Who is this Cartier-Bresson guy anyway?

[Elderly]

http://www.flickr.com/photos/andrerabelo/70458366/

It's rubbish - it's not even in colour

[SamHH]

I don't see what all the fuss is about. You either like the photo or you don't; what difference does it make who took it?

[GetCarter]

SamHH said:

I don't see what all the fuss is about. You either like the photo or you don't; what difference does it make who took it?

Well yes... I get where you're coming from - but think Bach... He did it first and everybody has been copying him since, so the chap has to have some credit. It DOES matter that it's Bach, or Flemming, or Einstein or... etc.

[Simpo Two]

I'm in two minds. I like the picture; a moment in time - you wonder who the cyclist is. Composition taken for granted. The thing is - if I took exactly the same picture, nobody would look at it twice. Like paintings, you have to have the name. Put 'Cartier-Bresson' on it and it's worth thousands; put 'Simpo' on it and it's worth nothing. I can paint a woman with two faces but because it's not signed 'Picasso' it's worthless. But somehow you have to earn the name and the reputation. These days you can do it with media hype. The question is - how did the likes of H.C-B do it? Or has the advent of the digital age, which can make millions of amateurs quite decent photographers, produced many more of his ability?

(NB: Not having a degree in photography I haven't had the benefit of writing essays on the subject)

[Elderly]

Simpo Two said:

The thing is - if I took exactly the same picture, nobody would look at it twice. Like paintings, you have to have the name. Put 'Cartier-Bresson' on it and it's worth thousands; put 'Simpo' on it and it's worth nothing. I can paint a woman with two faces but because it's not signed 'Picasso' it's worthless.

But if you could produce thousands of equally wonderfully composed fleeting moments caught over a 50 year period, as H C-B did;
then John Simpo-Bloke might become an equally valued photographer .

and if you can (technically) paint like Picasso (BTW as an artist he generally doesn't do it for me) then IMO you are wasting your talent .

[LongQ]

Simpo Two said:

(NB: Not having a degree in photography I haven't had the benefit of writing essays on the subject)

Actually I thought that was a pretty good, concise essay.

I can see a construct of the lines in the original with the chap on the bike being thrown in as a counterpoint. Works fine and in the internet age you can find hundreds of similar pieces scattered around the place but without being understood as 'original' art. That categorisation gets difficult when it has been 'done before'. Early adopters and early exponents have wider vistas open to them.

It comes down to who gets hyped up and why? You can be fairly sure that it will be someone with an army scale support team around them most of the time. 'The name' needs to produce volume as well as content to stay at the top of the pile and you don't do that by if you always have your hands deep in the developement process. Would Damien Hirst have the recognition he does if he operated without a support team?

Edited by LongQ on Tuesday 16th June 10:17

[toothrot]

Elderly said:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/andrerabelo/70458366/

It's rubbish - it's not even in colour

good lord I remember watching that thread start. That is a st photo but its funny watching the backtracking from those that say so then say oh it must be good because of who took it.

[Snapper7]

Henri Cartier-Bresson and a few others took photography to a new level when the equipment was at its very basic level and they were among the first to be using 35mm film. The composition, timing and exposures were stunning given that the cameras being used were the very early range finder leica cameras, that didn't even have exposure meters in them and the the range finder were often guess work for framing their pictures.

In this age of auto focus, auto matrix metering, image stabilised lenses and TTL flash, using a rangefinder camera in very difficult. I used to have a couple of Leica M6 Cameras that I used to use for features work. I remember when I took on a new lad who was just out of college and he laughed at the Leicas, But he was amazed at some of the pictures that I took on them, especially when he borrowed them for a day, He just could not get his head around how you ever got a usable picture.

[andy-xr]

Is this about Watches?

[tog]

I had a poster of that on my wall when I was at art college. Great pic, not at it's best tiny on the web.

[GetCarter]

toothrot said:

That is a st photo.

Given what he was using, and what had been considered photography until that point in time, It's better than anything I would have ever taken. Maybe you just have much higher standards than me Stig.

Edited by GetCarter on Tuesday 16th June 19:04

[toothrot]

or maybe you are making excuses for the emporers new clothes?

