early (pre) conceptual art. I you don't like the concept then you miss the essence.
 
koraks said:
Okay, I see. I can't say I understand it as such, because in my view, what remains if you take out the cyclist is a more lifeless arrangement of forms that doesn't hold my attention very long. I also feel that the blank spot that results from the removal doesn't balance well with the rest of the composition. But perhaps this is because I'm so accustomed to the original image that it'll always feel there's something missing if it's removed; it's difficult to 'unsee' the image as I know it. Even so, I suspect that the unbalance resulting from removal is inherent, not just a result of my conditioning to this particular image.
Click to expand...

It could be. I understand your points. There is no universal truth to these things :smile:
It took me also a while to imagine the image without the cyclist as I was totally accustomed to it.
 
gary mulder said:
HCB insisted that the edge of the entire negative be visible in the print. So that it was also visible that this crop had been determined during the moment of recording. It is therefore early (pre) conceptual art. I you don't like the concept then you miss the essence.
Click to expand...

Knowing that is not necessary to appreciate an image. It's trivia.
 
Then Maybe it could just be an AI-generated image.
 
gary mulder said:
Then Maybe it could just be an AI-generated image.
Click to expand...

That's a leap.

Art appreciation generally ties the object to its creator and through that to the remaining body of work of that creator (it's similar to theology). So, knowing that it is a photo by Cartier-Bresson is relevant to that particular kind of assessment. But knowing that Cartier-Bresson only used Leicas, never cropped an image, always wanted the full frame in the print, had Cherrios for breakfast, or fart just as the puddle jumper leapt - all that is trivia (Amend that. It's trivia for appreciating a single image but may lead into an understanding of methodology that is relevant for noticing trends or characteristics in a body of work. (although not the fart bit)).
 
Last edited:
A nice aspect of AI generated pictures is that it takes all kind of bits and pieces and makes a “new” image that tends to be liked more by the general public than human made art.
 
cliveh said:
As you have no idea what the bottom step looked like and it would mean cutting out the view at the top of the frame, your comment is quite ridiculous.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry my comment offended you. That wasn't my intention. I was giving you my opinion about the composition. You asked for it in your post, "How about this for perfect timing and composition: -" It;s not the viewer's job to improve the composition. That's up to the photographer. Those are issues they have to solve such as using a wider angle lens, stepping back further, etc.
 
Don_ih said:
A "very slight bit" would be maybe less than a mm on the negative. One mm away from the top, one mm added to the bottom. "Perfect" as it is, it's nitpicking. The photo would be different, yes, in terms of its actuality. But everything you could say about it would be exactly the same.
Click to expand...

HCB did actually say that the difference between “no” and “yes yes yes!” might be a matter of millimetres in the viewfinder. I do believe that to be true, although I’ve always found it a mystery how he (or anyone) could be so precise with any of the Leica viewfinders.
 
snusmumriken said:
HCB did actually say that the difference between “no” and “yes yes yes!” might be a matter of millimetres in the viewfinder. I do believe that to be true, although I’ve always found it a mystery how he (or anyone) could be so precise with any of the Leica viewfinders.
Click to expand...

Look at this: -

1760996912190.png



Note the forhead of the girl on the right and the woman behind seperated by a fraction of a millimetre. This is what makes HCB the greatest photographer of the 20th century.
 
Some people here are confusing criticism with evaluation.

Criticism is trying to understand a work as it is. Trying to understand why the photographer made the choices he made, what these choices may have meant to him. Trying to understand what the work might have meant to viewers at the time it was made, trying to understand how that meaning may have changed with time.

Criticism has nothing to do with evaluating—often arbitrarly, and according to one's own criterea—whether a photo is good, bad, whether it could be better if, or worse if.

Stating that adding the lower steps would make a better, or worse, composition is totally irrelevent to the photo that is. Only important question is wondering why Cartier-Bresson didn't put them in. This has nothing to do with hero worshipping. Looking at what is is the only way to begin to try to get into the photographer's mind. That's the mind I'm interested in understanding. Not that of the person who thinks the photo would be a better composition with the lower steps.

