HCB Appreciation

[koraks]

Not a joke at all, I really believe this photo would be better without the "blurred" bike that works more as an effect

Okay, I see. I can't say I understand it as such, because in my view, what remains if you take out the cyclist is a more lifeless arrangement of forms that doesn't hold my attention very long. I also feel that the blank spot that results from the removal doesn't balance well with the rest of the composition. But perhaps this is because I'm so accustomed to the original image that it'll always feel there's something missing if it's removed; it's difficult to 'unsee' the image as I know it. Even so, I suspect that the unbalance resulting from removal is inherent, not just a result of my conditioning to this particular image.

 

[gary mulder]

His decisions in making the print everyone gets to see are irrelevant to the people looking at those finished prints. Why? Because the viewer is not privy to the alternatives. The viewer is presented the result of all the choices made by the photographer and is not involved in the decision-making process. Appreciating his methods and ideology is swell, but it doesn't improve a particular photo. You don't have to like all his photos to appreciate his skill and methodology - just like you don't have to care about his skill and methodology in order to like one of his photos.

HCB insisted that the edge of the entire negative be visible in the print. So that it was also visible that this crop had been determined during the moment of recording. It is therefore early (pre) conceptual art. I you don't like the concept then you miss the essence.

 

[nikos79]

Okay, I see. I can't say I understand it as such, because in my view, what remains if you take out the cyclist is a more lifeless arrangement of forms that doesn't hold my attention very long. I also feel that the blank spot that results from the removal doesn't balance well with the rest of the composition. But perhaps this is because I'm so accustomed to the original image that it'll always feel there's something missing if it's removed; it's difficult to 'unsee' the image as I know it. Even so, I suspect that the unbalance resulting from removal is inherent, not just a result of my conditioning to this particular image.

It could be. I understand your points. There is no universal truth to these things
It took me also a while to imagine the image without the cyclist as I was totally accustomed to it.

 

[Don_ih]

HCB insisted that the edge of the entire negative be visible in the print. So that it was also visible that this crop had been determined during the moment of recording. It is therefore early (pre) conceptual art. I you don't like the concept then you miss the essence.

Knowing that is not necessary to appreciate an image. It's trivia.

 

[gary mulder]

Then Maybe it could just be an AI-generated image.

 

[Don_ih]

Then Maybe it could just be an AI-generated image.

That's a leap.

Art appreciation generally ties the object to its creator and through that to the remaining body of work of that creator (it's similar to theology). So, knowing that it is a photo by Cartier-Bresson is relevant to that particular kind of assessment. But knowing that Cartier-Bresson only used Leicas, never cropped an image, always wanted the full frame in the print, had Cherrios for breakfast, or fart just as the puddle jumper leapt - all that is trivia (Amend that. It's trivia for appreciating a single image but may lead into an understanding of methodology that is relevant for noticing trends or characteristics in a body of work. (although not the fart bit)).

 

[gary mulder]

A nice aspect of AI generated pictures is that it takes all kind of bits and pieces and makes a “new” image that tends to be liked more by the general public than human made art.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

As you have no idea what the bottom step looked like and it would mean cutting out the view at the top of the frame, your comment is quite ridiculous.

I'm sorry my comment offended you. That wasn't my intention. I was giving you my opinion about the composition. You asked for it in your post, "How about this for perfect timing and composition: -" It;s not the viewer's job to improve the composition. That's up to the photographer. Those are issues they have to solve such as using a wider angle lens, stepping back further, etc.

 

[snusmumriken]

A "very slight bit" would be maybe less than a mm on the negative. One mm away from the top, one mm added to the bottom. "Perfect" as it is, it's nitpicking. The photo would be different, yes, in terms of its actuality. But everything you could say about it would be exactly the same.

HCB did actually say that the difference between “no” and “yes yes yes!” might be a matter of millimetres in the viewfinder. I do believe that to be true, although I’ve always found it a mystery how he (or anyone) could be so precise with any of the Leica viewfinders.

 

[cliveh]

HCB did actually say that the difference between “no” and “yes yes yes!” might be a matter of millimetres in the viewfinder. I do believe that to be true, although I’ve always found it a mystery how he (or anyone) could be so precise with any of the Leica viewfinders.

Look at this: -

Note the forhead of the girl on the right and the woman behind seperated by a fraction of a millimetre. This is what makes HCB the greatest photographer of the 20th century.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

Some people here are confusing criticism with evaluation.

Criticism is trying to understand a work as it is. Trying to understand why the photographer made the choices he made, what these choices may have meant to him. Trying to understand what the work might have meant to viewers at the time it was made, trying to understand how that meaning may have changed with time.

Criticism has nothing to do with evaluating—often arbitrarly, and according to one's own criterea—whether a photo is good, bad, whether it could be better if, or worse if.

