# The Impassioned Eye - Henri Cartier Bresson



## zenie (Nov 19, 2006)

Dont suppose anyone has a copy of this do they?

I've been looking but the dvd is 25 quid  and I cant find it on any torrent site


----------



## editor (Nov 19, 2006)

Henri Cartier Bresson's one of my all-time photographic heroes, but I'd rather look at fine print copies of his work than look onscreen.

You can buy it from Amazon UK for £9, btw.

(edit to add: at that price I'd be tempted buy a copy anyway - but make sure your player is compatible)


----------



## zenie (Nov 19, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> Henri Cartier Bresson's one of my all-time photographic heroes, but I'd rather look at fine print copies of his work than look onscreen.
> 
> (edit to add: at that price I'd be tempted buy a copy anyway - but make sure your player is compatible)



Oh right! 

Have you seen the documentary?


----------



## editor (Nov 19, 2006)

Haven't seen it no, but I've got a few of his books, and they're _depressingly_ good.


----------



## boskysquelch (Nov 19, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> but I'd rather look at fine print copies of his work than look onscreen.



A good place to go _looking_ in RL. http://www.hackelbury.co.uk/artists/cbresson/hcb_sm.html


----------



## zenie (Nov 19, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> Haven't seen it no, but I've got a few of his books, and they're _depressingly_ good.



Aye, I'd just like to see what other people make of the 'man behind the lens' so to speak


----------



## editor (Nov 19, 2006)

boskysquelch said:
			
		

> A good place to go _looking_ in RL. http://www.hackelbury.co.uk/artists/cbresson/hcb_sm.html








<editor quietly sobs to himself. Why can't I take pictures like that?!>

The bastard!


----------



## zenie (Nov 19, 2006)

Well I've found it on ebay which is good as I dont have a CC to buy off amazon anymore.

Amazon dont take paypal/bank transfers do they?


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Nov 19, 2006)

Incidentally, I found this possibly dodgy online version of 'The Decisive Moment' which may be of interest to some here.


----------



## soulfluxzero (Nov 20, 2006)

If you're patient enough one should pop up on amazon for around a tenner which is what i bought it for. It's already been said, but make sure you get the correct region or you've got an all reigon DVD player, as i managed to cock up and get the american version. S'ok though cause it works on most PC's. 
  As for the documentary itself, i enjoyed it, there are some very nice philosphopical quotes in there and it's interesting, as you say, to see the dude behind the lens for once (very intelligent man indeed!) It's mostly his friends and photo subjects crooning over the artistry of his photography and commenting on the compositional and symbolic (arty-farty) stuff behind them. There's good detail shots of the pics as well as the man himself telling the rich story behind the shot. In this respect it looks like if you ever want to make it like Cartier-Bresson you've got to take alot of photos that nearly get you killed! Great man, great photos, well worth it if you have the dough, but i have to say, in the words of the irreplacable ed: 'I'd rather look at fine print copies of his work than look onscreen.' your call zenie...


----------



## zenie (Nov 23, 2006)

soulfluxzero said:
			
		

> but i have to say, in the words of the irreplacable ed: 'I'd rather look at fine print copies of his work than look onscreen.' your call zenie...



Yeh of course but there's nothing wrong with watching a film too is there?


----------



## soulfluxzero (Nov 23, 2006)

...no.


----------



## boskysquelch (Nov 23, 2006)

soulfluxzero said:
			
		

> ...no.



okay I'll say it...you don't _become_ a photographer<insert any creative> by talking or watching or listening about it...*how you do it is by doing it*..._over and over and over and over and over and over and over_......ad infinitum or rather til your body no longer can.

Dunt matter how much you justify your research...every minute not doing it means a minute less knowing what you are doing and doing what you do.

This goes back also to you preposition on another thread aboout being taught the right way vs ptronising/is there a right way...tutor/teachers/mentor/heros aren't there to make you what you are they are there to guide you thru techniques that may or may not allow you to reach where *you* want to be...whether relevant or not ultimately it's up to you where you go and how "hungry" you are to get there. If you aren't hungry dunt matter how "good" you are unless you do it, do it, do it NOW doesn't matter nish your want to be "heard" will come to nought.


