HCB Appreciation

[nikos79]

No conclusion - at any rate, not yet.

If anything I would expect it to strongly favour and reveal left-right symmetry.
And also create more tension between forms now that every obvious "message" is gone.
Top-bottom symmetry and balance I would expect that it will make much harder to evaluate

 

[Pioneer]

No conclusion - at any rate, not yet.

There are techniques that can help but there is no magic to it. Otherwise everyone would already be doing it. Like everything else in life it takes time and study.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Yes that was practically what HCB said in the interviews that the absence of colors allows him to concentrate more on composition and forms and geometry without the added complexity of colour

If he started with color, he wouldn't be saying that. He may never had shot BW. Who knows? Photography started with BW so its been around. It;s simpler to do on your own especailly chemically. If color started first, and was easier to develop and print then BW, BW would be as popular as pinhole photography.

 

[nikos79]

If he started with color, he wouldn't be saying that. He may never had shot BW. Who knows? Photography started with BW so its been around. It;s simpler to do on your own especailly chemically. If color started first, and was easier to develop and print then BW, BW would be as popular as pinhole photography.

Most probably yes

 

[Don_ih]

the absence of colors allows him to concentrate more on composition and forms and geometry without the added complexity of colour

He wasn't seeing the world without colour. It's one thing to say those things but he needed to understand how the colours in front of him would turn out on his chosen film. The film isn't colour blind, you see - to different degrees, it's sensitive to different colours. Furthermore, none of Cartier-Bresson's photos look like they'd particularly suffer from being in colour.

color in painting is a tool for transformation while in photography just a reality check

So he levelled the same criticism against colour photography that artists and art critics levelled against black and white photography (and still do claim about all photography, for the most part): that it's just a record of what the camera was pointed at and not art at all. Interesting.

 

[Don_ih]

There would be little or no BW photography if color film were developed first.

There already is very little B&W photography compared to colour. Even strictly film photography, way more colour film is sold than b&w.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

How can anyone who's seen a sunset or a rose be opposed to color?

 

[nikos79]

Voila here is his full opinion on color:


With only rare exceptions, you have never published color

photographs. . . .

"Color, for me, remains painting’s domain. I photographed China

and the Seine in color for Paris Match, Life, and Stern, and

France for [publisher] Robert Laffont. It was because of professional

necessity: not a compromise, but a concession. My only good color

photograph was published on the cover of Camera, when I exhibited

at the Pavillon de Marsan [part of the Louvre] in 1955, but it had

no meaning—I had fallen into aestheticism. The [audio-] engineer

[Stefan] Kudelski29 is the only one who has given me an interesting

point of view on this. He explained that color allows for quicker

identification of a document. But this is another debate. I find

emotion in black-and-white: it transposes, it is an abstraction, it is not

“normal.” Reality is a chaotic flood and, within that reality, you have

to make choices that bring together meaning and form in a balanced

manner—so if you have to worry about color on top of that . . . ! Plus,

“natural” colors don’t mean anything. With its asexual vision, color

delights only salesmen and magazines.

In fact, I have a passion for color. But to use the palette, I need

my ass kicked. Maybe I’m afraid to confront the problem of

color. In photography, color is based on an elementary prism. For

the time being it can’t be any different because they have not

discovered the chemical processes that would allow the extreme

complexity of the process of decomposing and recomposing

color. Think that with pastel, for instance, there is a range of 375

shades of green! In photography, color remains a very important

tool for information. Nevertheless, it remains limited in terms of

reproduction. It remains chemical, not transcendental as it is in

painting.

Photography, the way I like it, is black-and-white,

because it transposes things. It has an abstract quality and an

extremely strong emotional power. Of course there is color, but that’s

not my world at all. [ . . . ] It always flatters a bit, but it does not

possess the abstract strength of black-and-white. And I think that

the problems with color that occur if you have a painter’s eye can

never be dealt with in photography. [ . . . ] I would say that color

in its transparency—in other words, when it’s projected—is like

a stained-glass window, and it can be very interesting and very

pleasing. It can be very pleasing when you project it because light

goes through it as it does with stained glass, but after that, when

you get to the inks, to the printing, you have no control. And one

color in itself is never beautiful. It functions through relationships;

nothing exists by itself. A beautiful red exists in relation to a brown

or a white. These are relationships. Warm colors, cold colors. There

are laws inherent to color, to physics. It is not my field, but these

are essential things. You have to read the books written by painters.

