HCB Appreciation

[Pieter12]

No.

Find me a sculptor that has had more influence on photography than Hopper. Or Caravaggio, for that matter.

HCB started as a painter, ended as a painter, and acknowledged André Lhote's painting lessons as the major influence on his photography.

Heck, even music has more in common with photography than sculpture.

But there are more photos of sculpture than of paintings, except maybe for reproduction. And music can't be photographed, only the making and the effect.

 

[MattKing]

Sorry I didn't understand you, we both talk about real prints right? Or you mean the process?

If you say "I don't know how to print" I understand that to mean what it says.
That you don't know how to make prints - of any sort.
If you are making all the artistic and technical choices necessary to make good photographic prints, you are making and creating artifacts, which are themselves capable of being Art.
And that creative effort is not process dependent.

 

[Milpool]

Sorry I didn't understand you, we both talk about real prints right? Or you mean the process?

Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think the making of physical prints has much or anything to do with what you were originally talking about.

 

[pentaxuser]

And prints that originate from a digital file are equally different from those screen images.

Being at a loose end I browsed through this thread just now for the first time and came across your statement, Matt

I have never been able to do this so wouldn't know where to start in trying to differentiate between a bundle of prints in which there were digital prints and analogue prints in random order and expect to be right in more than the number of choices that are dictated by the laws of chance

When my wife first bought a digital camera I asked her to take the exact same scene in the garden as I did on my analogue camera She had her pic printed by the local lab whilst I printed my neg optically and developed via RA4. Both on 5x7 paper

My son had a digital pic produced as a b&w print and its on his wall It looked to me very similar to what I might have printed in my darkroom Had I not known that all my son has is digital then I am far from convinced that on seeing the pic I would have known that it was digital

I really couldn't see any difference in either of the cases above

So what do I need to look for to learn how to tell the difference?

I address this question to Matt as it was his statement that piqued my curíosity but it is open to all who can distinguish between the two like Matt to help me to learn how to tell the difference

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[Pieter12]

Being at a loose end I browsed through this thread just now for the first time and came across your statement, Matt

I have never been able to do this so wouldn't know where to start in trying to differentiate between a bundle of prints in which there were digital prints and analogue prints in random order and expect to be right in more than the number of choices that are dictated by the laws of chance

When my wife first bought a digital camera I asked her to take the exact same scene in the garden as I did on my analogue camera She had her pic printed by the local lab whilst I printed my neg optically and developed via RA4. Both on 5x7 paper

My son had a digital pic produced as a b&w print and its on his wall It looked to me very similar to what I might have printed in my darkroom Had I not known that all my son has is digital then I am far from convinced that on seeing the pic I would have known that it was digital

I really couldn't see any difference in either of the cases above

So what do I need to look for to learn how to tell the difference?

I address this question to Matt as it was his statement that piqued my curíosity but it is open to all who can distinguish between the two like Matt to help me to learn how to tell the difference

Thanks

pentaxuser

As far as black and white is concerned, with the exception of piezograpohic prints I have had made, inkjet is never as satisfying as a silver print. The blacks are just not deep, and there can be a color tint to an inkjet print depending on the lighting conditions.

 

[Vaughn]

Closest I have come to a HBC moment. (RA4 print)

I was pushing our stroller with my three almost-2-yr-old boys in San Fran after a 6 hour drive down to th e big city. The boys' mom was at where ever one gets emergency replacement passports because she did not pay the $10 expedited service when applying for a passport for the boy who was suppose to fly with her to Australia that afternoon to visit family. Way past that decisive moment!

But I liked the scene itself and already had my Rolleiflex out, the scene metered, the camera out and adjusted for a hand-held image when I saw the person walk out the door. I definitely planned the moment to make the one exposure, but was really going for geometrically amusing and not decisive.

It seems to me that the "Decisive Moment" gets twisted into a dogma so that it can be conveniently whipped soundly. I feel the same way about "Straight (f64) Photography".

