Henri Cartier-Bresson "Eliminated"

[inneist]

I'd vote this one Photographic Discussions Thread of 2006.

Someone posted a Cartier-Bresson's photo without naming it, later the photo was voted out of the competition pool! But the discussion ensued was what made it most interesting:

Here's the link on flickr:

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

 

[inneist]

Really, I'm curious, to what extent the sharpness of a photo means to you personally in street photography?

 

[markc]

"Had Cartier-Bresson had the technology we do now he would have probably taken a completely different shot, especially knowing the audience he was shooting for."

Good grief. I had to stop reading after I threw up in my mouth a little there.
Heck, I enjoy Teru Kuwayama, Michael Ackerman, and Paul Himmel, so I certainly don't mind a little blur.

 

[Iron Flatline]

Meh. I'm a huge fan HCB, and his whole body of work. I also like that shot a lot, but I don't LOVE it. That whole thread is a trap and field of landmines. On one hand it's an amateur photo site where people try to help each other out, on the other hand you have some pompuous attitudes. I bet one or two of those kids love HCB because they were taught that he was a master. Show the same kid a Steichen and they'll hate it. Bah.

There's a link that keeps circulating, here as well, about funny (mock) online photographers' comments about various famous shots...

Ah, found it:
http://theonlinephotographer.blogspot.com/2006/06/great-photographers-on-internet.html

 

[danalec99]

http://theonlinephotographer.blogspot.com/2006/06/great-photographers-on-internet.html

 

[ksmattfish]

"Had Cartier-Bresson had the technology we do now he would have probably taken a completely different shot...

No kidding, he was probably using "high speed" ISO 25 film with a "fast" f/3.5 lens.

Really, I'm curious, to what extent the sharpness of a photo means to you personally in street photography?

I don't do a lot of street photography, but I try to consider each photo (other folks' and mine) on it's own. I would say that with the majority of my photos I am trying to achieve sharp focus of the subject, but sometimes softness, or just being plain out of focus works too. I've been doing a lot more low light, available light photography in the last few years, and giving up the flash has meant that for most shots I'm giving up sharp focus too, but the look of real world lighting more than makes up for it.

I find that I'm discarding fewer photos these days just because they are unintentionally soft or even badly out of focus (sometimes a shot comes at me when I'm not ready, and rather than miss it trying to get perfect focus, I take the shot when it has to be taken no matter where the focus is). If the content is strong it can overcome technical failings.

I took a photo of a groom and his father at a reception this summer that was pretty soft (unintentionally, I just goofed it). But I really got a sense of emotion from it, so I delivered it to the client. It was just one of 200 reception photos, most of which were in better focus, so I figured it didn't matter much. I got three long, praising emails about that photo from the bride, the groom, and the groom's mother. All said it was their favorite shot from the whole wedding, and probably the best photo of the groom and his father ever. No one mentioned that it was soft.

 

[ksmattfish]

Here's some quotes from HCB regarding sharpness...

"Sharpness is a bourgeois concept."

"I’m always amused by the idea that certain people have about technique, which translate into an immoderate taste for the sharpness of the image. It is a passion for detail, for perfection, or do they hope to get closer to reality with this trompe I’oeil? They are, by the way, as far away from the real issues as other generations of photographers were when they obscured their subject in soft-focus effects."

Awesome video with Charlie Rose interviewing HCB.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4074157481455007235

 

[markc]

Sonny: You think Wes is God, don't you.
Donald: No, not God, Just an ordinary man. Maybe a little ahead of his time, but just an ordinary man.
Sonny: Wes is an a**hole.
Donald: Blasphemy! Oh, you'll smoke a turd in hell for that!

The Survivors (1983)

Yeah, I agree that there is a tendency to think that everything someone does is great just because they've become known for being great. That's turning off your brain. But at the same time, the guy obviously knows how to make a great photo. At that point, if he creates a shot that someone doesn't like, it's more about taste than anything else, because he knows all about the choices he's made.

 

[markc]

I'll have to watch it later, but thanks for the link!

 

[Tiberius]

I look at this from a different angle.

There is a sharp divide between "pure" art and art that appeals to the populace. It's most apparent in music, where a large chunk of "modern" compositions seem absolutely hideous to 99% of people without a college degree in music, but there's a degree of truth in it in photography as well. There's a difference between pure art and stuff that sells. This particular HCB shot may qualify as pure art, but it's something that if I had shot I would have without hesitation immediately deleted in the camera.

 

[markc]

I agree that knowing about how to read a photo can help you appreciate images that you would otherwise not take a second look at, but in this case, I liked the image even before I knew much. I was just starting to learn about "what came before" when I came across this and it stuck in my mind. It's definitely a taste thing; the reasons I like it are more visceral than just art knowledge.

 

[ksmattfish]

Just looking around the internet I've found several other examples of this HCB photo, and they all are sharper (except for the moving cyclist) with more contrast than the file posted on Flickr, but even soft I like the image. Then again I have a thing for both bicycles and stairs as subject matter.

Some of the people who dismissed it may have a completely different opinion were they to view an actual print. Many of my photos look significantly different as 8"x10" and larger prints than they do at 500 pixels across.

 

[markc]

That's a good point. I first saw it in a well-produced monograph.

 

[Torus34]

So who needs van Gogh? For goodness sakes -- he's so incompetent that you can even see his brush strokes!

 

[fmw]

I agree with Tiberius for the most part except I like the image and wouldn't have deleted it from my camera. I'm willing to bet HCB was shooting the staircase and the cyclist passing by was accidental and incidental to his intention. So the "art" may have happened rather than being created. It certainly has happened to all of us. It has to me and I don't even consider myself to be an artist. I'm guessing it was accidental but it makes one wonder how to define accidents as art.