HCB Appreciation

[Alex Benjamin]

Not every photo is of a trapeze act. Some photos are of chess matches.

Just the other day, I waited 45 minutes for a cloud to move away from in front of the sun so I could get the light I wanted. I finally won that match, but the cloud came close.

In photography, if you don't learn to wait for the moment, you also don't learn to see the moment when it suddenly appears in front of you. If the photograph is now, it is now. If the photograph asks that you wait, you wait.

In photography, you don't control time. It controls you.

Resistance is futile.

 

[snusmumriken]

True it is more personal preference sorry to not having stated it. I prefer more the "instinctively" way of doing it vs contemplating for an hour about an image

Well he was instinctive. He instinctively recognised a nice composition that would be perfected with a figure in that spot, so he waited. Would you criticise the painter Claude for putting figures in his landscapes?

 

[MattKing]

The genius of photographers like HCB isn't because they react instinctively to a highly photographable scene.
It is that they can both appreciate that scene for its photographic possibilities, and take the necessary steps to turn it into a successful photograph.
HCB worked well within what has become known as the "Street" photography, which some misunderstand to be limited to quick, instinctive reaction photography. That limitation really isn't the case at all, because the "deliberateness" of the Street photographer is immaterial - it is their preparation and ability to visualize that ensures success.
There really is no fundamental difference between HCB, Geoffrey Crewdson, Garry Winogrand, Karsh, Fred Herzog or Jeff Wall. Their fundamental power comes from how they saw. They just use/used different approaches to bring the results into being.

 

[cliveh]

The genius of photographers like HCB isn't because they react instinctively to a highly photographable scene.
It is that they can both appreciate that scene for its photographic possibilities, and take the necessary steps to turn it into a successful photograph.
HCB worked well within what has become known as the "Street" photography, which some misunderstand to be limited to quick, instinctive reaction photography. That limitation really isn't the case at all, because the "deliberateness" of the Street photographer is immaterial - it is their preparation and ability to visualize that ensures success.
There really is no fundamental difference between HCB, Geoffrey Crewdson, Garry Winogrand, Karsh, Fred Herzog or Jeff Wall. Their fundamental power comes from how they saw. They just use/used different approaches to bring the results into being.

Well said.

 

[Milpool]

I don't think he was a genius. Sorry.

 

[nikos79]

I have always held that taking an hour to set up, compose and expose a sheet of film is as spontaneous as photographing the street with a 35mm camera.

The spontaneous moment is when the brain decides to make (or take) an image. How long it takes to carry out that decision is of no great importance (as long as one has enough time to complete the task.)

YMMD

Well put

 

[nikos79]

Well he was instinctive. He instinctively recognised a nice composition that would be perfected with a figure in that spot, so he waited. Would you criticise the painter Claude for putting figures in his landscapes?

No because in painting you create something from an empty canvas in photography you dont create anything. You merely record a shadow a trace of time and space that is gone forever.

 

[nikos79]

You've learned to add the 'humble opinion' clause. Now ask yourself whether that solves it. Hint: it's not like applying curly braces to your C++-code and hey presto, it compiles.

I only write Python nowadays
But get your point. As usually I exaggerated a bit to make my point

 

[Pieter12]

No because in painting you create something from an empty canvas in photography you dont create anything. You merely record a shadow a trace of time and space that is gone forever.

It is more than that. Painting is additive, photography is subtractive. The creative part of photography is in cropping composition and recognition of light and pattern and emotion in a scene. And not everything photographed is gone forever afterward.

 

[Don_ih]

You merely record a shadow a trace of time and space that is gone forever.

Everything can be made trivial if you try. Just reduce it to the most superficial description you can think of.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

in photography you dont create anything

 

[MattKing]

in photography you dont create anything.

This tells me you don't print much.
Or work with Alternative Processes.
Or encaustic materials.
Or emulsion lifts.
Or create the fascinating work I saw years ago from a photographer who made use of bee carcasses to make images.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

in photography you dont create anything

 

[Alex Benjamin]

in photography you dont create anything

 

[Alex Benjamin]

This tells me you don't print much.

And thus has never been introduced to our good and creative friend potassium ferricyanide...

 

[Alex Benjamin]

No because in painting you create something from an empty canvas in photography you dont create anything. You merely record a shadow a trace of time and space that is gone forever.

Which is what Hopper did.

In his paintings.

 

[GregY]

I don't think he was a genius. Sorry.

Whose work do. you like?

 

[Don_ih]

Which is what Hopper did.

Andrew Wyeth did it even more.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

Andrew Wyeth did it even more.

View attachment 403795

Wind from the Sea. I never get tired of looking at this painting.

 

[MattKing]

My mom loved paintings throughout her life, and long into her senior years she started painting canvases for herself.
And she became quite good at it - we have some really nice landscapes of hers on our walls.
She liked to work from a photograph.
Any bets on whether Hopper and Wyeth ever did the same ?