What would HC Bresson Do?

What would HC Bresson Do?

  • I believe he would still use film. film has much more to offer, even now.

    Votes: 138 38.5%

  • He would go M9 for sure

    Votes: 165 46.1%

  • D700 after he nagged on forums about the M8 magenta problem

    Votes: 55 15.4%
  • Total voters
    358
Youd have to wonder why hed bother to go digital,all the processing and printing was done by colleages,unless some pressure came from those same colleages concerning the polluting of the environment or workflow or some other nonsense.
For my own sanity it would be nice to believe his insistence on film and Im 100% sure that after trying out digital for himself he would return to lights natural path.
 
Did Jerry Uelsmann go digital, the most impressive thing about his work was that it was done without the aid of a computer.
 
A really weird question;
HCB tended to love 35mm qualities and grain, remember that he was using Rollei 35 cameras for shots that could've been done with a monorail or any mf camera.

So I don't know what he would do for sure but he can go to the M9 or keep shooting film.
 
I thought the only reason he started photography was because it was like an instant painting for him. Don't think he would've cared too much about equipment.
 
He insisted that his photos were printed straight,no artifice,so raw would have been out as it requires some adjustment.So he would have gone for the best j-peg camera,which to my mind would have been olympus.I think a pen.
 
My guess is that he'd go digital to have more control, he'd be able to photoshop his images to perfection:
144655685.jpg


He'd still add sprockets–he loved sprockets.
Can't hold back progress!!
 
But HCB had no interest in even manipulating film images (i.e., printing). He had others do that. I think he'd still use film. Heck, he was wealthy enough to pay others to print for him--and that would still be the case today.
 
Today I received a present (from myself, but a present nonetheless ;)) in the form of the original 1952 issue of "The Decisive Moment".

After looking at the collection of pictures and reading his introductory essay on what was and what wasn't important for him about photography, I'd say he wouldn't bother with film, or anything technology- or gear-centric, and probably no classic camera either. He'd probably use a cellphone camera, or barring that, a good compact fast digicam, somewhere between a Ricoh GRD and a Nikon 1, and he'd shoot it in B&W JPEG mode.
 
He was one of the earliest pioneers for street photography and in fact was the person who coined the word "reportage". He is an inspiration to many and probably any photojournalist would instantly recognise his work.promotional gifts
 
taxi38 said:
He insisted that his photos were printed straight,no artifice,so raw would have been out as it requires some adjustment.So he would have gone for the best j-peg camera,which to my mind would have been olympus.I think a pen.
Click to expand...

From all I've ever heard/read from his printers, this was more than just being economical with the truth.

Cheers,

R.
 
ajuk said:
Did Jerry Uelsmann go digital, the most impressive thing about his work was that it was done without the aid of a computer.
Click to expand...

No, I'd say that the most impressive thing was his vision, though his technical skill must come a close second. Met him once. His was slightly embarrassed when I told him how much I admired his work.

Another photographer I admire, Charlie Lemay (http://www.charlielemay.net/) has it easier with digital imaging but still has an impressive vision.

Cheers,

R.
 
kraj8995 said:
He was one of the earliest pioneers for street photography and in fact was the person who coined the word "reportage". He is an inspiration to many and probably any photojournalist would instantly recognise his work.
Click to expand...
Hardly, as the word was widely used in its modern sense in the late 19th century, and the first reported use was in 1612. I'd be surprised if he were even the first to apply it to photography. Have you any reference for this?

Cheers,

R.
 
Just a quick correction, at the end of his life he returned to making images by hand, but only in drawing as far as I know; I don't recall that he took up painting again.

Given his stature and wealth, he might do what I read Salgado was doing, a few years ago: the film he traveled with everywhere was getting x-rayed too many times so he finally started mixing in digital work -- pentax 645 D I think -- but he'd worked out with the labs how to handle the iimages: there were put onto film, negatives were created, and with these, not with computers, they did the printing, traditional style. When we say digital will match film in 2 more generations; I think it's already done that in color. But the printing is anemic. And in black and white, the printing is just out of the question.

He was a journalist. He'd use both.

V
 
If he was in his prime today, he'd be using what all his olleagues at Magnum are using, a Canon 5D.

For his wedding work, he'd be using a Canon 5D.

Although he was never adept at processing and printing, in a modern photojournalist role he'd have to cope with the basics of Lightroom to process and upload his jpegs. If he didn't, his work would be unemployable and he'd not rise above the mass of capable guys out there.

If he was starting today, he'd know nothing other than digital and probably shoot a compact.

He was a man of his time. He wasn't a Leica fan boy that he's made out to be.

I chatted to Chris Steele Perkins in the London Magnum gallery last year and he, like Martin Parr and Sebastian Salgado, uses a Canon. Chris and Marin use 5Ds and Chris explained he did so because it does the job for very little expense. Film in his line of work was a ridiculous idea, he'd not used it since 2004.

He went on to say that he could even remember how to use a rangefinder camera and had no reason to contemplate it when AF is perfect for the work.

Now I'm aware that there are some Magnum photographers that still use film cameras for personal projects because they like film, but even Elliott Erwitt uses digital for his work assignments. Many of us enjoy film, including me, but from what I know HCB was not a hobbyist, he was a jobbing photographer with a great eye.
 
rolo said:
If he was in his prime today, he'd be using what all his olleagues at Magnum are using, a Canon 5D.

For his wedding work, he'd be using a Canon 5D.

Although he was never adept at processing and printing, in a modern photojournalist role he'd have to cope with the basics of Lightroom to process and upload his jpegs. If he didn't, his work would be unemployable and he'd not rise above the mass of capable guys out there.

If he was starting today, he'd know nothing other than digital and probably shoot a compact.

He was a man of his time. He wasn't a Leica fan boy that he's made out to be.

I chatted to Chris Steele Perkins in the London Magnum gallery last year and he, like Martin Parr and Sebastian Salgado, uses a Canon. Chris and Marin use 5Ds and Chris explained he did so because it does the job for very little expense. Film in his line of work was a ridiculous idea, he'd not used it since 2004.

He went on to say that he could even remember how to use a rangefinder camera and had no reason to contemplate it when AF is perfect for the work.

Now I'm aware that there are some Magnum photographers that still use film cameras for personal projects because they like film, but even Elliott Erwitt uses digital for his work assignments. Many of us enjoy film, including me, but from what I know HCB was not a hobbyist, he was a jobbing photographer with a great eye.
Click to expand...
No, I don't think so. I think that the 'rich kid' epithet is not entirely undeserved here. He could do as whatever he damn' well pleased, but he was so good that 'whatever he damn' well pleased' was very popular. That ¡s NOT the same as being a jobbing photographer.

Cheers,

R.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top