These two photos also show that you don’t always need perfect focus or sharpness for a great photo. Providing you have the perfect composition and a good story you can get away with an image that’s a little blurry. These days it seems like photographers and camera/lens manufacturers put too much emphasis on sharpness. Yes, it’s nice but not always the most important part of a great image.
Thank you for reading…. Agreed, I think a lot of the warmth that we find in 1930s to say 1960s photographs reflect a combination of great papers, and acceptance of certain limitations of available film speeds. But as you say, they can still be great photographs. And translated to today, I completely agree, great photographs come from good composition and strong content, with or without perfect focus!
As an aside, I continue to dislike and am almost frightened when I see a high-def TV, or photograph. It isn’t how we see and it isn’t how I feel about what I see.
Oh yeah. I saw 'Back to Future' remixed on Blu Ray years ago and thought I was standing next to the actors. I thought if I turn my head I would see other people standing around. It was über-real.
I just finished watching a review of the reprint by @theartofphotography on u-tube. He menions HCB thoughts about sharpness from this edition. They are still relavant today.
"Images a la sauvette" should be translated as "stealthy images". I haven't heard of that expression before HCB's book. But "a la sauvette" is used in "vol a la sauvette" which means "opportunistic theft", usually happening on the street, most times during market when someone just takes something from a stall and legs it.
So the translation of the book title should imply taking images stealthily, without planning, opportunistically, discreetly. It doesn't imply at all uniqueness of the moment, perfection of the scene, or mastery of the craft.
I'm not aware that we discovered that HCB was creating the scenes or posing the characters, but it has been discovered in the past about Doisneau and others who would at least on occasion pose their subjects and keep it secret (e.g. https://www.famouspictures.org/kissing-couple/).
So you could also argue that if the photos are really the result of pure chance, they are the "decisive moment" and the English translation is valid. Just not by design.
Cedric, great to hear from you! I have been looking at HCB's career and work for many years. I have never seen, nor has it been suggested, that he staged anything. I do not agree with the idea that it is stolen moments, or indeed stealthy taken photographs - not to suggest that he didn't get lucky from time to time. I do believe, as I argued in my post that he often found the compositional elements and then waited for the kid(s), bike, pram, or whatever to create the perception of 'steath' or 'la sauvette'.
When you photograph the way HCB did and do so consistently, it is not a criticism to suggest that he framed and waited, because he has made so many great photograph. It makes him human. The idea that somehow his genius allowed him to always be in the right place at the right time.... bogus. Nobody is that lucky.
Another translation from the French could be “Images on the Sly” which gives it another layer of meaning. à la souvette translates as done hasitily or on the sly.
Excellent point, Phil. And thank you for making it even more complicated 😂
"Pictures on the Sly" would probably have sold a few less copies, I should think... Or "The Sneaky Photographer" maybe a few more to all the wrong people!
100%!! I couldn't have said it any better: "Of course, the idea that the compositional elements came together with the moving elements in a decisive moment, in a spontaneous, not pre-planned fashion every time is pure fabrication." This is a most excellent POV, Søren! Thank you for putting into words (back last year) what I failed to articulate to my street photography friends over the course of the last 15 years! Where were you when I needed you back then??? :)
There aren’t many contact sheets from HCB left, because he indeed saved only the picks from every roll. However, in the „Magnum Contact Sheets” book, there is one showing how his iconic photo of children playing in the rubble was made. He went through an entire roll of film to get that one shot. So he basically shot film like we shoot digital now, because he could simply afford to burn through rolls and rolls of film. This is also true for many other famous photographers, and stands in opposition to the popular belief that film slows you down and makes you think about every frame. That book from Magnum is really eye opening.
Hey Jakub! Good point. I have the contact sheet book from Magnum, and you are so right. I do believe HCB was his own marketing machine and by cutting up his film to individual 'greatest hits', he raised the bar and made himself look better than he perhaps was. There is a lesson here: "How to build a legend!"
HCB was personally very wealthy, never had any concern about money, which I guess allowed him to photograph this way. I do believe film slows you down, I also believe that even 36 frames is much less flexible than the machine gun I hear when standing next to a digital photographer... (btw, why don't they turn the sound effect off? Is it sexy to sound like a paparazzi?). Also, when the film photographer comes to a particular scene, they are rarely in a position, where they have an entirely new film, just loaded, so a bit of awareness is necessary with however many frames they may have left on a roll!
When I was in photography school, they taught us that film is the cheapest part of photography. So I always burned through film rather than miss a shot. Back then, you could buy it in bulk (100m) and load your own cartridges. I also had two jobs in college and got subsidies from dad to help pay the rent.
Hey Frank, those were the days…. I completely agree. My dad always said it is a lot cheaper to make the extra photographs than having to fly back and try to do it again! 😅
Glad you have it on your desktop. It is a great image. And yes, the Behind the Gare Saint-Lazarre is to my knowledge the only photograph that he allowed to be cropped. He always stipulated that images be printed full frame, as I am sure you know.
A third title might add a new point to your article, fotografias del natural or fotografias al natural, which I think to be the Spanish version of the book. That is something like natural or candid photographs. There's also what you mentioned: sometimes you have to be patient... the fact that he took many many photos and discarded most of them brings us to think about how decisive were actually those moments
These two photos also show that you don’t always need perfect focus or sharpness for a great photo. Providing you have the perfect composition and a good story you can get away with an image that’s a little blurry. These days it seems like photographers and camera/lens manufacturers put too much emphasis on sharpness. Yes, it’s nice but not always the most important part of a great image.