 

[MattKing]

Being at a loose end I browsed through this thread just now for the first time and came across your statement, Matt

I have never been able to do this so wouldn't know where to start in trying to differentiate between a bundle of prints in which there were digital prints and analogue prints in random order and expect to be right in more than the number of choices that are dictated by the laws of chance

When my wife first bought a digital camera I asked her to take the exact same scene in the garden as I did on my analogue camera She had her pic printed by the local lab whilst I printed my neg optically and developed via RA4. Both on 5x7 paper

My son had a digital pic produced as a b&w print and its on his wall It looked to me very similar to what I might have printed in my darkroom Had I not known that all my son has is digital then I am far from convinced that on seeing the pic I would have known that it was digital

I really couldn't see any difference in either of the cases above

So what do I need to look for to learn how to tell the difference?

I address this question to Matt as it was his statement that piqued my curíosity but it is open to all who can distinguish between the two like Matt to help me to learn how to tell the difference

Thanks

pentaxuser

I'm afraid you misunderstand.
I was saying that prints are different from screen images, and that one does create things when they make prints from and through their efforts.
No comment was made about how prints originating from two different sources might differ.

 

[nikos79]

Closest I have come to a HBC moment. (RA4 print)

I was pushing our stroller with my three almost-2-yr-old boys in San Fran after a 6 hour drive down to th e big city. The boys' mom was at where ever one gets emergency replacement passports because she did not pay the $10 expedited service when applying for a passport for the boy who was suppose to fly with her to Australia that afternoon to visit family. Way past that decisive moment!

But I liked the scene itself and already had my Rolleiflex out, the scene metered, the camera out and adjusted for a hand-held image when I saw the person walk out the door. I definitely planned the moment to make the one exposure, but was really going for geometrically amusing and not decisive.

It seems to me that the "Decisive Moment" gets twisted into a dogma so that it can be conveniently whipped soundly. I feel the same way about "Straight (f64) Photography".

This reminds me more of a Kertesz moment and the bridge photo (with the train passing and the man holding a painting through the many levels)!

 

[Pieter12]

Closest I have come to a HBC moment. (RA4 print)

I was pushing our stroller with my three almost-2-yr-old boys in San Fran after a 6 hour drive down to th e big city. The boys' mom was at where ever one gets emergency replacement passports because she did not pay the $10 expedited service when applying for a passport for the boy who was suppose to fly with her to Australia that afternoon to visit family. Way past that decisive moment!

But I liked the scene itself and already had my Rolleiflex out, the scene metered, the camera out and adjusted for a hand-held image when I saw the person walk out the door. I definitely planned the moment to make the one exposure, but was really going for geometrically amusing and not decisive.

It seems to me that the "Decisive Moment" gets twisted into a dogma so that it can be conveniently whipped soundly. I feel the same way about "Straight (f64) Photography".

That stuff happens.

 

[cliveh]

For me, the puddle jumper has to be the most iconic photograph of the 20th century. And yes I know it's cropped and there were multiple exposures on the contact sheet, but that doesn't matter, it is unsurpassed in it's time and place.

 

[snusmumriken]

I don’t want to usurp @cliveh here, but surely in the context of this thread, it doesn’t matter a jot whether photography is creating or observing, additive or subtractive. Nor does it matter whether HCB could be described as a genius, although he would undoubtedly have squirmed at the suggestion. All that really matters is whether you appreciate his photos, and if so what you appreciate about them.

Going back to the girl in Sifnos, @Nikos, would your appreciation of the photo be greater if you didn’t know that he waited an hour for the girl to appear? It’s like saying, “Oh, if only I’d known he was using D-76”. The only point is that the girl made the composition. How he got the shot is immaterial.

 

[nikos79]

For me, the puddle jumper has to be the most iconic photograph of the 20th century. And yes I know it's cropped and there were multiple exposures on the contact sheet, but that doesn't matter, it is unsurpassed in it's time and place.