----------



## zenie (Nov 23, 2006)

boskysquelch said:
			
		

> okay I'll say it...you don't _become_ a photographer<insert any creative> by talking or watching or listening about it...*how you do it is by doing it*..._over and over and over and over and over and over and over_......ad infinitum or rather til your body no longer can.
> 
> Dunt matter how much you justify your research...every minute not doing it means a minute less knowing what you are doing and doing what you do.
> 
> This goes back also to you preposition on another thread aboout being taught the right way vs ptronising/is there a right way...tutor/teachers/mentor/heros aren't there to make you what you are they are there to guide you thru techniques that may or may not allow you to reach where *you* want to be...whether relevant or not ultimately it's up to you where you go and how "hungry" you are to get there. If you aren't hungry dunt matter how "good" you are unless you do it, do it, do it NOW doesn't matter nish your want to be "heard" will come to nought.



Oh FFS Squelch all I wanna do is watch a film


----------



## editor (Nov 23, 2006)

zenie said:
			
		

> Oh FFS Squelch all I wanna do is watch a film


How very dare you!


----------



## boskysquelch (Nov 23, 2006)

above quote plus 






			
				zenie said:
			
		

> Yeh of course but there's nothing wrong with watching a film too is there?



Try "thinking out of the box" ...or look at what's not being said rather than what's being said...ffs you could have watched it a gezzillion times by now...but have ye? ...and how many pictures could you have taken too? X double  

If you are going to watch that'en btw try hunting out the Horizon docu on Bill Brandt...that'en will blow you away and make Bresson look like a stuck-up tart.


----------



## zenie (Nov 23, 2006)

boskysquelch said:
			
		

> above quote plus
> 
> Try "thinking out of the box" ...or look at what's not being said rather than what's being said...ffs you could have watched it a gezzillion times by now...but have ye? ...and how many pictures could you have taken too? X double
> 
> If you are going to watch that'en btw try hunting out the Horizon docu on Bill Brandt...that'en will blow you away and make Bresson look like a stuck-up tart.




LOL pwned!!

Dont tell me more stuff to watch  

I am picking some filum up for the weekend, am having an anti-digital mood


----------



## boskysquelch (Nov 23, 2006)

zenie said:
			
		

> Dont tell me more stuff to watch



seriously as an Olde Git who's been there seen it done it eaten the pie and got the t-shirt_dvd_video_and pop-up annual... the best advice I ever received from another Olde Git was that "Film is the cheapest thing in photography."

The most expensive thing is how much Life you put into it...the more Life you put into the more it will be Your Life and the more of Your Life _others_ will see in it.


Tis good to be watchin stuff and looking at others...in fact it's essentila in terms of learning about light, lighting, subjects and composition amongst other things..but the most important thing is to demonstrate the acqisition of this knowledge...not apeing another but bringing into your own work what you have found so rewarding from others.

If this week your bag is Bresson...do some Bresson..in the most part he stood about and waited for something to happen...things happen wherever you go and wherever you are...his skill was to see how the compostion he chose was mutidirectional in the guiding the observer of his images across the entire image...you'd think quite reasonable givewn that photographs are there to _look_ at and _see_ but again most people dunt realise how little of an image they a re really looking at rather than the whole. By and large the deciphering of imagery is in parts of a whole..what I see in Bresson is a Whole..wholey given..in the most part his imagery can be taken into sections and still be a whole image in itself whereas a lot of photographers techniques are to draw you too a certain -part of the whole at the expense the rest.

Have you looked at that Linked Ring book yet? 


There are images in there that, if you consider the technical trials versus capturing the "decisive moment", are mind blowing!!1


----------



## zenie (Nov 23, 2006)

boskysquelch said:
			
		

> seriously as an Olde Git who's been there seen it done it eaten the pie and got the t-shirt_dvd_video_and pop-up annual... the best advice I ever received from another Olde Git was that* "Film is the cheapest thing in photography."*
> 
> The most expensive thing is how much Life you put into it...the more Life you put into the more it will be Your Life and the more of Your Life _others_ will see in it.
> 
> ...