Thank you for reading…. Agreed, I think a lot of the warmth that we find in 1930s to say 1960s photographs reflect a combination of great papers, and acceptance of certain limitations of available film speeds. But as you say, they can still be great photographs. And translated to today, I completely agree, great photographs come from good composition and strong content, with or without perfect focus!
As an aside, I continue to dislike and am almost frightened when I see a high-def TV, or photograph. It isn’t how we see and it isn’t how I feel about what I see.
Oh yeah. I saw 'Back to Future' remixed on Blu Ray years ago and thought I was standing next to the actors. I thought if I turn my head I would see other people standing around. It was über-real.
I just finished watching a review of the reprint by @theartofphotography on u-tube. He menions HCB thoughts about sharpness from this edition. They are still relavant today.
"Images a la sauvette" should be translated as "stealthy images". I haven't heard of that expression before HCB's book. But "a la sauvette" is used in "vol a la sauvette" which means "opportunistic theft", usually happening on the street, most times during market when someone just takes something from a stall and legs it.
So the translation of the book title should imply taking images stealthily, without planning, opportunistically, discreetly. It doesn't imply at all uniqueness of the moment, perfection of the scene, or mastery of the craft.
I'm not aware that we discovered that HCB was creating the scenes or posing the characters, but it has been discovered in the past about Doisneau and others who would at least on occasion pose their subjects and keep it secret (e.g. https://www.famouspictures.org/kissing-couple/).
So you could also argue that if the photos are really the result of pure chance, they are the "decisive moment" and the English translation is valid. Just not by design.
Cedric, great to hear from you! I have been looking at HCB's career and work for many years. I have never seen, nor has it been suggested, that he staged anything. I do not agree with the idea that it is stolen moments, or indeed stealthy taken photographs - not to suggest that he didn't get lucky from time to time. I do believe, as I argued in my post that he often found the compositional elements and then waited for the kid(s), bike, pram, or whatever to create the perception of 'steath' or 'la sauvette'.
When you photograph the way HCB did and do so consistently, it is not a criticism to suggest that he framed and waited, because he has made so many great photograph. It makes him human. The idea that somehow his genius allowed him to always be in the right place at the right time.... bogus. Nobody is that lucky.
Another translation from the French could be “Images on the Sly” which gives it another layer of meaning. à la souvette translates as done hasitily or on the sly.
Excellent point, Phil. And thank you for making it even more complicated 😂
"Pictures on the Sly" would probably have sold a few less copies, I should think... Or "The Sneaky Photographer" maybe a few more to all the wrong people!
Revisiting this topic, and contemplating it, is rewarding.
There's a HCB exhibition currently in Vienna, I plan on travelling to see it.
Excellent. i saw a great show of his in Barca not long ago. A lot of images I had not seen before, which was lovely. Let me know what you find? 😀👍
100%!! I couldn't have said it any better: "Of course, the idea that the compositional elements came together with the moving elements in a decisive moment, in a spontaneous, not pre-planned fashion every time is pure fabrication." This is a most excellent POV, Søren! Thank you for putting into words (back last year) what I failed to articulate to my street photography friends over the course of the last 15 years! Where were you when I needed you back then??? :)
Sorry, I will try to stay on top of it in the future 😁
ha ha!!
There aren’t many contact sheets from HCB left, because he indeed saved only the picks from every roll. However, in the „Magnum Contact Sheets” book, there is one showing how his iconic photo of children playing in the rubble was made. He went through an entire roll of film to get that one shot. So he basically shot film like we shoot digital now, because he could simply afford to burn through rolls and rolls of film. This is also true for many other famous photographers, and stands in opposition to the popular belief that film slows you down and makes you think about every frame. That book from Magnum is really eye opening.
Hey Jakub! Good point. I have the contact sheet book from Magnum, and you are so right. I do believe HCB was his own marketing machine and by cutting up his film to individual 'greatest hits', he raised the bar and made himself look better than he perhaps was. There is a lesson here: "How to build a legend!"
HCB was personally very wealthy, never had any concern about money, which I guess allowed him to photograph this way. I do believe film slows you down, I also believe that even 36 frames is much less flexible than the machine gun I hear when standing next to a digital photographer... (btw, why don't they turn the sound effect off? Is it sexy to sound like a paparazzi?). Also, when the film photographer comes to a particular scene, they are rarely in a position, where they have an entirely new film, just loaded, so a bit of awareness is necessary with however many frames they may have left on a roll!
Thank you so much for the comment!
When I was in photography school, they taught us that film is the cheapest part of photography. So I always burned through film rather than miss a shot. Back then, you could buy it in bulk (100m) and load your own cartridges. I also had two jobs in college and got subsidies from dad to help pay the rent.
Hey Frank, those were the days…. I completely agree. My dad always said it is a lot cheaper to make the extra photographs than having to fly back and try to do it again! 😅
Interesting. I didn't know that he buried some of the negatives. Thank you for sharing!
It helps feed the myth….
The first one I had on my desktop. The second one is cropped, and I think that it is the only one of his photos that has been cropped.
Glad you have it on your desktop. It is a great image. And yes, the Behind the Gare Saint-Lazarre is to my knowledge the only photograph that he allowed to be cropped. He always stipulated that images be printed full frame, as I am sure you know.
Thanks for reading!
Interesting read, thank you.
A third title might add a new point to your article, fotografias del natural or fotografias al natural, which I think to be the Spanish version of the book. That is something like natural or candid photographs. There's also what you mentioned: sometimes you have to be patient... the fact that he took many many photos and discarded most of them brings us to think about how decisive were actually those moments
Hi George,
Interesting. I did not know the Spanish title. Thank you. I agree, when you are only showing the successes, it is easy to look good!!