HCB Appreciation

[snusmumriken]

Cartier-Bresson moved on to more practical viewfinders as they became available.

Indeed he did:

Or none at all:

 

[Don_ih]

Clive is right about the VIDOM, though. It is a very cool viewfinder and can be used to refine your compositions by forcing you to look harder at the entire scene.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Indeed he did:
View attachment 412795
Or none at all:

In that first picture, he;s looking through the camera's viewfinder, not the external one. So what does that mean regarding how he composes a picture??

 

[warden]

In that first picture, he;s looking through the camera's viewfinder, not the external one. So what does that mean regarding how he composes a picture??

There's a clue is in the image. His left hand is focusing while he looks through the camera's viewfinder (where the rangefinder is). Then he can switch to the accessory viewfinder if he wishes.

 

[Arthurwg]

No, it's not that easy. Equipment is only an aid. You still need to spend a lifetime of dedication to achieve a realisation of the image.

Errr... That was a joke.

 

[Don_ih]

So what does that mean regarding how he composes a picture??

In that instance, not much, since the lens is a 90mm and the accessory viewfinder is 50mm.

 

[warden]

In that instance, not much, since the lens is a 90mm and the accessory viewfinder is 50mm.

I stand corrected! I should have spotted that, given how often I have a 25mm accessory finder mounted on my camera unused while the 50mm lens is attached and the 25 is in the bag.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

There's a clue is in the image. His left hand is focusing while he looks through the camera's viewfinder (where the rangefinder is). Then he can switch to the accessory viewfinder if he wishes.

In that instance, not much, since the lens is a 90mm and the accessory viewfinder is 50mm.

It seems very confusing to be switching from right-side up to upside-down viewing and vice versa. Why would he do that?

 

[Don_ih]

It seems very confusing to be switching from right-side up to upside-down viewing and vice versa. Why would he do that?

As Clive has said numerous times, it can make you more aware of the spatial relation between the aspects of your composition. Looking from a normal viewfinder to one that is flipped in one way or another (or both) makes you lose your original view on a subject and notice the surroundings more. (You get a bit disoriented.)

The VIDOM finder was an early Leitz universal finder. The newer ones don't do what that one does.

@warden I often have a wider-angle viewfinder sitting in the accessory shoe while the 50 is mounted. I sometimes have a universal finder mounted and don't even have any lens with me other than the 50.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

As Clive has said numerous times, it can make you more aware of the spatial relation between the aspects of your composition. Looking from a normal viewfinder to one that is flipped in one way or another (or both) makes you lose your original view on a subject and notice the surroundings more. (You get a bit disoriented.)

The VIDOM finder was an early Leitz universal finder. The newer ones don't do what that one does.

@warden I often have a wider-angle viewfinder sitting in the accessory shoe while the 50 is mounted. I sometimes have a universal finder mounted and don't even have any lens with me other than the 50.

HCB is a street photographer. Upside down viewing doesn't help with that kind of photography. You're concentrating on people's interactions, expressions, and emotions not so much on geometry.

 

[tcolgate]

HCB is a street photographer. Upside down viewing doesn't help with that kind of photography. You're concentrating on people's interactions, expressions, and emotions not so much on geometry.

When I think of HCB I think of his compositions, not faces. It's often figures placed in a scene, rather than details and expressions. There are many kinds of street photography..

 

[cliveh]

HCB is a street photographer. Upside down viewing doesn't help with that kind of photography. You're concentrating on people's interactions, expressions, and emotions not so much on geometry.

I wouldn't class HCB as a street photographer. He was someone who was able to use photography to express his visual art.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

When I think of HCB I think of his compositions, not faces. It's often figures placed in a scene, rather than details and expressions. There are many kinds of street photography..

I wouldn't class HCB as a street photographer. He was someone who was able to use photography to express his visual art.

Did he really view things upside down or was the external viewfinder for a specific lens than the one normally used with the camera's internal viewfinder? His photography, whether called street or not, was not still life or landscape, where you have time to compose a shot. His were on the fly and looking upside down just makes things too difficult. Did he ever say he did that?

 

[cliveh]

Did he really view things upside down or was the external viewfinder for a specific lens than the one normally used with the camera's internal viewfinder? His photography, whether called street or not, was not still life or landscape, where you have time to compose a shot. His were on the fly and looking upside down just makes things too difficult. Did he ever say he did that?

Yes he did view things upside down and inverted right/left, left/right. These are only a giude. Also, your photography MO does not have to have a label.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

HCB is a street photographer.

Most of HCB's photography is best described as photojournalism.

You're concentrating on people's interactions, expressions, and emotions not so much on geometry.

Now if this were a thread about, say, Garry Winogrand, this comment might spark an interesting conversation.