If it wasnt "him" and you didnt know when it was taken, you would say its st

[urban_alchemist]

Snapper7 said:

Henri Cartier-Bresson and a few others took photography to a new level when the equipment was at its very basic level and they were among the first to be using 35mm film. The composition, timing and exposures were stunning given that the cameras being used were the very early range finder leica cameras, that didn't even have exposure meters in them and the the range finder were often guess work for framing their pictures.

In this age of auto focus, auto matrix metering, image stabilised lenses and TTL flash, using a rangefinder camera in very difficult. I used to have a couple of Leica M6 Cameras that I used to use for features work. I remember when I took on a new lad who was just out of college and he laughed at the Leicas, But he was amazed at some of the pictures that I took on them, especially when he borrowed them for a day, He just could not get his head around how you ever got a usable picture.

I have never used a Leica III, but an M3 (that was claimed to be his favourite camera) is far from difficult to use. If anything, I'd say they're simplicity themselves. The framelines are very accurate, focusing is a breeze (the binary method of rangefinders tends to be more accurate than SLRs), and even without a meter, the 'sunny 16 rule' should have you guestimating exposure with no problems with a little practice.

BECAUSE you don't have to worry about "auto focus, auto matrix metering, image stabilised lenses and TTL flash" I can just concentrate on making the photo - MY photo that I have in my head.

Hell, the only cameras I use are Leica Ms (yes, call me a dinosaur, but I'm 'only' 30) - it's that ease (with practice) that means I'm still using one even in the digital age. If HCB picked up my M8 today, he wouldn't need to ask a question and would instantly be taking 'his' photos - it works exactly like his old M3.

But I still love my film Ms more

And as for that little assistant of yours - give him an M (or any fully manual) for a day and let him see what real picture-taking is about

Edited by urban_alchemist on Tuesday 16th June 21:14

[anonymous-user]

SamHH said:

I don't see what all the fuss is about. You either like the photo or you don't; what difference does it make who took it?

Judging by some of the postings on that website, it matters a great deal. I think it's a nicely composed, interesting image, I'd be quite happy to have taken a shot like that.

[SamHH]

excel789 said:

SamHH said:

I don't see what all the fuss is about. You either like the photo or you don't; what difference does it make who took it?

Judging by some of the postings on that website, it matters a great deal. I think it's a nicely composed, interesting image, I'd be quite happy to have taken a shot like that.

That's what I meant: people on the comments page who said they don't like the photo were being attacked simply because it is a Cartier-Bresson photo. He may have been a very skilful and ground-breaking photographer, but I don't think there's any conflict in recognising that fact but also saying that you don't like the photo. It would be silly to expect everyone to like the same photos.

[toothrot]

if even I were to travel back in time with shots taken with my modern camera but presented back when hcb was shooting, I would be classed as a great by the arguments about how he was groundbreaking

Foxtalbot was ground breaking etc but a great?

[urban_alchemist]

SamHH said:

excel789 said:

SamHH said:

I don't see what all the fuss is about. You either like the photo or you don't; what difference does it make who took it?

Judging by some of the postings on that website, it matters a great deal. I think it's a nicely composed, interesting image, I'd be quite happy to have taken a shot like that.

That's what I meant: people on the comments page who said they don't like the photo were being attacked simply because it is a Cartier-Bresson photo. He may have been a very skilful and ground-breaking photographer, but I don't think there's any conflict in recognising that fact but also saying that you don't like the photo. It would be silly to expect everyone to like the same photos.

I think they point was most of the nay-sayers were completely obsessed with the technical ("not sharp here", "movement needs sharpness for contrast" etc...) - and were completely unable to evaluate the image using any other criteria.

I think the point wasn't that it was by HCB, but trying to shock them out of the very derivative and pervasive idea of what constitutes a good photograph in this day and age.

[toothrot]

actually that wasnt the argument, I think that thread demonstrated that people said it was st, found out who took it, then back pedalled.

[kerplunk]

reminded me of this:

http://theonlinephotographer.blogspot.com/2006/06/...

[urban_alchemist]

kerplunk said:

reminded me of this:

http://theonlinephotographer.blogspot.com/2006/06/...

That. Just. Made. My. Day. And it's only 10:30.