The Psychology of the "Decisive Moment"

P

PKR

Mentor
Local time
4:00 AM
Joined
Jul 15, 2010
Messages
2,702
From the article:

"In 1952 Henri Cartier-Bresson, a founder of modern photojournalism, proposed one of the most fascinating and highly debated concepts in the history of photography: “the decisive moment.” This moment occurs when the visual and psychological elements of people in a real life scene spontaneously and briefly come together in perfect resonance to express the essence of that situation. Some people believe that the unique purpose of photography, as compared to other visual arts, is to capture this fleeting, quintessential, and holistic instant in the flow of life. For this reason, many photographers often mention the decisive moment, or similar ideas about capturing the essence of a transitory moment, when they describe their work."

Read on..
http://truecenterpublishing.com/photopsy/decisive_moment.htm


x
 
I think, I read it in one of his books, I have a few of his and about him now.
Here is one misconception about him or his own misleading about how moment to be taken with only one frame.

Then I look at HCB pictures this DM formula is often coming to my head. But, I think, it is only part of his success. Moment, geometry and surrealism. He knew, studied and has gift for all three. And been at war and not only once made him celebrating moments of live even more...
 
Ko.Fe. said:
I think, I read it in one of his books, I have a few of his and about him now.
Here is one misconception about him or his own misleading about how moment to be taken with only one frame.

Then I look at HCB pictures this DM formula is often coming to my head. But, I think, it is only part of his success. Moment, geometry and surrealism. He knew, studied and has gift for all three. And been at war and not only once made him celebrating moments of live even more...
Click to expand...

Every time you release the shutter or not, is a DM, but.. maybe not a good one. Happens for me all the time.
 
I like his list of ten DM qualities. The remarkable thing to me is that we humans sometimes are able to subconsciously incorporate all of them into a momentary flash of perception. Pretty amazing. And certainly unique to photographic vision.

John
 
PKR said:
From the article:

"In 1952 Henri Cartier-Bresson, a founder of modern photojournalism, proposed one of the most fascinating and highly debated concepts in the history of photography: “the decisive moment.” This moment occurs when the visual and psychological elements of people in a real life scene spontaneously and briefly come together in perfect resonance to express the essence of that situation. Some people believe that the unique purpose of photography, as compared to other visual arts, is to capture this fleeting, quintessential, and holistic instant in the flow of life. For this reason, many photographers often mention the decisive moment, or similar ideas about capturing the essence of a transitory moment, when they describe their work."

Read on..
http://truecenterpublishing.com/photopsy/decisive_moment.htm


x
Click to expand...

This even applies to commercial work like you and I do. Virtually 100% of the time when working with a model or models and you shoot a series of shots in rapid succession there will be one frame that stands out from the rest, the money shot. The majority of other frames will be very god but one has that little turned up smile, sparked in the eyes or some gesture that makes it stand out and special.

Even in sports photography, there's that one frame that all elements come together to make a fantastic image.

I believe the decisive moment is part of any photo when living beings are being photographed.
 
The psychology in what PKR and I do is in the ability to connect with the subject and draw that moment out of them. There's way more involved that walking up to a subject whether on the street or model and snapping a photo. My best work is when I can connect with my subject whether commercial or documentary. Whenever possible I try to engage my subject and find out something about them. I tell people I've never met a person that didn't have something of interest about them or have a great story. Unfortunately when shooting candid like HCB you don't have that luxury. You have to size up the person and situation and anticipate that moment. An awareness of your surroundings and the person your photographing is essential.
 
Michael Markey said:
I agree with your second post but wonder how effective the preconception can be or is it just luck.
Click to expand...

Luck can certainly be an element. It has been for me.

Dans les champs de l'observation le hasard ne favorise que les esprits préparés.

(In the fields of observation chance favours only the prepared mind.)

Louis Pasteur
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Louis_Pasteur
 
Michael Markey said:
I agree with your second post but wonder how effective the preconception can be or is it just luck.
Click to expand...

Most of the time if I'm walking into a situation completely blind I find I have preconceptions of what I'm going to encounter. Often it's nothing like I imagine but at least I have a plan that can be modified if needed. I have a picture painted in my mind of what I want to go home with.

My wife and I were out a week ago doing some shooting on the street in a little somewhat dismal mill town 45 minutes from our home. There's an old coke sign that was painted on the side of a building made of brick. I'm guessing it was early 70's or late 60's. It's weathered and the paint is pealing and flaking with amazing gesture.

I was back at my Jeep reloading my Rolleiflex when a woman walked up and asked what I was doing. I knew she wasn't from one of the stores because she looked a bit rough. I told her and we chatted a few minutes. She explained she lived in the basement of one of the old buildings on Main St. We talked about "things" and I asked her if I could make some photos of her. Her first reaction was NO but then she said "if I don't have to smile". I told her no, that I wanted to do a serious portrait of her.