 We Like that saying!

As for the Bresson thing, nah it's not that he's my bag this week, in fact I'm not really one of those people that waxes lyrical about him. Some really like him I think yeh he's good but he's not the second coming!

Biddlybee hasn't picked The Linked Ring up for me yet - I will remind her


----------



## boskysquelch (Nov 23, 2006)

zenie said:
			
		

> Some really like him I think yeh he's good but he's not the second coming!



I'm off out coz I haveto but if yerz going to get all spiritual on meh.

Bhuddha said something like...We live in a world of the carnal, spiritual and divine. In the carnal a tree is a tree, a moutain is a tree. In the spiritual we see a tree as more than a tree...we see all that it could be, is, was and might become; we see a moutain and we see all that it could be, is, was and might become. In the divine we see a tree and we see a mountain. Then we are Enlightened.

I take pictures that I know are to be carnal, spiritual but what I really strive for is the Divine*.

One mans carnal is anothers divine;spiritual is carnal etc. Something can be all three or none at all but unless they _are_ we'll never know.

The best photograph you ever take is the one you haven't yet.


----------



## Firky (Nov 23, 2006)

boskysquelch said:
			
		

> Bill Brandt



ace nudes

mmmmmm legs


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Nov 24, 2006)

One of my favourite photographers.

What's wrong with watching a film about him?


----------



## boskysquelch (Nov 24, 2006)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> What's wrong with watching a film about him?



nish...try reading and getting to know the people eh?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Nov 24, 2006)

boskysquelch said:
			
		

> I'm off out coz I haveto but if yerz going to get all spiritual on meh.
> 
> Bhuddha said something like...We live in a world of the carnal, spiritual and divine. In the carnal a tree is a tree, a moutain is a tree. In the spiritual we see a tree as more than a tree...we see all that it could be, is, was and might become; we see a moutain and we see all that it could be, is, was and might become. In the divine we see a tree and we see a mountain. Then we are Enlightened.
> 
> I take pictures that I know are to be carnal, spiritual but what I really strive for is the Divine*.



Interesting way of putting it. I don't believe in the divinity of the carnal, because I don't believe in divinity, but I'm looking to capture the 'otherness' that is present in objects or scenes, in my photographs.. Maybe it's just another way of describing the divine.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Nov 24, 2006)

Boskysquelch, are you the guy with the 'youthful' looking pic on the ugly mug thread? I can never keep the names straight.

If it is, then your posts on this thread just go to show how deceiving appearance is. I like reading what you say about photography, because your passion for it comes through loud and clear.


----------



## boskysquelch (Nov 24, 2006)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> Boskysquelch, are you the guy with the 'youthful' looking pic on the ugly mug thread? I can never keep the names straight.



Nah that's Boris Sprinkler or somesuch... ya muppet... 

as for the 'otherness' of which you speak I know what you are talkiing about...what you capture for yourself...the very essence of what you have observed?... when you see It in a capture you know it's Yours?

And thanks for the "compliment"..


----------



## Firky (Nov 24, 2006)

I thought they were links and spent a good deal of time clicking on them, cunna


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Nov 24, 2006)

boskysquelch said:
			
		

> Nah that's Boris Sprinkler or somesuch... ya muppet...
> )




Oh. Well, you probably look like a teenager too,........er...........

Your names both start with B...


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Nov 24, 2006)

boskysquelch said:
			
		

> Nah that's Boris Sprinkler or somesuch... ya muppet...
> 
> as for the 'otherness' of which you speak I know what you are talkiing about...what you capture for yourself...the very essence of what you have observed?... when you see It in a capture you know it's Yours?
> 
> And thanks for the "compliment"..




It was a non quotation compliment, actually.

