If Henri Cartier-Bresson was photography’s Bach with the power, discipline, and strictness of form, then André Kertész was its Mozart, where form becomes effortless, playful, and inseparable from the joy of content.
The shots you don't end up using are never wasted.
And I include the film that those shots end up on when I say that.
When I do anything like the photography that we know HCB for, the shots that don't end up being shared aren't failures, they are part of the process.
And it is my involvement in the process that leads to the result.
I expect HCB would have refused a commission that required him to take only one shot.
In comparison, someone like Karsh worked in an environment where more of the variables were controlled by him, so there was an expectation that the number of shots would be limited. But anyone who has ever seen the two versions he shot of his famous Churchill portrait would know that even he shot more than one.
I acknowledge, of course, that when I use bigger/more expensive film, I feel more constrained in what experiments I undertake. But I still undertake them, because the process of taking the unchosen ones is part of what leads to the chosen result.
If Henri Cartier-Bresson was photography’s Bach with the power, discipline, and strictness of form, then André Kertész was its Mozart, where form becomes effortless, playful, and inseparable from the joy of content.
Pros don't show their mistakes.
They weren't mistakes. They were inferior options. And insecure "pros" pretend they don't make mistakes. But everyone makes mistakes - a real "pro" rectifies them.
Pros don't show their mistakes.
Nonsense. You can like HCB’s pictures to the moon and back and that’s great, but these kinds of desperate analogies are ridiculous.
Ok I apologize for taking a wrong turn into this thread again. Last time, I promise.
There is no such thing as a "professional" artist
My niece got married this summer.
The wedding photographer and her second shooter together shot around 4000 exposures of the event.
There are bunches and bunches of really fun and fine photographs amongst everything that the two women "captured" that day.
Some stand out a bit extra.
There are some duds interspersed through the 4000 - by duds I mean that there are much better examples of shots showing similar subjects.
Plus some shots from amongst the dancers on the very joyous and chaotic dance floor that revealed the uncertainties inherent in that very dark and very fluid environment - i.e. they were a bit screwed up.
Photos that aren't the very best in a bunch aren't mistakes.
Why would they show their seconds and losers?
Some stand out a bit extra.
Photos that aren't the very best in a bunch aren't mistakes.
My niece got married this summer.
The wedding photographer and her second shooter together shot around 4000 exposures of the event.
There are bunches and bunches of really fun and fine photographs amongst everything that the two women "captured" that day.
Some stand out a bit extra.
There are some duds interspersed through the 4000 - by duds I mean that there are much better examples of shots showing similar subjects.
Plus some shots from amongst the dancers on the very joyous and chaotic dance floor that revealed the uncertainties inherent in that very dark and very fluid environment - i.e. they were a bit screwed up.
Photos that aren't the very best in a bunch aren't mistakes.
4000 exposures belongs to the digital age. I have never shot more than about 7 exposures of a similar view. Film photography is not spray and pray, but a much more considered contemplation of that moment within the composition..
4000 exposures belongs to the digital age. I have never shot more than about 7 exposures of a similar view. Film photography is not spray and pray, but a much more considered contemplation of that moment within the composition..
Because what you refer to as the "seconds" may very well provide a more thorough revelation of the photographer's depth and flexibility and creativity.
And what you consider a "loser" may very well be someone else's winner.
Thus the popularity of the photographic series, as well as projects documenting a place/event/people or evolutionary change.
HCB did documentary type projects too you know.
Exactly simple as that.
In the digital era we can do that. Mistakes cost nothing
Because what you refer to as the "seconds" may very well provide a more thorough revelation of the photographer's depth and flexibility and creativity.
And what you consider a "loser" may very well be someone else's winner.
Thus the popularity of the photographic series, as well as projects documenting a place/event/people or evolutionary change.
HCB did documentary type projects too you know.
Who's going to hire a pro photographer if he publishes shots that look like crap?
No pro will publish photos he doesn't think are good enough. It would be like a surgeon showing his face lifting failures in an ad. "Let me redo your face. I promise it will come out better."
Man, that's great photo. Well seen!
Dale
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?