[Leica] Are we anal puddle jumpers or what?

[digiratidoc at gmail.com (James Laird)]

Thank you BD, just what I would have said but couldn't ;)

Jim Laird

On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 10:23 AM, B. D. Colen <bd at bdcolenphoto.com> wrote:
> I've been reading this thread and have a couple thoughts:
> 1. Equipment: Of course equipment is important, it was important to HCB,
> it's important to all of us today. It is not, however, the be all and end
> all many endless discussions of micro contrast, glass, and pixels would 
> lead
> one to believe. Someone yesterday or today made the comment that today's
> photographers keep upgrading their equipment, and need to, if they are
> serious about their craft. Well, yes, but what isn't mentioned is that
> today's camera body is not simply the light-tight box bodies were 20 years
> ago, but it is the box AND the film. That is, today a photographer is
> required to upgrade equipment with some frequency because digital sensors
> are still evolving, just as film evolved over a period of many decades. So
> in order to be able to meet client and publishing standards, a photographer
> is required to upgrade. But the photographer who bought a pair of M3s in 
> the
> 1950s, did NOT have to upgrade his bodies ? EVER ? if he didn't beat them 
> to
> death. The photographer did, however, upgrade her film. ?But the Nikon or
> Canon glass from 20 years ago is plenty good to shoot with it today. So, 
> for
> that matter, are Leica's first generation aspheric lenses plenty good 
> today.
> If someone wants the latest $7k Summicron, good for them. But there is no
> NEED to make that upgrade.
> 2. Analism: Anal is as anal does. HCB was not the film era equivalent of a
> pixel peeper. He did not wear a loupe around his neck for counting
> eyelashes. He was an artist who cared most about composition, and the ways
> in which visual elements came together and played off each other. Counting
> facial hairs is not photography, and really has little to do with
> photography. Does a particular lens effectively suppress veiling flare when
> shooting with strong backlighting? That is important to a photographer,
> because it effects her ability to successful capture a given image. But
> being able to examine a pimple on the face of the man in the moon in a 
> night
> shot of lower Manhattan? Not so much.
> 3. HCB and how many times he pushed the shutter release: Yes, HCB shot
> thousands of frames we have and will never seen. But don't kid yourselves
> that this somehow means that he, or similar 'giants' weren't as good as
> we've been lead to believe. The question is not, did he shoot thousands of
> frames he discarded? Rather, it is how good are his keepers, how to they
> compare to everyone else's keepers, and how many of them are there? We all,
> in our life times of shooting, may come up with one or two HCB-like images.
> What we will never come up with are the hundreds he produced.
> 4. Was the Puddle Jumper posed, and does it matter: As I said before, and I
> gather various people's searches have indicated I am correct, that image 
> was
> an unposed one-off. But some people have suggested over the last couple of
> days that it's the outcome that matters, 'art is art,' and we shouldn't 
> care
> if it was posed. I vehemently disagree. Because if that, or other 
> supposedly
> unposed images were posed, it tells us that HCB was a completely different
> kind of artist from what we thought he was. Philippe Halsman, a wonderful
> Magnum Photographer, made jumping his gimmick. He produced terrific images
> of everyone from Richard Nixon to the Duke and Duchess of Windsor jumping 
> on
> command. But Philippe Halsman was not HCB. He was not a chronicler of the
> "decisive moment." He is not noted for creating incredibly composed images
> of moments in real life and real time; HCB is. If it turns out that HCB
> posed images ? and I am NOT suggesting, nor do I believe, that he posed
> anything other than some portraits, then he simply was not the photographer
> we thought he was and his work needs to be reconsidered. (When Bruce
> Davidson's Outside Inside came out, I went to hear him speak at Boston
> University. During a rambling discourse he said that he ALWAYS asked
> permission before photographing his subjects. IF that is true, I think his
> work needs to be reconsidered. He still is a brilliant photographer, but IF
> that's true, he is more a brilliant fashion-type photographer, than the
> documentarian he has been thought to be. (I must note here that I have 
> heard
> from a number of sources I trust, and concluded myself from listen to him,
> that age has really caught up with Davidson's mental faculties, and I would
> NOT take his saying he always ?asked permission as reliable testimony.)
> 5. The Decisive Moment: For all the talk about the Decisive Moment, and the
> idea many have that HCB saw these special moments flash before his eye and
> grabbed them, ?I would contend that the true decisive moment is that 
> instant
> in which he ? or anyone ? saw or sees the photographic possibilities in a
> scene, a situation, and THEN begins to work that scene, until all the
> compositional elements come together. With the anal puddle jumper, the
> decisive moment would have been that instant when HCB saw the hole in the
> fence, realized what was going on, and started shooting. All of which to 
> say
> that the fulfillment of genius requires hard work.
> Back to anal puddle jumping. :-)
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information