HCB Appreciation

[Alex Benjamin]

Jean-Paul Sartre

View attachment 412116

How better to represent the philosopher who wrote "Being and Nothingness" than to have his being surrounded by urban landscape fading into nothingness...

 

[Don_ih]

How better to represent the philosopher who wrote "Being and Nothingness" than to have his being surrounded by urban landscape fading into nothingness...

Plus some guy.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

Plus some guy.

Pretty sure he's nothingness by now

 

[cliveh]

Alex again hits the nail on the head. Alex you should write photographic critique articles for magazines.

 

[snusmumriken]

Alex again hits the nail on the head. Alex you should write photographic critique articles for magazines.

Clive, do you really believe HCB planned that “fading into nothingness”? I suspect he recognised Sartre on the bridge looking thoughtful and grabbed a snap portrait. He may have had time to choose a wide aperture, maybe not. But to suppose that he thought it would be fitting for a philosopher to have such a background stretches my credulity too far.

I also suspect that @Alex Benjamin was just being whimsical, not implying that HCB had followed such a thought process.

PS - I am a huge admirer of HCB’s portraits, by the way.

 

[nikos79]

I know that Bill Brandt when he did a portrait of Francis Bacon he deliberately chose the setting and atmosphere to mimic his paintings

 

[nikos79]

But I agree with you Alex was just really good in talking about how a photo worked that well and approaching it with words and imagination, not trying to imply that this was HCB intention

 

[Alex Benjamin]

Clive, do you really believe HCB planned that “fading into nothingness”? I suspect he recognised Sartre on the bridge looking thoughtful and grabbed a snap portrait. He may have had time to choose a wide aperture, maybe not. But to suppose that he thought it would be fitting for a philosopher to have such a background stretches my credulity too far.

I also suspect that @Alex Benjamin was just being whimsical, not implying that HCB had followed such a thought process.

PS - I am a huge admirer of HCB’s portraits, by the way.

My comment about "nothingness" was indeed in jest, but only partly. It was a humorous way to point out an interesting aspect of Carter-Bresson's art, the only one, I think, in which his twin vocations, photography and painting, seem to merge.

Cartier-Bresson stated that when on assignment (or just wandering around) he would always leave his aperture at either f/8 or f/11. This would give him enough depth of field to capture his subject and give enough clarity to its environment (i.e., context).

His approach to portraiture is different. The pattern is often to have very shallow depth of field. Not only indoors—where it might have been necessary because of lack of light and the slower films of the times (Tri-X was considered a 200 ISO film back then)—but also outside.

In many portraits, the background is no longer treated as photographed objects (or people), but almost as if painted in watercolours—shapes and contours that are no longer there to give context but are chosen for their tonal qualities and variety, and act almost as an impressionistic backdrop. The wide aperture, I believe, is thus a deliberate choice.

This is a photo portraiture technique we take for granted today (that has become a chiché, unfortunately), but that Cartier-Bresson was one of the first, if not the first, to employ, and in such a beautifully artistic manner. It takes the eye of a painter to do it this well (and also takes a great printer, but that's another story). He did it a lot in his early portraits, and seems to have moved away from it later.

This is most obvious in the portraits of two other Frech philosopers, that of Simone de Beauvoir, Sartre's life companion (and its interesting to notice how similar these two portraits are), and of Albert Camus.

 

[snusmumriken]

My comment about "nothingness" was indeed in jest, but only partly. It was a humorous way to point out an interesting aspect of Carter-Bresson's art, the only one, I think, in which his twin vocations, photography and painting, seem to merge.

Cartier-Bresson stated that when on assignment (or just wandering around) he would always leave his aperture at either f/8 or f/11. This would give him enough depth of field to capture his subject and give enough clarity to its environment (i.e., context).

His approach to portraiture is different. The pattern is often to have very shallow depth of field. Not only indoors—where it might have been necessary because of lack of light and the slower films of the times (Tri-X was considered a 200 ISO film back then)—but also outside.

In many portraits, the background is no longer treated as photographed objects (or people), but almost as if painted in watercolours—shapes and contours that are no longer there to give context but are chosen for their tonal qualities and variety, and act almost as an impressionistic backdrop. The wide aperture, I believe, is thus a deliberate choice.

This is a photo portraiture technique we take for granted today (that has become a chiché, unfortunately), but that Cartier-Bresson was one of the first, if not the first, to employ, and in such a beautifully artistic manner. It takes the eye of a painter to do it this well (and also takes a great printer, but that's another story). He did it a lot in his early portraits, and seems to have moved away from it later.

This is most obvious in the portraits of two other Frech philosopers, that of Simone de Beauvoir, Sartre's life companion (and its interesting to notice how similar these two portraits are), and of Albert Camus.

What you say is absolutely true, but he used shallow DOF for almost all his portraits, not just philosophers.

Sometimes nothing is sharply in focus, as in this beautiful portrait of Marie-Claude Vaillant Couturier. Maybe some would argue that was deliberate, but I tend to think he managed to get a wonderful portrait despite a wide aperture and very slow shutter speed.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

but he used shallow DOF for almost all his portraits, not just philosophers.

Yes. I didn't want to imply this was the case. I just used the Camus and de Beauvoir as examples because they are outdoor portraits, where more depth of field could have been possible, but he chose to have it shallow.

Sometimes nothing is sharply in focus, as in this beautiful portrait of Marie-Claude Vaillant Couturier. Maybe some would argue that was deliberate, but I tend to think he managed to get a wonderful portrait despite a wide aperture and very slow shutter speed.

Indeed! And I also think that he benefited from the craft of really great printers. I suspect — just a feeling, I have no proof — that many of his indoor portraits are underexposed, and that it takes really good darkroom technique to have them look like they do.