André Lhote writes about it at length in his Traité du paysage et

de la figure (Treatise on landscape and fgure painting).

Anyway,

the color problems of a painter are not any different from those a

photographer encounters. But in cinema or studio photography, it is

completely different from our concept of photography—that is, of

things shot from life—because the directors can compose their colors

in the studio, as the milliner composes a hat. It is their problem.

But in photography shot from life, from reality, that’s very difficult

because the eye chooses what attracts it. For instance, we could see

a pleasing relationship between colors, but as we work at 1/125th of

a second, the eye has ignored things that the camera records. And

now the print displays a green that clashes awfully with this red.

And everything is in there, so you can’t do anything about it. And

it is about commerce again! There are magazines that specialize in

color because they think that it will sell. If they found a gimmick to

make paper smell as well they would do it. They must sell, sell at

all cost. These are money problems, and a neurosis that comes from

money problems; it is a neurotic world. . . . What were we saying

about color? It went out of my head."

 

[nikos79]

How can anyone who's seen a sunset or a rose be opposed to color?

Sometimes in photography overwhelming beauty can be your enemy. Depends on the goals you have.

 

[Don_ih]

Maybe I’m afraid to confront the problem of color.

Perhaps he should have left it at that: it was his problem.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

There would be little or no BW photography if color film were developed first.

That has absolutely nothing to do with, and is historically wrong.

Black and white photography came first — around 200 years ago these days —, but as far as photographic film is concerned, experiments in color photography started in the early 20th century, a decade or two after black and white photographic film was introduced.

Note that there were experiments in color photography as early as the 1860s, and that results of additive color processes such as Autochrome were available in the late 1910s. Early color photographs printed in National Geographic in the 1920s were based on Autochrome glass plates.

The production of 35mm black and white and color film is even closer: Oskar Barnack adapted 35mm cine film for his new Leica camera in the mid-20s, Kodak came up with the 35mm film cassette early 30s, kodachrome was invented in 1935, Agfacolor around the same time. Cartier-Bresson bought his first Leica in 1931: if he had wanted to shoot color all his life he could have shot color all his life.

Reason that in the early years — and for a while after that — there was more black and white photographic film shot than color is unrelated to chronology of production. Fact is, color film was much more expensive than black and white, and was much slower than black and white (early Kodachrome had an ISO of 10, so not at all practical for everyday snapshot photography or photojournalism. Kodak's Super-XX had an ISO of 200).

Even more important, black and white film was essential to photojournalists because newspapers weren't printed in color, and only very rich organizations such as Life, Vogue or Vanity Fair could afford to print in color in the 40s and 50s. Interestingly, some of these magazines, such as Life, favoured black and white photography for their feature stories because it made the color advertisements stand out.

Robert Capa, for one, shot a lot in color (Kodachrome) starting in the late 30s, but couldn't sell his photographs.

In other words, it's not about history, and even less about philosophy or aesthetics. It's about economy.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Voila here is his full opinion on color:


With only rare exceptions, you have never published color

photographs. . . .

"Color, for me, remains painting’s domain. I photographed China

and the Seine in color for Paris Match, Life, and Stern, and

France for [publisher] Robert Laffont. It was because of professional

necessity: not a compromise, but a concession. My only good color

photograph was published on the cover of Camera, when I exhibited

at the Pavillon de Marsan [part of the Louvre] in 1955, but it had

no meaning—I had fallen into aestheticism. The [audio-] engineer

[Stefan] Kudelski29 is the only one who has given me an interesting

point of view on this. He explained that color allows for quicker

identification of a document. But this is another debate. I find

emotion in black-and-white: it transposes, it is an abstraction, it is not

“normal.” Reality is a chaotic flood and, within that reality, you have

to make choices that bring together meaning and form in a balanced

manner—so if you have to worry about color on top of that . . . ! Plus,

“natural” colors don’t mean anything. With its asexual vision, color

delights only salesmen and magazines.

In fact, I have a passion for color. But to use the palette, I need

my ass kicked. Maybe I’m afraid to confront the problem of

color. In photography, color is based on an elementary prism. For

the time being it can’t be any different because they have not

discovered the chemical processes that would allow the extreme

complexity of the process of decomposing and recomposing

color. Think that with pastel, for instance, there is a range of 375

shades of green! In photography, color remains a very important

tool for information. Nevertheless, it remains limited in terms of

reproduction. It remains chemical, not transcendental as it is in

painting.