Stating that adding the lower steps would make a better, or worse, composition is totally irrelevent to the photo that is. Only important question is wondering why Cartier-Bresson didn't put them in. This has nothing to do with hero worshipping. Looking at what is is the only way to begin to try to get into the photographer's mind. That's the mind I'm interested in understanding. Not that of the person who thinks the photo would be a better composition with the lower steps.

Mona Lisa might be a better, or worse, painting, if she were naked. Who knows. Honestly, who cares.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Look at this: -

View attachment 409816


Note the forhead of the girl on the right and the woman behind seperated by a fraction of a millimetre. This is what makes HCB the greatest photographer of the 20th century.

Luck. Notice how the girl on the left blocks part of the soldier's face.

 

[Don_ih]

HCB did actually say that the difference between “no” and “yes yes yes!” might be a matter of millimetres in the viewfinder. I do believe that to be true, although I’ve always found it a mystery how he (or anyone) could be so precise with any of the Leica viewfinders.

It's practically impossible to frame within a mm using a Leica IIIa - it's better with an M3. Cartier-Bresson often used an external viewfinder, which would pretty much always result in better left-right framing and, if you were careful with the distance adjustment, could also get better with up and down.

He also took a lot of photos and was very familiar with his equipment.

I don't someone can point to anything significant in any of his photos and validly say "luck".

 

[snusmumriken]

Luck. Notice how the girl on the left blocks part of the soldier's face.

Agreed. He has also cut off the feet of the girl on the right. It was surely anticipation and quick reaction, rather than millimetre composition, that made this one a keeper.

 

[snusmumriken]

Stating that adding the lower steps would make a better, or worse, composition is totally irrelevent to the photo that is. Only important question is wondering why Cartier-Bresson didn't put them in.

I’m not even convinced that question is important. There could be many prosaic reasons why the lower steps couldn’t be included. HCB would have considered later whether the photo, as actually taken, ‘worked’ or was a reject.

 

[gary mulder]

I don't someone can point to anything significant in any of his photos and validly say "luck".

I guess you can say the same about Cristiano Ronaldo or Francis Joyon. Two names that come to mind. He just was lucky.

 

[Don_ih]

He has also cut off the feet of the girl on the right.

The internet is unreliable.

 

[snusmumriken]

View attachment 409833

The internet is unreliable.

Good, thanks for that.

 

[nikos79]

No, HCB was not lucky. As he said a photo takes 1/60th of a second and 60 years of experience.
Was he a great photographer? Yes.
Do some of his photos can be called masterpieces? Yes.
Did he also make many mediocre, indifferent, or even bad photos? Sure, he did.

 

[nikos79]

Look at this: -

View attachment 409816


Note the forhead of the girl on the right and the woman behind seperated by a fraction of a millimetre. This is what makes HCB the greatest photographer of the 20th century.

I will try to "read" or "evaluate" this photo (please understand very personal evaluation following):
This photo is interesting. The two women tell a story. Especially the woman with the suitcase that looks at something which we don't know what it is and seems skeptical. The other woman's face is also perfect, it wouldn't be the same if she looked at the first woman. Instead she is looking at something else.
The photos is already pretty interesting to me. And now comes the part which I like to call "HCB showing off".
The two soldiers looking at the women. Totally spoil the mystery. Throws some self-evident associations to the photo (the contrast between the two men and the two women) all these kind of "tricks" that sometimes HCB resorts to. Totally unnecessary in my opinion.
I would personally like the photo more without the soldiers.
I know that the audience will like the photo more like that as it offers some easy "reading" in the form: "Aha two nice women and two soldiers, oh look how they look at them I guess they miss women in the camp, now I get it".
But the power of the photo imo resists easy interpretations and always flirt with the realm of the abstract

P.S. Please be kind in your replies as this is totally personal and very arbitrary evaluation full of leaps and possible prejudices. Just an opinion.

 

[gary mulder]

Good, thanks for that.

That's way HCB wanted to have te black border printed. To know that picture was not cropped.

 

[gary mulder]

The two soldiers looking at the women. Totally spoil the mystery. Throws some self-evident associations to the photo (the contrast between the two men and the two women) all these kind of "tricks" that sometimes HCB resorts to. Totally unnecessary in my opinion.

He didn't use tricks. He just took a picture of what he saw. He didn’t stage the image.

 

[nikos79]

He didn't use tricks. He just took a picture of what he saw. He didn’t stage the image.

Yes I know that it was not staged of course, but why did he choose it?

 

[Don_ih]

why did he choose it?

Ask Life Magazine

They clearly thought it was worthy of being on the cover. That you don't like the photo is a-ok, though.

 

[gary mulder]

t why did he choose it?

The most obvious reason is because he thought it was a nice picture. As a photographer, you will always meet people who don't like your work. I meant what I wrote about AI. AI looks for the picture which corresponds to the taste of the largest group. The fact that you don't like the picture was irrelevant to HCB