My camera's broken right now. After so long without one, I don't like being deprived of it again.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Nov 24, 2006)

firky said:
			
		

> I thought they were links and spent a good deal of time clicking on them, cunna



Me too. 

In a lot of ways, us humans are kind of like monkeys, aren't we?


----------



## boskysquelch (Nov 24, 2006)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> It was a non quotation compliment, actually.



Another English_ism_ you wouldn't understand Joanie....hactuarsey. 

And methinx you prolly already know I'm very likely older than you!


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Nov 24, 2006)

boskysquelch said:
			
		

> Another English_ism_ you wouldn't understand Joanie....hactuarsey.
> 
> And methinx you prolly already know I'm very likely older than you!



Don't bet on it.

And if you're speaking to a non Englishman, then you should talk english.


----------



## boskysquelch (Nov 24, 2006)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> Don't bet on it.
> 
> And if you're speaking to a non Englishman, then you should talk english.



bleurgh I'm 43 in couple of months and speaking _da boskysquelch_...get's meh by with alot of nationalities ..all for free etc etc etc etc  

As an aside ,,,I think I've already mentioned somewhere here,,,but the last photographer I assisted(James Mortimer) _let me go_ because he'd been found by Bresson's last assistant and thought I was ready to go alone whereas, although she'd worked for Bresson for 5 years or so, they weren't..kudos to meh I was told at the time... eh? 

Haven't worked in that field since*, but she is very successful.  


*my choice...


----------



## zenie (Nov 24, 2006)

boskysquelch said:
			
		

> *my choice...



Yeh and you should chnage that innit


----------



## Descartes (Nov 25, 2006)

I have serious doubts about HCB's work.. I went to see the Tete a tete exhibition with my 14 ( at the time) year old daughter and it was a little like the Emporers new clothes... her remarks, whispered, "but they are just snap shots!"
. 
All portraits of famous people but never the less, snap shots. His visit to Mexico with a group of photographers, all the time he had company, no photographs, everyone left and HCB stayed behind and managed to get some photos. I believe his supposed candid shots were posed, and as he was on his own, easily contrived. 

His early work was good but his training to paint and his claims to be an Artist and, almost, need to excel created its own pressures.  

You have to consider Paris at the time, 1930s, the mass of artists, writers, photographers, the huge amount of work, the transistion, the developement of the various faction , again, created a massive pressure. The collection of painter, everyone from Picasso to Dali, Writers from Scott Fitzgerald to Cocteau.. all gathered in Paris around that period. The Left bank cafes were the home for the art world. Within all of this was HCB,  

The other photographers of the time, Brassai Doisneau, Lartique, Atget, ManRay all achieved fame, Brassi with his one man exihbition to man ray with his ' shavings' all created new and exciting images,  Within all of this HCB was not a leading light, if anything the opposite. His 'fame' and the, now famous, description 'The decisive Moment ' was coined by an art lover called Levy and was used to desribe HCB American exhibition, run simultaniously with his Paris exhibiton which was in the English translation was called 'On the Run'. a totally different conatations from the Decisive Moment, 

I did a lot of research into several of his photographs, even visiting the sites and even the names of the sites had, literally, been moved around the corner to give the photgraph a ' better ' name, more cosmopolitan.

The early photographs and HCB's claims that he used the whole negative did not match the negative of the day, the available film speed, the optics all contributed to create doubts about the supposed ' Decisive Moment'

Not only was HCB present in Paris during the deelopement, he visited England to study, the influence and the proression of his work... Hmm

The supposed photograph that created the impetus for him to become involved in photography does not and has not achieved any fame in its own right.


----------



## boskysquelch (Nov 25, 2006)

you fergot to mention Magnum?


----------



## Descartes (Nov 25, 2006)

No, magnum were a group of Photographers working more as a agency than single freelance. There are lots of legends about HCB but in comparision with the  photographers of the day. His work appeared dated and did not have the same originality of say, Atget and didn't have the social commnet seen in the work of other photographer in France.  

HCB's photographs were a result of his circle of friends, the named writers and philosophers of the time and not like his earlier work. 