Photography, the way I like it, is black-and-white,

because it transposes things. It has an abstract quality and an

extremely strong emotional power. Of course there is color, but that’s

not my world at all. [ . . . ] It always flatters a bit, but it does not

possess the abstract strength of black-and-white. And I think that

the problems with color that occur if you have a painter’s eye can

never be dealt with in photography. [ . . . ] I would say that color

in its transparency—in other words, when it’s projected—is like

a stained-glass window, and it can be very interesting and very

pleasing. It can be very pleasing when you project it because light

goes through it as it does with stained glass, but after that, when

you get to the inks, to the printing, you have no control. And one

color in itself is never beautiful. It functions through relationships;

nothing exists by itself. A beautiful red exists in relation to a brown

or a white. These are relationships. Warm colors, cold colors. There

are laws inherent to color, to physics. It is not my field, but these

are essential things. You have to read the books written by painters.

André Lhote writes about it at length in his Traité du paysage et

de la figure (Treatise on landscape and fgure painting).

Anyway,

the color problems of a painter are not any different from those a

photographer encounters. But in cinema or studio photography, it is

completely different from our concept of photography—that is, of

things shot from life—because the directors can compose their colors

in the studio, as the milliner composes a hat. It is their problem.

But in photography shot from life, from reality, that’s very difficult

because the eye chooses what attracts it. For instance, we could see

a pleasing relationship between colors, but as we work at 1/125th of

a second, the eye has ignored things that the camera records. And

now the print displays a green that clashes awfully with this red.

And everything is in there, so you can’t do anything about it. And

it is about commerce again! There are magazines that specialize in

color because they think that it will sell. If they found a gimmick to

make paper smell as well they would do it. They must sell, sell at

all cost. These are money problems, and a neurosis that comes from

money problems; it is a neurotic world. . . . What were we saying

about color? It went out of my head."

He acknowledges color projected as chromes is OK as opposed to prints where color is hard to duplicate due to printing problems. He said this before 75" TV's and 40" monitors that shoot light through colors that he admits are nice. He said colors were limited when today we have color palettes with billions of colors,all that can be modified with Photoshop, things he never saw. So his statement is premature and frankly sounds confusing if you read the whole thing. Maybe he would have something different to say if he was still alive.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

That has absolutely nothing to do with, and historically wrong.

Balck and white photography came first — around 200 years ago these days —, but as far as photographic film is concerned, experiments in color photography started in the early 20th century, a decade or two after black and white photographic film was introduced.

Note that there were experiments in color photography as early as the 1860s, and that results of additive color processes such as Autochrome were available in the late 1910s. Early color photographs printed in National Geographic in the 1920s were based on Autochrome glass plates.

The production of 35mm black and white and color film is even closer: Oskar Barnack adapted 35mm cine film for his new Leica camera in the mid-20s, Kodak came up with the 35mm film cassette early 30s, kodachrome was invented in 1935, Agfacolor around the same time. Cartier-Bresson bought his first Leica in 1931: if he had wanted to shoot color all his life he could have shot color all his life.

Reason that in the early years — and for a while after that — there was more black and white photographic film shot than color is unrelated to chronology of production. Fact is, color film was much more expensive than black and white, and was much slower than black and white (early Kodachrome had an ISO of 10, so not at all practical for everyday snapshot photography or photojournalism. Kodak's Super-XX had an ISO of 200).

Even more important, black and white film was essential to photojournalists because newspapers weren't printed in color, and only very rich organizations such as Life, Vogue or Vanity Fair could afford to print in color in the 40s and 50s. Interestingly, some of these magazines, such as Life, favoured black and white photography for their feature stories because it made the color advertisements stand out.

Robert Capa, for one, shot a lot in color (Kodachrome) starting in the late 30s, but couldn't sell his photographs.

In other words, it's not about history, and even less about philosophy or aesthetics. It's about economy.

Alex, you confirmed my point. BW came first for the masses. Sure, a few specialists experimented with color, but everyone else was using BW, developing BW, printing BW, people, newspapers, etc. When I was a kid I had one of those Kodak box cameras that shot in BW. Color came later for me and most people. You;re my age and probably had one too and shot BW first. Once color became easy and cheap for the masses, BW took a back seat and has remained there ever since. I'm not knocking BW photography. It has its place. But we see in color so it;s natural to want to replicate what we see. Oil is painted in color by artists, not BW. Why?