Another interesting aspect of Cartier-Bresson's photography that we don't talk much about is how flat the light is—in portraits, but also elsewhere. I read a quote of his where he says that he always prefered photographing on cloudy, gray days because he hated to deal with the hightened contrast of sunny days. I can't remember where I read that. I'll check to see later if I can find it.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

It's interesting to put side by side a portrait by Cartier-Bresson next to one of the same subject by another photographer. Not to "compare" them, in the sense of deciding which is "best" or which one prefers. But to see how much the juxtaposition says about each photographer—about how they approached the photographic portrait as genre, about how they approached the subject, about what they thought about the subject, about how much interpretative gesture they were willing to give both camera and darkroom techniques, about how they translated all that into a photographic object, etc.

Here's Cartier-Bresson's Francis Bacon

Here's Bill Brandt's Francis Bacon

You'd never think that Brandt's photo was taken 8 years (1963) before Cartier-Bresson's (1971).

And I be with only these two photographs side by side, looking at them in depth, you coud write a thesis about each photographer.

For good measure, here's Irving Penn (1962)

 

[Arthurwg]

Who says the photo needs to be explained?

Suggested reading: Susan Sontag's "Against Interpretation."

 

[Arthurwg]

Yes but the title is not there to "explain" the photo. We, as viewers do not really need it, right?

In journalism they say every photograph needs a caption.

 

[Arthurwg]

I know that Bill Brandt when he did a portrait of Francis Bacon he deliberately chose the setting and atmosphere to mimic his paintings

Easily the best of those pictures.

 

[Elmarc]

Another interesting aspect of Cartier-Bresson's photography that we don't talk much about is how flat the light is—in portraits, but also elsewhere. I read a quote of his where he says that he always prefered photographing on cloudy, gray days because he hated to deal with the hightened contrast of sunny days. I can't remember where I read that. I'll check to see later if I can find it.

That quote can be found in the book Interviews and conversations 1951-1998.

 

[snusmumriken]

In journalism they say every photograph needs a caption.

But Elliot Erwitt said, “The whole point of taking pictures is so that you don't have to explain things with words.”

 

[snusmumriken]

Easily the best of those pictures.

I appreciate them all, but I was also thinking it’s time we had an Irving Penn appreciation thread.

 

[MattKing]

In journalism they say every photograph needs a caption.

But Elliot Erwitt said, “The whole point of taking pictures is so that you don't have to explain things with words.”

Captions sometimes explain, but always identify.
Photographic discussions are much more fruitful if the participants are clear about which photograph is under consideration.

 

[nikos79]

My comment about "nothingness" was indeed in jest, but only partly. It was a humorous way to point out an interesting aspect of Carter-Bresson's art, the only one, I think, in which his twin vocations, photography and painting, seem to merge.

Cartier-Bresson stated that when on assignment (or just wandering around) he would always leave his aperture at either f/8 or f/11. This would give him enough depth of field to capture his subject and give enough clarity to its environment (i.e., context).

His approach to portraiture is different. The pattern is often to have very shallow depth of field. Not only indoors—where it might have been necessary because of lack of light and the slower films of the times (Tri-X was considered a 200 ISO film back then)—but also outside.

In many portraits, the background is no longer treated as photographed objects (or people), but almost as if painted in watercolours—shapes and contours that are no longer there to give context but are chosen for their tonal qualities and variety, and act almost as an impressionistic backdrop. The wide aperture, I believe, is thus a deliberate choice.

This is a photo portraiture technique we take for granted today (that has become a chiché, unfortunately), but that Cartier-Bresson was one of the first, if not the first, to employ, and in such a beautifully artistic manner. It takes the eye of a painter to do it this well (and also takes a great printer, but that's another story). He did it a lot in his early portraits, and seems to have moved away from it later.

This is most obvious in the portraits of two other Frech philosopers, that of Simone de Beauvoir, Sartre's life companion (and its interesting to notice how similar these two portraits are), and of Albert Camus.

Very very interesting. Especially the first portrait is a masterclass on how to use the blur background an art totally forgotten today where they tend to just use a shallow depth of field and totally ignore the background. Many Swiss photographer of that era had similar approach to portraiture.
On the other hand would be interesting to compare it to August Sander approach

 

[cliveh]

Suggested reading: Susan Sontag's "Against Interpretation."

What does Susan Sontag know about photography?

 

[nikos79]

What does Susan Sontag know about photography?

I doubt if she ever picked up a camera to feel the intricacies and real difficulties of photography

 

[GregY]

I doubt if she ever picked up a camera to feel the intricacies and real difficulties of photography

The most highly respected art critics may not paint or sculpt. Film critics aren't Fellini..... music critics are master musicians....
Picking up a camera doesn't necessarily make you an expert at anything....

 

[nikos79]

The most highly respected art critics may not paint or sculpt. Film critics aren't Fellini..... music critics are master musicians....
Picking up a camera doesn't necessarily make you an expert at anything....

I agree for all the other arts but photography.
I believe in photography it is so simple and yet so difficult that you really NEED to use at least a camera a few times to understand what you are talking about
And it is not about making you an expert but to get a basic understanding of the medium. Usually they speak nonsense because they use their knowledge from other arts to approach photography.

 

[nikos79]

Think John Szarkowsky or Gilles Mora they were also photographers.

 

[GregY]

I agree for all the other arts but photography.
I believe in photography it is so simple and yet so difficult that you really NEED to use at least a camera a few times to understand what you are talking about

a) you don't know that SS didn't in fact use a camera
b) i don't think it makes a difference.....and taking a few snapshots & sending out the film for processing or printing only scratches the very surface.