The Prado Sidewalk, Marsielle, for the time, the composition, the use of triangles to accentuate the figure, also in a triangular cape, the juxaposition, the use of the graduation with the triangles of trees each side of the character and carefully printed to create a almost a halo around the figures head and hat.... but that compostional skill seems to be lacking in his later work.
Brassai's stairs of Montmartre... the lighting, the graduation, and bearing in mind when this was taken.  year not night time, the film speed, again, the optics . etc,,, 

But, it's all a matter of taste. what appeals in the way of composition, the framing and at that time, most of all the printing... But Doisneau's humour, his use of people, capturing a moment.. His sense of fun, to look closer at people...  works a lot better for me as a photograph of people of the time than say,  the HCB photographs used in the tete a tete collection.


----------



## Firky (Nov 25, 2006)

How's the ol' racism going, Rene?


----------



## Paul Russell (Nov 25, 2006)

Descartes said:
			
		

> I have serious doubts about HCB's work.. I went to see the Tete a tete exhibition with my 14 ( at the time) year old daughter and it was a little like the Emporers new clothes... her remarks, whispered, "but they are just snap shots!"



Well, you went to see an HCB exhibition of his _portrait work_. His portrait stuff is not held in such high regard as his "street stuff".




			
				Descartes said:
			
		

> The early photographs and HCB's claims that he used the whole negative did not match the negative of the day, the available film speed, the optics all contributed to create doubts about the supposed ' Decisive Moment'



Have you got any links for this?

With a couple of exception, it's widely acknowledged that he did not allow his images to be cropped. Quite a few of the reproductions in books have the sprocket holes visible, which is making the point a bit too forcefully.




			
				Descartes said:
			
		

> I believe his supposed candid shots were posed, and as he was on his own, easily contrived.



Yes, you _believe_ it. After a previous discussion on these boards, I checked with a discussion forum of photography experts. The closest anyone could come to any evidence about shots being posed (apart from the portraits of course) was some vague rumours about the St Lazare picture. The one with the man jumping over the puddle. By coincidence this is one of the few shots HCB says was cropped. He was sticking his camera through some railings and part of the railings showed up in the picture.

Not that the "decisive moment" pictures were necessarily taken on the spur of the moment. Of course, for the stairwell/bicycle picture above he very likely thought, "nice background" and waited for something to come along that fitted in. Waiting, not staging.

As David Bailey said (about HCB in general)

"I think it was a _calculated_ moment - I've seen his contacts - he knew the picture was going to happen .... "

If, for example, you stand by a puddle, he continued "you know that someone will jump over it eventually"


----------



## Paul Russell (Nov 25, 2006)

Descartes said:
			
		

> But Doisneau's humour, his use of people, capturing a moment.. His sense of fun, to look closer at people...  works a lot better for me as a photograph of people of the time than say,  the HCB photographs used in the tete a tete collection.



In contrast, it's now common knowledge that many of Doisneau's candid-looking shots were staged/choreographed. Doisneau was so well known on the streets he had a great cast!

The kiss sequence used paid actors.

His reputation as a photographer has suffered as a result.

He also cropped big time - even for the loose portraits of famous friends. I've seen some origs vs finished product where he chucked away one-third of the picture.

Not that I don't like a lot of his pictures.

Shimmying Wanda/Gyrating Wanda is one of my favourite pictures.


----------



## Paul Russell (Nov 25, 2006)

Doisneau's Shimmying Wanda:

Worst translation EVER


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Nov 25, 2006)

Descartes

You say:





> The early photographs and HCB's claims that he used the whole negative did not match the negative of the day, the available film speed, the optics all contributed to create doubts about the supposed ' Decisive Moment'



The 'negative of the day' used by Cartier-Bresson was 35mm film stock with a camera frame of 24 by 36mm the same as today.  I can not find the film speed for this but it was sufficiently fast to allow filming movies at 24 frames a second.  I guess it would have been at least 50 ASA (ISO).  'Decisive Moment' pictures were certainly obtainable.  Many amateur cameras were using cameras for 'snap shooting' from 1900 onwards using Kodak film.