Apart from being as iconic as it is could you explain why? I am just curious how you perceive it (then I will offer my perception of it at the end of this reply).
I just have heard so many "explanations" of this photo and why it is good that I am a bit fed up with this one tbh.
(it is a great photo indeed because it freezes the time and the paddler will forever stay in the air in the time of the photo and in the time as we perceive it akin to what Marcel Proust calls a "clean" piece of time)

 

[Chuck1]

This is the girl from sifnos?
It's a great image

 

[nikos79]

I don’t want to usurp @cliveh here, but surely in the context of this thread, it doesn’t matter a jot whether photography is creating or observing, additive or subtractive. Nor does it matter whether HCB could be described as a genius, although he would undoubtedly have squirmed at the suggestion. All that really matters is whether you appreciate his photos, and if so what you appreciate about them.

Going back to the girl in Sifnos, @Nikos, would your appreciation of the photo be greater if you didn’t know that he waited an hour for the girl to appear? It’s like saying, “Oh, if only I’d known he was using D-76”. The only point is that the girl made the composition. How he got the shot is immaterial.

Don't get me wrong the shot is really good. It doesn't change my appreciation of it but it does change a lot my appreciation of the photographer

 

[nikos79]

This is the girl from sifnos?
It's a great image

No this is the girl from Italy I think. Although it doesn't look like HCB. Too much geometry and form and no balance

 

[nikos79]

This is the girl of Sifnos:

 

[cliveh]

Apart from being as iconic as it is could you explain why? I am just curious how you perceive it (then I will offer my perception of it at the end of this reply).
I just have heard so many "explanations" of this photo and why it is good that I am a bit fed up with this one tbh.
(it is a great photo indeed because it freezes the time and the paddler will forever stay in the air in the time of the photo and in the time as we perceive it akin to what Marcel Proust calls a "clean" piece of time)

It represents a leap into the unknown, as is the entire history of the human race. But the photograph in the 20th century is probably the most graphic photographic representation of this fact, recorded on the physical integrity of film.

 

[Pieter12]

Apart from being as iconic as it is could you explain why? I am just curious how you perceive it (then I will offer my perception of it at the end of this reply).
I just have heard so many "explanations" of this photo and why it is good that I am a bit fed up with this one tbh.
(it is a great photo indeed because it freezes the time and the paddler will forever stay in the air in the time of the photo and in the time as we perceive it akin to what Marcel Proust calls a "clean" piece of time)

Why should any photo need an explanation? You like it or you don't. Leave it there. If you need an explanation to appreciate a particular photo, then something is lacking. Not to say that additional information or an experienced commentary wouldn't be helpful in increasing that appreciation, but if you don't "see" it like others might, that's just fine.

 

[cliveh]

This is the girl of Sifnos:

View attachment 403843

This image is not just about superb timing, but the tonal relationship of the composition.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

This is the girl from sifnos?
It's a great image

It's called "Approaching Shadow", by Fan Ho.

This image is not just about superb timing, but the tonal relationship of the composition.

Only problem is that the shadow was added in the darkroom.

That doesn't make it less superb.

 

[cliveh]

It's called "Approaching Shadow", by Fan Ho.



Only problem is that the shadow was added in the darkroom.

That doesn't make it less superb.

Which shadow?

 

[Chuck1]

The diagnol line in approaching shadow

 

[Alex Benjamin]

Which shadow?

On the negative, the entire wall is like the sun-lit triangle on the left. The darker triangle on the right was added simply by burning, giving the impression that there is a shadow falling on the wall.

 

[nikos79]

It's called "Approaching Shadow", by Fan Ho.



Only problem is that the shadow was added in the darkroom.

That doesn't make it less superb.

Ah yeah it looked a bit like Fan Ho.

 

[Don_ih]

Don't get me wrong the shot is really good. It doesn't change my appreciation of it but it does change a lot my appreciation of the photographer

You're like someone disappointed in a magician because he isn't doing real magic.

But there is no real magic.