From our brief conversation I connected with her and from previous similar shoots I had an idea of what I wanted to shoot. The wheels in my head were turning based on previous experiences. I wound up shooting about 8 frames. I didn't want to out stay my welcome, if you know what I mean. You don't want to fatigue your subject. Anyway I've found my best shots are often in the first few frames. I've found people tend to drift and loose interest quickly.

We chatted a while longer and I fond she was 38 years old, had no official income and had a felony drug conviction. I'm thinking from the conversation and body language she's a prostitute alcoholic who uses drugs. She had some of the signs I've seen from people doing meth or crack.

It was an interesting encounter that yielded good images and I received an invitation to visit her at the "green door" leading to the basement of her residence under the junk shop. Now I really have preconceived ideas. I've been planning to do a series on prostitution and drugs and plan to visit her for more photos.

I tell people experience is like a huge file cabinet in the head. After a while you've done so many shoots that everything that you encounter is just a replay of something else you've done. I have photographed a prostitute but never in her place of business. This could make a really dramatic series! The wheels are turning again.
 
I read his article and pretty much agree with most of it.

"Sometimes I see an interesting character and I walk by them. I feel nervous. I then turn back, and approach them and ask for permission to take their portrait. Sometimes they say no; most of the time they say yes."

This is how I work. I'm a very structured person when it comes to photography. I try to make it happen not just let it happen. I guess this is why I'm an impatient fisherman, I haven't figured out how to make it happen.
 
Unfortunately subjects aren't in the best place to photograph them.

Six Pack as he called himself had a bullet wound and a nice knife scar. He lived on the street and drank cheap liquor constantly. In the time we talked and made photos he polished off a 5th.

Excuse the down and dirty scan, I normally wet print.
 

Attachments

  • Six Pack 1.jpg
    Six Pack 1.jpg
    54.5 KB · Views: 0
One thing I think is missing with most street shooters style is the ability to engage the subject head on. So many street shots show me that the shooter was terrified of the subject. They can't handle it if the subject looks at them. I'd imagine they'd run if they were spoken to.

Just look at a lot of the images in the street section here. How many people engage the photographer? How many are shot from (in) the back? How many sleeping, texting or are at a safe distance. You've got to get out of your comfort zone and act like you're comfortable and enjoying the experience and convince your subject you are. If you're not you shouldn't be doing it. You should be doing landscapes or photos of your cat.

So many street shots are just empty of emotion, they're just snapshots.
 
x-ray said:
One thing I think is missing with most street shooters style is the ability to engage the subject head on. So many street shots show me that the shooter was terrified of the subject. They can't handle it if the subject looks at them. I'd imagine they'd run if they were spoken to.

Just look at a lot of the images in the street section here. How many people engage the photographer? How many are shot from (in) the back? How many sleeping, texting or are at a safe distance. You've got to get out of your comfort zone and act like your comfortable and enjoying the experience and convince your subject you are. If you're not you shouldn't be doing it. You should be doing landscapes or photos of your cat.

So many street shots are just empty of emotion, they're just snapshots.
Click to expand...

" So many street shots show me that the shooter was terrified of the subject." True and I agree with much of the other things you say in your post. That is one reason why I prefer to street shoot with longer lenses. I find that if I shove a camera in people's face it disturbs the moment. I don't know that I want photo after photo of people looking at me looking at them. Instead I want photos of people in the context of them doing something, oblivious to and undisturbed by my presence. So a longer lens works better for me. And of course it gives better subject separation from the background too. Bruce Gilden for example who uses a wide lens, is one photographer whose work I just cannot appreciate - just random faces staring at the camera. Yuk and so what?

Of course like you, I do not like photos that are "just snapshots" I agree with you that too many "street" shots I see are of this character. That is where the photographer's sense of aesthetics needs to play its part - too many photographers lack it. And on some days (too many days) so do I - its a struggle. But I always look for something in the image that is revealing itself to me that has appeal in terms of its composition.

And I think that (composition) is a large part of what people forget to do and therefore fail to get an interesting moment. If one looks at HCBs work it is very contextual - much of their interest and beauty is not in the human subject at all - its in the environment that they are moving in. Whether it's a street photo or a landscape the photographer's task is to make an image that jumps out and grabs the viewer by the eyeball. If someone cant do that then they are not truly being a photographer.

Speaking personally I do not know why so many street photographers regard themselves as being "above" using longer lenses. As if it's a sin. As if there is something not proper about it. Personally, I say, whatever works for the photographer - whatever gets the image. All that matters at the end of the day is that the image is good. Henri Cartier Bresson did not much use longer lenses so far as I know but then again he did not need to, he was that good.

The other thing many misunderstand is how he got his images. Sometimes HCB would get an image as he walked about. Often though, he would see the possibilities inherent in a particular space and hang around at that location, waiting for something to happen - for the right subject to come by at the right moment with the sun in the right direction to create the right play of light and shadows from the right angle. I think that is what he really meant by "decisive moment". Not so much pure dumb luck - but planning. Then waiting.