If you check the proportion of the prints from Cartier Bresson you will see that they are correct for the 2 by 3 format of the negative.  

Also if you look you can see a thin black border around the image inside the white border that is produced by the printing frame. which holds the paper.  This black line is the unexposed edge of the film produced by increasing the film frame of the enlarger to just bigger than the image.  He had this done to emphasise that there was no cropping.

You also suggest that his earlier photographic work demonstrates a skill in composition learnt from his training as a painter that it lost in his later work.  Why would anyone lose a skill after using it for years?


----------



## Paul Russell (Nov 25, 2006)

I agree with everything else Hocus, but I don't think a black border is necessarily proof that a photo is non-cropped.

I remember seeing a documentary where HCB was talking about the photos in one of his exhibitions.

As I mentioned, he explained that the St Lezard picture was cropped because   of the railings he was poking his camera through showed up on the final image.

I seem to remember he was adamant that this was the only picture cropped in the whole exhibition. Perhaps he felt a bit guilty and wanted to confess about that one picture!

Anyway, I've got that St Lezard pic in two books, and it's still got a big black border round it...

So probably he had a very strict "no cropping" ethos (and went ballistic with picture editors if they dared crop) but dropped his rule once (or a couple of times?) to save a great picture.

Anyway, I guess this is trainspotting! He was a great photographer who very almost never cropped his pictures.









			
				Hocus Eye. said:
			
		

> Also if you look you can see a thin black border around the image inside the white border that is produced by the printing frame. which holds the paper.  This black line is the unexposed edge of the film produced by increasing the film frame of the enlarger to just bigger than the image.  He had this done to emphasise that there was no cropping.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Nov 25, 2006)

Hi Paul

The St Lazare picture has the smudgy out of focus image of the railing visible on the left of the picture.  That is what Cartier-Bresson spoke about, (I read about this somewhere recently) it spoiled the frame but he does not crop it out, it is visible.  If he was going to crop it only partially why wouldn't he crop it out completely?

Yes it is possible to fake the black border effect but it is a bit of a hassle and the story would be out on the grapevine if he had had that done.


----------



## Paul Russell (Nov 25, 2006)

I just watched the video again.

The pic that he is pointing to in the video looks like the same extent as the one below. There is a shading visible to the left (the start of the fence). Hard to tell exactly with my video. He mentions poking his camera through the fence.

The interviewer mentions that it is the only one in the exhibition without a black border and he says

"that's because it's not the whole frame, all this is out of focus [he motions _considerably beyond_ the left-hand side of the picture]".

So it sound clear that a lot more of the railing to the left has been cropped out, to the point where it just creeps into the picture.

The copies in the two books I have do have a border - just looks nice on the page like that.






			
				Hocus Eye. said:
			
		

> Hi Paul
> 
> The St Lazare picture has the smudgy out of focus image of the railing visible on the left of the picture.  That is what Cartier-Bresson spoke about, (I read about this somewhere recently) it spoiled the frame but he does not crop it out, it is visible.  If he was going to crop it only partially why wouldn't he crop it out completely?
> 
> Yes it is possible to fake the black border effect but it is a bit of a hassle and the story would be out on the grapevine if he had had that done.


----------



## Paul Russell (Nov 25, 2006)

Hi Hocus

Apart from having video footage of HCB himself saying that it was not full frame, if you Google "Cartier-Bresson Gare St Lazare", there are a few mentions.

OK, not the prettiest site:

http://www.agallery.com/Pages/photographers/cartier-bresson.html


"All of Cartier-Bresson's compositions are done at the time of exposure, and all of his photos (except Behind the Gare St. Lazare, 1932) include the black border of the negative, indicating that no cropping is done in the darkroom."

I'll shut up about this picture now!

Edit: It would be a good trivia question for sad people like me.


----------



## Hagal (Nov 25, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> <editor quietly sobs to himself. Why can't I take pictures like that?!>
> 
> The bastard!