Mona Lisa might be a better, or worse, painting, if she were naked. Who knows. Honestly, who cares.
 
cliveh said:
Look at this: -

View attachment 409816


Note the forhead of the girl on the right and the woman behind seperated by a fraction of a millimetre. This is what makes HCB the greatest photographer of the 20th century.
Click to expand...

Luck. Notice how the girl on the left blocks part of the soldier's face.
 
snusmumriken said:
HCB did actually say that the difference between “no” and “yes yes yes!” might be a matter of millimetres in the viewfinder. I do believe that to be true, although I’ve always found it a mystery how he (or anyone) could be so precise with any of the Leica viewfinders.
Click to expand...

It's practically impossible to frame within a mm using a Leica IIIa - it's better with an M3. Cartier-Bresson often used an external viewfinder, which would pretty much always result in better left-right framing and, if you were careful with the distance adjustment, could also get better with up and down.

He also took a lot of photos and was very familiar with his equipment.

I don't someone can point to anything significant in any of his photos and validly say "luck".
 
Alex Benjamin said:
Stating that adding the lower steps would make a better, or worse, composition is totally irrelevent to the photo that is. Only important question is wondering why Cartier-Bresson didn't put them in.
Click to expand...

I’m not even convinced that question is important. There could be many prosaic reasons why the lower steps couldn’t be included. HCB would have considered later whether the photo, as actually taken, ‘worked’ or was a reject.
 
Don_ih said:
I don't someone can point to anything significant in any of his photos and validly say "luck".
Click to expand...

I guess you can say the same about Cristiano Ronaldo or Francis Joyon. Two names that come to mind. He just was lucky.
 
No, HCB was not lucky. As he said a photo takes 1/60th of a second and 60 years of experience.
Was he a great photographer? Yes.
Do some of his photos can be called masterpieces? Yes.
Did he also make many mediocre, indifferent, or even bad photos? Sure, he did.
 
cliveh said:
Look at this: -

View attachment 409816


Note the forhead of the girl on the right and the woman behind seperated by a fraction of a millimetre. This is what makes HCB the greatest photographer of the 20th century.
Click to expand...

I will try to "read" or "evaluate" this photo (please understand very personal evaluation following):
This photo is interesting. The two women tell a story. Especially the woman with the suitcase that looks at something which we don't know what it is and seems skeptical. The other woman's face is also perfect, it wouldn't be the same if she looked at the first woman. Instead she is looking at something else.
The photos is already pretty interesting to me. And now comes the part which I like to call "HCB showing off".
The two soldiers looking at the women. Totally spoil the mystery. Throws some self-evident associations to the photo (the contrast between the two men and the two women) all these kind of "tricks" that sometimes HCB resorts to. Totally unnecessary in my opinion.
I would personally like the photo more without the soldiers.
I know that the audience will like the photo more like that as it offers some easy "reading" in the form: "Aha two nice women and two soldiers, oh look how they look at them I guess they miss women in the camp, now I get it".
But the power of the photo imo resists easy interpretations and always flirt with the realm of the abstract

P.S. Please be kind in your replies as this is totally personal and very arbitrary evaluation full of leaps and possible prejudices. Just an opinion.
 
Last edited:
nikos79 said:
The two soldiers looking at the women. Totally spoil the mystery. Throws some self-evident associations to the photo (the contrast between the two men and the two women) all these kind of "tricks" that sometimes HCB resorts to. Totally unnecessary in my opinion.
Click to expand...
He didn't use tricks. He just took a picture of what he saw. He didn’t stage the image.
 
nikos79 said:
t why did he choose it?
Click to expand...

The most obvious reason is because he thought it was a nice picture. As a photographer, you will always meet people who don't like your work. I meant what I wrote about AI. AI looks for the picture which corresponds to the taste of the largest group. The fact that you don't like the picture was irrelevant to HCB
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
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:
Ilford ADOX Freestyle Photographic Stearman Press Weldon Color Lab Blue Moon Camera & Machine
Top Bottom