In a thread about Henri Cartier-Bresson, it's kind of funny.

 

[snusmumriken]

It’s bugging me that in the first photo in my post #701 above, he is using his left eye. In every other photo I can find, he is using his right eye.

 

[Don_ih]

HCB is a street photographer.

No. He was a photographer that took some photos on streets. He took many photos that no one would characterize as "street". Frankly, once you're used to doing something a certain way, especially when using the same thing over and over again, it doesn't slow you down.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

It’s bugging me that in the first photo in my post #701 above, he is using his left eye. In every other photo I can find, he is using his right eye.

Baseball legend Mickey Mantle of the New York Yankees sometimes batted right-handed, although he usually batted left-handed. Maybe HCB was the Mickey Mantle of photographers?

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Most of HCB's photography is best described as photojournalism.



Now if this were a thread about, say, Garry Winogrand, this comment might spark an interesting conversation.

In a thread about Henri Cartier-Bresson, it's kind of funny.

OK Photojournalism sounds like a good pick over street photographer. But why do you feel HCB didn;t concentrate on people's interactions, expressions, and emotions and not so much on geometry? Many of his photos clearly show expressions and feelings and not form and shape.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

But why do you feel HCB didn;t concentrate on people's interactions, expressions, and emotions and not so much on geometry? Many of his photos clearly show expressions and feelings and not form and shape.

Two things.

For one, Cartier-Bresson stated over and over and over again that geometry was the foundation of his compositional eye. He got that from his painting studies with André Lhote.

Second, this is a case of one does not prevent, or preclude the other. Meaning that there's no reason—unless you give me a really, really good one—why you can't equally concentrate on "people's interactions, expressions and emotions" as well as on geometry.

Form and content aren't separate, and brilliant photographers such as Cartier-Bresson can see both at the same time, to a point where they are indistinguishable.

 

[tcolgate]

OK Photojournalism sounds like a good pick over street photographer. But why do you feel HCB didn;t concentrate on people's interactions, expressions, and emotions and not so much on geometry? Many of his photos clearly show expressions and feelings and not form and shape.

I'm naive in terms of HCB, but when I think of him, these are the images that come to mind.

The next might be

In the first three the environment is , I would say, more important than the detail on any one figure. The last is certainly driven more by the figure.
For the first 3, an abstract image of the scene is enough to validate it as a worthy composition. The figure is the flourish. I present the last as an obvious exception. I'm not suggesting he wasn't capable of putting a figure at the forefront of a photo. But I do think he was predominantly interested in shape and light..

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I'm naive in terms of HCB, but when I think of him, these are the images that come to mind.
View attachment 412944
View attachment 412943
View attachment 412942


The next might be

View attachment 412945

In the first three the environment is , I would say, more important than the detail on any one figure. The last is certainly driven more by the figure.
For the first 3, an abstract image of the scene is enough to validate it as a worthy composition. The figure is the flourish. I present the last as an obvious exception. I'm not suggesting he wasn't capable of putting a figure at the forefront of a photo. But I do think he was predominantly interested in shape and light..

The last has the most emotional impact. The little girl's expression in the back and the boy's expression in front are precious. The emotional interplay between the two kids is the "decisive moment". What form and shape? The fourth represents many of his shots.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I'm naive in terms of HCB, but when I think of him, these are the images that come to mind.
View attachment 412944
View attachment 412943
View attachment 412942


The next might be

View attachment 412945

In the first three the environment is , I would say, more important than the detail on any one figure. The last is certainly driven more by the figure.
For the first 3, an abstract image of the scene is enough to validate it as a worthy composition. The figure is the flourish. I present the last as an obvious exception. I'm not suggesting he wasn't capable of putting a figure at the forefront of a photo. But I do think he was predominantly interested in shape and light..

I'd add that #2 also has a lot of emotional appeal. Kids are having a grand time despite the ramshackle and dangerous environment. The kid on crutches is enjoying himself as much as the other healthier kids and the two kids playing grab-a$$. The other two, 1 and 3, , despite the common public appeal, are meh compared to 2 and 4. Who cares about form, although the hole framing in 4 does add a little interest. But the kids are what make the shot so great.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

Who cares about form

Well, Cartier-Bresson, for one. That should count for something.

But, pace HCB, why decide how people should experience photography? For some, the feeling of form, of coherence, is deeply moving and satisfying—as if you were able to actually look at a fugue by Bach (not the score: the music itself).

For others, yes, it is emotion—straightforward, apparent, unmistakable.

And for others still, the mysterious combination of both, that unnamed region where one and the other are one, indistinguishable. We're talking Beethoven's late quartets, here.

What is exceptional about Cartier-Bresson is that he gives you all that.

 

[snusmumriken]

Who cares about form

Well, evidently you do. Who cares about iron railings?