He probably went back there 20 times, there is a gap in the railings and he waited with a slow shutter speed for an interesting subject to fill it, he probably got someone to ride past dressed all in black in fact ;-). Less decisive moment more decisive planning IMO. How come the figure is all black, there is light on the facing of the curb stones so there should be detail on this side of the rider.


----------



## Hagal (Nov 25, 2006)

How can no one have noticed the flat, lifeless sky on this most over-analyzed of photographs? It's an obvious candidate for this month's Technical Photographer magazine step by step tutorial!:


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 25, 2006)

Descartes said:
			
		

> There are lots of legends about HCB but in comparision with the  photographers of the day. His work appeared dated and did not have the same originality of say, Atget and didn't have the social commnet seen in the work of other photographer in France.



Were Atget and Cartier-Bresson contemporaries?


----------



## boskysquelch (Nov 25, 2006)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> Were Atget and Cartier-Bresson contemporaries?



both were alive in the C20th?


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 25, 2006)

Yeah, so was I.


----------



## boskysquelch (Nov 25, 2006)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> Yeah, so was I.



Then yoooz is a contemporary tooz. 

btw if that was the case Hagal then the shot wunt work...duuuuur!!!1 ...angle of incidence n all that...


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Nov 25, 2006)

Absolutely no doubt to my mind that HCB marketed himself very well. Magnum etc... 

To view his work today it's difficult to appreciate what it was exactly in it's own times. He has been over sold, over hyped and talked about to much. A result of his own marketing genius as much as his photographic genius. There were and are better photographers but, he was so prolific on the taking and the selling fronts.

It has been commented that he objected highly to Martin Parr joining Magnum. Perhaps he saw him as a threat and an equal on the marketing side. Personally, I think Parr has over sold himself in the UK on a similar scale. Just that the world moves faster today and we get bored more quickly. 

I rate HCB very highly for both reasons mentioned. However, he is far from the best of his time for me.


----------



## Descartes (Nov 25, 2006)

The photo and its original title include the name of the Avenue... but it was actually taken from Rue la Angleterre, The railings, the clock and the roof skyline can still be matched. The film speed of the day, as informed by Kodak, was 25 asa. This was the declared film speed and did not allow for any deterioration due to storage etc, a more accurate would have been any where between, a low figure of 5 and a top figure of 15

 Given the time of day and the generally overcast amosphere the exposure would not have allowed for the movement to be captured so cleanly. 

If you scan in the figure and reverse it and compare both together... opps not the same... even on the examples posted the seperation between the jacket The position of the arms, the very short arm to the rear of the body. 

The figure has a marked resemblance to his Art tutor, the poster in the background, Railowsky, with the Ballerina shown leaping in the opposite direction,  nice juxtaposition but?  the almost complete stillness of the water, further evidence of the slow shutter speed. 

The Leica camera of the day, 1932, the viewfinder was a seperate viewfinder, on the earlier cameras a pull up oblong to frame the shot.  The current model for 1932 would have been the Leica 1 interchangable, Model C original produced in 1931, that's if HCB was using the latest cameras, the lenes availble were the 35mm f3.5 Elmar, a long focus 135mm f4.5, the 50mm f2.5  Hektor and later in 1931, the 90mm, f4 Elmar 

Nothing super quick, again remebering the quality of the optics and the reproduction.  Early 1932, saw the introduction of 'the' leica, lenses automatically coupled to focusing.. but still manual... LOL.

The original is in the Menil Collection, Houston and measures, 15.75inches by 
  11' 7/8ths inches... 

It's not about losing the talent for composition, it's more the person taking the easy option, or his photographs being selected for him.


----------



## Descartes (Nov 25, 2006)

The gallery owner who did so much to enhance HCB's career, Julian Levy. 

Very Influential.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Nov 25, 2006)

Descartes

You say:





> Given the time of day and the generally overcast amosphere the exposure would not have allowed for the movement to be captured so cleanly.



You are judging the available light on the day from the photograph.  Of course the general greyness could be a result of the fact that the picture is a bit underexposed.  It could have been the well known "cloudy bright".