 

[snusmumriken]

So his statement is premature and frankly sounds confusing if you read the whole thing.

It's a transcript from an unscripted interview, not a carefully honed essay; but it's not particularly confused unless you are expecting only a single answer. To my reading, he gave several:

• Commercial preference for b/w
• Difficulty of composing with colour for his chosen subject matter
• Colour is/can be a distraction unless you have mastered that difficulty
• Colour fidelity is tricky
• B/W is a useful abstraction
• Laziness

 

[MattKing]

How can anyone who's seen a sunset or a rose be opposed to color?

How about someone who has worked as a colour printer?
After seeing thousands and thousands of pictures of sunsets and pictures of roses, some black and white prints are a great relief!

 

[Alex Benjamin]

Alex, you confirmed my point. BW came first for the masses.

Your statement was:

There would be little or no BW photography if color film were developed first.

You said nothing about "the masses". I did not confirm your point, I disproved it.

 

[Don_ih]

There's no proving or disproving anything about that. A fact: b&w was widely and economically available first. Another: way more colour photography is done by all groups now than b&w.

And none of it has to do with whatever anyone says about the artistic merit of either.

 

[nikos79]

It's a transcript from an unscripted interview, not a carefully honed essay; but it's not particularly confused unless you are expecting only a single answer. To my reading, he gave several:

• Commercial preference for b/w

you mean color

• Difficulty of composing with colour for his chosen subject matter
• Colour is/can be a distraction unless you have mastered that difficulty

Even if you mastered it he also said that you cannot avoid unexpected clashes between colors that are revealed only later when you print the photo

• Colour fidelity is tricky
• B/W is a useful abstraction

Indeed

• Laziness

Never thought of it but you might have a point here.
As in cinema Bergmann, Fellini, Ozu, totally resisted color for long while Visconti embraced it from the beginning.

Or think Saul Leiter in photography or Lartigue

 

[cliveh]

On the subject of colour v black & white, just look at the films of Andrei Tarkovsky who switched between the two in order to convey his poetic imagery. In my opinion the best film director ever.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Your statement was:



You said nothing about "the masses". I did not confirm your point, I disproved it.

You got me on that Alex. I meant for the masses in general use, not for the few chemical specialists.

 

[nikos79]

On the subject of colour v black & white, just look at the films of Andrei Tarkovsky who switched between the two in order to convey his poetic imagery. In my opinion the best film director ever.

Didn't he do both in one film?

 

[cliveh]

Didn't he do both in one film?

I think he did both in several films. If you want to learn more about him read his book 'sculpting in time'.

 

[nikos79]

I think he did both in several films. If you want to learn more about him read his book 'sculpting in time'.

Thanks will check it out

 

[koraks]

Who gives a hoot what HCB thought about color photography? I don't ask the butcher for his opinion on plumbing, either. It wasn't his area of interest and expertise. His opinion on the matter, insofar as we can even know it today (and provided it was constant and consistent in the first place) is as relevant as that of, say, my next door neighbor or Mr Khan who runs a tandoori joint in Uttar Pradesh.

 

[nikos79]

Who gives a hoot what HCB thought about color photography? I don't ask the butcher for his opinion on plumbing, either. It wasn't his area of interest and expertise. His opinion on the matter, insofar as we can even know it today (and provided it was constant and consistent in the first place) is as relevant as that of, say, my next door neighbor or Mr Khan who runs a tandoori joint in Uttar Pradesh.

I find this answer both satisfying and problematic, for the same reason.

On the one hand, I agree that there has been a degree of hero worship in this thread, and it is healthy to push back against that. HCB should not be treated as an oracle or the semi God of photography and his limitations are real and worth discussing.

On the other hand, I think the plumbing analogy is not fair. We are not talking about isolated and unrelated technical professions here and moreover HCB was not speaking from ignorance. He worked extensively in color when required with his assignments through Magnum and reflected critically on its limits within his own working method.

What he practically says is not that "color is inferior" but rather that "color has laws, and I cannot master them under the constraints of fast, uncontrolled, real-life photography". That resonated with me as a very coherent and honest position, not a dismissal. One can disagree with his conclusions without reducing his thinking to irrelevance.