Cartier-Bresson

[Brian Ellis]

According to some quotes, and he apparently had a lot to say about it, his primary if not the only concern was the moment of capture, the slice of time as he called it. Photography just happened to be tool that allowed it, but if there were any other tools he would've been just as happy to use them as well or instead.

Here are some of his quotes that illustrate this attitude . . . I can see how all of this can rub many a member of this board the wrong way, but his results are hard to argue with.

It doesn't rub me the wrong way, I think they're interesting quotes. But I had to smile at the fifth one. If you look at his contact sheets (some of which have been published) you see that he generally worked like most other 35mm street photographers - make a whole bunch of photographs of a particular scene and then later pick the best one from the contact sheets. If he had been a digital photographer we'd call it "spray and pray." He was a great photographer but he stretched the truth to a breaking point when he said or implied that he waited for the "decisive moment" and then clicked the shutter once and only once to capture it. That wasn't at all how he actually worked for his street scene stuff, it was more like the "decisive edit" as one of my former photography professors called it.

The fact is that like many great artists, good old C-B wasn't a very nice person - selfish, self-centered, egotistical, dishonest, and frankly an outright fraud in some respects. But we judge him by his art, not his character.

Anyone who wants a really good read about C-B's personality and his working methods should try to find the book "Sextet - T.S. Eliot & Truman Capote & Others" by John Malcolm Brinnnin. C-B is one of the "Others." The book includes a hilarious account of a lengthy photo trip the author took with C-B for the purpose of publishing a book of C-B's photographs and the author's writing. Despite their supposedly co-equal status, C-B treated the author like his personal servant and eventually reneged on their agreement to split the money. All told in a more or less affectionate, and very humorous, way.

[Marko]

It doesn't rub me the wrong way, I think they're interesting quotes. But I had to smile at the fifth one. If you look at his contact sheets (some of which have been published) you see that he generally worked like most other 35mm street photographers - make a whole bunch of photographs of a particular scene and then later pick the best one from the contact sheets. If he had been a digital photographer we'd call it "spray and pray." He was a great photographer but he stretched the truth to a breaking point when he said or implied that he waited for the "decisive moment" and then clicked the shutter once and only once to capture it. That wasn't at all how he actually worked for his street scene stuff, it was more like the "decisive edit" as one of my former photography professors called it.

Not to argue - I think you made really good points - but I never got an impression that he even implied "one and only one click". He kept talking about capturing a decisive moment, but that's not necessarily the same as "one shot one kill", so to speak.

He did compare his Leica to "firing an automatic pistol", though, and I have a rather strong feeling that the average American Liberal (for the want of a better term) would have absolutely no clue as to what he really meant by that...

[D. Bryant]

with digital, they don't even have to be printed, they can be produced with a single click and viewed on the screen, in color or monochrome, right side up.

It doesn't get any simpler than shooting 35 mm B&W and handing the film to your darkroom tech and getting contact prints back. No computers, no batteries, no P&S digital cameras used for light meters and so forth.

Bresson was not a commoner and would never do any darkroom work digital or analog. And I think he was very wise not to do so since he didn't need to.

Walker Evans didn't do his own darkroom work either and we regard him as one of the immortals of the 20th century. Ditto for Maplethrope, Haas, Bubley, and Levitt and so on.

Don Bryant

[Marko]

It doesn't get any simpler than shooting 35 mm B&W and handing the film to your darkroom tech and getting contact prints back. No computers, no batteries, no P&S digital cameras used for light meters and so forth.

I think it depends on one's comfort zone and skill level. Having done enough of both, I think sticking a card into a computer and clicking a button is much simpler than developing film, drying film, exposing contact sheet, developing contact sheet, drying contact sheet... It's much faster too.

As for the rest, based on his own words, I just don't think that HCB would've cared (much) which process was used as long as he got the results he expected. He certainly wasn't hung on technicalities, he was too busy taking photographs.

[William McEwen]

Can't remember who said it -- a famous photographer once said the insistence that a photographer process and print his own work is a uniquely American concept.

Karsh developed his own negs and made the first master print. Then his darkroom printer used that as a guide for future prints.

For what it's worth, and I know I've mentioned this, but a couple of years ago I saw several Helmut Newton original prints for the first time. Newton didn't do his own darkroom work, but he supervised it closely and was picky, and he said he was constantly testing his films. Anyway, these prints --- huge, huge prints, from 35mm negatives -- were incredibly well printed. Just gorgeous.

[D. Bryant]

huge, huge prints, from 35mm negatives -- were incredibly well printed. Just gorgeous.

Yep they are sweet!

Don Bryant

[Ben Calwell]

This is a real eye opener for me. I just always assumed that all the great photographers did their own processing and printing. I'm amazed to learn that Walker Evans, one of my favorite photographers, didn't do his own darkroom work. It somehow doesn't seem right.
It seems to me that for those who did not do their own printing, then their printers should get some recognition in exhibitions. Such as "photograph by Walker Evans; print produced by so-and-so."
Taking photographs and then processing and printing the film, to me, are so intertwined.
It would be like Matisse, using his artist's eye, picking out a scene and then hiring another painter to paint it. "Here are some tubes of paint, brushes and a canvas -- go to it. But I'm going to get credit for the painting."
Silly, I know.

[Sascha Welter]

Ben, indeed in the 19th century there was some discussion about this. I remember one historic photography book who mentioned one photographer doing pictures around the time of the american civil war who for every print listed both the photographer and the printer. The story was that he used to print another, well-known photographer's stuff before, without getting recognition. So when he "opened his own shop", he changed that.

Sadly I don't remember neither the title of the book, nor the photographer or printer, but I guess someone here could come up with the name.

[Ed Richards]

Someone asked whether we would still revere C-B if the prints were lousy. Ever seen an Arbus exhibition? I saw an exhibit at the Gerry of Arbus and was shocked at how bad the prints were, at least technically.

The A-Gallery in New Orleans (a wonderful photo gallery) had a show with a number of C-B and AA prints together. It was a great illustration of the limited importance of sharpness or drama in the prints, as compared to the subject matter. AA prints were often of mundane subjects that were transformed by the light and the printing. C-B's prints were competent, but in no way was their power related to the printing, only the image.

BTW, there is a great documentary film about C-B that includes some shots of him working with his printer.

[Brian Ellis]

I think it depends on one's comfort zone and skill level. Having done enough of both, I think sticking a card into a computer and clicking a button is much simpler than developing film, drying film, exposing contact sheet, developing contact sheet, drying contact sheet... It's much faster too.

I think you're perhaps confusing more labor with more complexity. No question developing film involves a lot more physical labor than processing a digital image (though there's much more to that too than "clicking a button" but we won't go there). But more complex? I don't think so. Once you've processed film for a while you can pretty much do it in your sleep just so someone is around to wake you up when the allotted time for each step is at hand. If processing film was a complex matter photographers who had the money to hire a darkroom assistant wouldn't have done so.