New York Dusk

[RobbieV]

So then, for an image to work you pick two of the three: sharpness, blurriness, strong concept.

Wait...didn't HCB state that sharpness is a bourgeois concept?

How do we factor this into the equation?

[Rob C]

So then, for an image to work you pick two of the three: sharpness, blurriness, strong concept.

Wait...didn't HCB state that sharpness is a bourgeois concept?

How do we factor this into the equation?

First, we have to accept that your set of parameters doesn't apply.

Then, thinking about HC-B, we also have to realise that because he was an excellent snapper with a drawing/painting background, it didn't bestow upon him any superhuman qualities that made his every utterance worth recording or swallowing without the minimum recommended dose of sodium chloride, sea or otherwise. Also, we must consider whether his affluent background was bourgeoise or über bourgeoise - I think it tended to the latter - in which case you have to factor in his very own interpretation or concept of what that delightful state actually represented at the time. I suspect he wasn't very crisp in his evaluation, assuming he ever made such an evaluation. which I can't, of course, guarantee, neither one way nor the other.

Fascinating, photography.

Rob C

[RobbieV]

My words were merely playing with the precious comments in the thread. Perhaps not as playfully as I intended.

I think his sharpness quote was meant to be taken lightheartedly, but someone more knowledgeable on HCB could provide more clarity.

In any case, sharpness is easy part of taking photos in relation to developing a solid concept.

A quote from a forum where a Newsweek article was rewritten:

From Newsweek:

It was Newsweek's radical idea to have Helmut Newton, known for his erotic and extremely composed photographs, shoot a portrait of Cartier-Bresson, master of the wholly natural Decisive Moment. Cartier-Bresson loathes having his picture taken, and when he must, he insists the photographer be a member of Magnum, the cooperative he cofounded half a century ago. Newton is not.

Yet they met up in Paris last week for the shoot. "He looked good, very good,? says Newton, 83. ?He did everything I wanted, and was so sweet. I shot two rolls in color because he has very beautiful blue eyes, and four of black-and-white, because, being Cartier-Bresson, it has to be black-and-white.? Though their approaches are so different, Newton has long admired Cartier-Bresson. ?His pictures are about truth,? Newton says. ?Real people, like the picnic by the Marne. I like that one best.? They first encountered each other 25 or 30 years ago, in a Paris cafe. ?I felt he turned his nose up at me,? Newton recalls. A few years later Newton said in a television interview that, although he loved Cartier-Bresson?s work, he believed the feelings were not mutual. Soon after, Newton received a postcard from Cartier-Bresson. It read: ?I like you very much.?

Newton finally saw Cartier-Bresson again last year, when Vanity Fair asked Cartier-Bresson to shoot a portrait of Newton for a portfolio by photographers older than 80. Cartier-Bresson invited Newton and his wife, June (known by her nom de camera, Alice Springs), for lunch at his flat in the rue de Rivoli. Then they walked to a nearby park to take the picture. ?He had his little Leica,? Newton remembers, ?and he simply would point and shoot.? Since Cartier-Bresson?s hand isn?t as steady as it used to be, some of the pictures were a bit fuzzy. ?Sharpness is a bourgeois concept,? he told Newton. Newton sits back and laughs: ?I thought that was just divine.?

[Walt Roycraft]

There are a vast amount of highly skilled photographers, past and present, that have worked long and hard to produce very sharp images of well thought out subjects. Do I think every image must be tact sharp to be successful? Absolutely not. There are times when softness or blur add a tremendous amount to the photograph. And I thought Slobodons image was very nice.
But for Russ to say( "sharpness" is a novice's fixation.) is flat out wrong no matter how much he states it or believes it.

[Tony Jay]

Been away for a few days.
Back to the original post: Lovely image of great aesthetic value.

Regards

Tony Jay

[Rob C]

There are a vast amount of highly skilled photographers, past and present, that have worked long and hard to produce very sharp images of well thought out subjects. Do I think every image must be tact sharp to be successful? Absolutely not. There are times when softness or blur add a tremendous amount to the photograph. And I thought Slobodons image was very nice.
But for Russ to say( "sharpness" is a novice's fixation.) is flat out wrong no matter how much he states it or believes it.

Well, I don't think so.

I remember two things from being a novice: make something sharp; make something with little or no grain at whole-plate (6.5 x 8.5 ins). That was where our sophistication (none) led us to think success was to be found.

Of course sharpness is critical in many, many situations; that's not being challenged, as far as I can see, but for other than technical product stuff, it isn't always a priority. In fact, for amateur or artistic work, it comes rather low in the hierarchy of tokens of success, where I'd put mood to be the top one: get that and the amateur world's at your feet. Or it should be...

Rob C