I truly think that not enough photographers understand this and instead spend their days randomly wandering the streets in the vain hope that the decisive moment would jump into their camera, instead of being like HCB who would try to "ambush" the decisive moment by positioning himself advantageously. The following photo is an example. He saw the possibilities in the location depicted and set himself up there for hours till the decisive moment came along in the fomr of a cyclist. http://www.ventspleen.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/HenriCartierBresson.HyeresFrance.1932.jpg

I think the difference is that HCB was a classically trained painter so he understood good images and how to compose them. Using a camera was just a different means to that end. The secret was not in his camera it was in his head.

The other thing I often think about when making street images is the need for the people in the images to be interesting. Perhaps this means they need to be attractive physically but usually this is not the case. They can be run of the mill people so long as they are interesting or doing something interesting or positioned in such a way that the image is interesting. But many shots I see are of people who just lack anything I want to look at because they lack eye appeal. I do not know how to define it better than that. Many people making photos just seem to randomly pick someone out and shoot, hoping for the best.
 
peterm1 said:
" So many street shots show me that the shooter was terrified of the subject." True and I agree with much of the other things you say in your post. That is one reason why I prefer to street shoot with longer lenses. I find that if I shove a camera in people's face it disturbs the moment. I don't know that I want photo after photo of people looking at me looking at them. Instead I want photos of people in the context of them doing something, oblivious to and undisturbed by my presence. So a longer lens works better for me. And of course it gives better subject separation from the background too. Bruce Gilden for example who uses a wide lens, is one photographer whose work I just cannot appreciate - just random faces staring at the camera. Yuk and so what?

Of course like you, I do not like photos that are "just snapshots" I agree with you that too many "street" shots I see are of this character. That is where the photographer's sense of aesthetics needs to play its part - too many photographers lack it. And on some days (too many days) so do I - its a struggle. But I always look for something in the image that is revealing itself to me that has appeal in terms of its composition.

And I think that (composition) is a large part of what people forget to do and therefore fail to get an interesting moment. If one looks at HCBs work it is very contextual - much of their interest and beauty is not in the human subject at all - its in the environment that they are moving in. Whether it's a street photo or a landscape the photographer's task is to make an image that jumps out and grabs the viewer by the eyeball. If someone cant do that then they are not truly being a photographer.

Speaking personally I do not know why so many street photographers regard themselves as being "above" using longer lenses. As if it's a sin. As if there is something not proper about it. Personally, I say, whatever works for the photographer - whatever gets the image. All that matters at the end of the day is that the image is good. Henri Cartier Bresson did not much use longer lenses so far as I know but then again he did not need to, he was that good.

The other thing many misunderstand is how he got his images. Sometimes HCB would get an image as he walked about. Often though, he would see the possibilities inherent in a particular space and hang around at that location, waiting for something to happen - for the right subject to come by at the right moment with the sun in the right direction to create the right play of light and shadows from the right angle. I think that is what he really meant by "decisive moment". Not so much pure dumb luck - but planning. Then waiting.

I truly think that not enough photographers understand this and instead spend their days randomly wandering the streets in the vain hope that the decisive moment would jump into their camera, instead of being like HCB who would try to "ambush" the decisive moment by positioning himself advantageously. The following photo is an example. He saw the possibilities in the location depicted and set himself up there for hours till the decisive moment came along in the fomr of a cyclist. http://www.ventspleen.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/HenriCartierBresson.HyeresFrance.1932.jpg

I think the difference is that HCB was a classically trained painter so he understood good images and how to compose them. Using a camera was just a different means to that end. The secret was not in his camera it was in his head.

The other thing I often think about when making street images is the need for the people in the images to be interesting. Perhaps this means they need to be attractive physically but usually this is not the case. They can be run of the mill people so long as they are interesting or doing something interesting or positioned in such a way that the image is interesting. But many shots I see are of people who just lack anything I want to look at because they lack eye appeal. I do not know how to define it better than that. Many people making photos just seem to randomly pick someone out and shoot, hoping for the best.
Click to expand...

I'm in complete agreement. Others should understand this.

I've wondered if a lot of folks are so delighted to just get an image they forget about subject interest and whether it's been shot 10 million times.

I see no problem with using a tele. It would separate that persons work from the others. Also I don't know if it was that HCB was so good he didn't need them as much as tele lenses weren't very small in those days and zooms were non existent or not very versatile and good. In the early days of his career the SLR of choice was probably an Exakta and a 400 Kern Kilar. The problem with a fixed prime of that length is waiting for a subject to move into range and seeing clearly what they're doing. Imagine being out on a shoot with a 400 and you see something you want to shoot but the subject is 15 ft away and you want more than a head shot. Also those lenses were slow, f5.6 in the case of the Kilar, and film was slow. I can't imagine trying to shoot moving subjects with an Exakta and 400 f5.6.

In college in the 60's I used my M's with a Visoflex II and 200 and 280 for football. Then I got a Nikon F and life improved.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top