You say that Kodak claimed 25 ASA for the film of the period.  Then you want to give reasons to reduce that effective speed.  There is no reason to do this, Cartier-Bresson would not be storing the film to its disadvantage and might even have it push-processed to suit his purposes.  There was a lot of work going on at the time to produce improved developers for such film.  I think that 25 ASA was perfectly attainable.

Using the old system of setting your shutter speed to the same number as the ASA number, HCB could set his aperture to f/11 for "cloudy bright" and get correct exposure.  Even if it was half as light as this he could go for f/8.  His fastest lens aperture would have been  f/3.5 .  Even in this half as bright condition he could have upped his shutter speed to 1/60th of a second and still have about half a stop of leeway.  The action shot was easily possible.

And Paul, yes if Cartier-Bresson himself says on film he cropped it then of course he did.


----------



## Paul Russell (Nov 25, 2006)

Descartes said:
			
		

> If you scan in the figure and reverse it and compare both together... opps not the same... even on the examples posted the seperation between the jacket The position of the arms, the very short arm to the rear of the body.



Eh, what are you saying here?  






			
				Descartes said:
			
		

> The original is in the Menil Collection, Houston and measures, 15.75inches by
> 11' 7/8ths inches...



Isn't the real original the negative?


----------



## Paul Russell (Nov 25, 2006)

Hocus Eye. said:
			
		

> And Paul, yes if Cartier-Bresson himself says on film he cropped it then of course he did.



Hope that didn't ruin your day or anything Hocus.


----------



## boskysquelch (Nov 25, 2006)

who did the picture this comes from? ...same era...ish...but was a fake....


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Nov 26, 2006)

I give up.

Who was it?


----------



## boskysquelch (Nov 26, 2006)

Hocus Eye. said:
			
		

> I give up.
> 
> Who was it?



I cn't bleddhi remember...but I will find out..


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Nov 26, 2006)

There was a fuss about whether Capa's 'Falling Solider' was a fake or not, started by some British spy journalist. The picture above doesn't quite look like Capa's though, has a different outline. Here's the Capa one.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Nov 26, 2006)

I knew that it wasn't the Capa photograph.  We had a discussion about that a while ago to which I contributed at length.  It  was not a fake.

I am wondering if the picture Boskysquelch has posted is one purporting to be of someone jumping to their death at the time of the 1929 Wall Street Crash.  A search on the internet has not come up with anything though yet.  We will just have to wait and see what he says.


----------



## boskysquelch (Nov 26, 2006)

I've looked on and off but cannot find it either..when and if I do I will be sure to post.


----------



## Descartes (Nov 28, 2006)

Hocus Eye, 

The snag is the time and distance between film manufacture and retail outlet, purchase and use, we are discussing 1932. 

Your reasons are equally creditable but ... both are suppositions, we can offer alternative arguments to suit a number of reasonable scenarios.

The negative has, as far as I know never been available for inspection, another anomaly.


----------



## Firky (Nov 28, 2006)

Bernie Gunther said:
			
		

> There was a fuss about whether Capa's 'Falling Solider' was a fake or not, started by some British spy journalist. The picture above doesn't quite look like Capa's though, has a different outline. Here's the Capa one.



I reckon that is the real thing, capa was quite famous for getting close to bullets.


----------



## boskysquelch (Nov 28, 2006)

firky said:
			
		

> I reckon that is the real thing, capa was quite famous for getting close to bullets.



and landmines iirc.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Nov 28, 2006)

He just wanted to "take a closer look".  Capa was an amazing photo journalist.  His writing to accompany the pictures was also excellent.  His report of the D Day landing gives a hard realistic record of his experiences at the battlefront.


----------



## editor (Feb 29, 2016)

Some nice examples of Cartier Bresson's work in this feature:
Henri Cartier-Bresson: Finding a Decisive Moment for The Waiting Stage - Luminous Landscape


----------



## editor (Aug 16, 2017)

Interesting analysis here. Blimey, he was good!


----------

