View Full Version : Robert Capa makes us look bad.
CameraQuest
10-07-2007, 09:47
This morning I perused the Robert Capa book edited by his brother Cornell. Robert Capa: Photographs (Aperture Monograph)
His first published pics were of Trotsky giving a lecture. Not a bad professional start...
To me the quality of Capa's work is just amazing. The sad part is that he took all those shots with cameras and lenses are very sub part current levels of professional cameras and lenses.
I can't help but wonder what he could have done with some really good equipment...
or maybe I should wonder instead, how is it possible so many crappy pics are taken today with the latest wonderkin darlings of the latest camera or lens test...
hmmm.
Stephen
Add the fact, how much better today's films are, and how much more control you can have in PS... In reportage photography there is no substitute to being there, close, and making the shot...
Try taking pictures of an event while a talented professional is also there. It's rather shocking what they can pull out of the same scene you're looking at. C'est la vie.
I have the COmplete Capa, I think it's called, and find it amazing, too.
I sometimes wonder if using RF cameras does result in a very different style. Later photographers with SLRs, like Don McCullin, crop tighter, the look is grittier; Capa's photos, even when he's close to the action, are somehow calmer in look, more contemplative, there's definitely more of an art aesthetic there.
As for whether modern cameras would enable better shots; I suspect Capa was better for looking with his eyes, as opposed to through the camera viewfinder.
xayraa33
10-07-2007, 10:27
Robert Capa used the best that was available in his time, Leica , Contax, Rollei, and Nikon.
why stop at the 1930s 40s and part of the 1950s,
great photos were taken in the 19th century with cumbersome view cameras, glass plates and the collodion process.
what would Felice Beato or Francis Frith do with a Voigtlander R3M and a Zeiss C Sonnar loaded with Fuji Acros in their day?
..probably take great photos like they did with wet plate.
drewbarb
10-07-2007, 10:48
It's true that Capa used the best equipment available at the time, but we all know a great photographer can make great work with any camera. Todays wunder-tech gear certainly helps some pros produce better work- but it also helps loads of less talented photographers look more technically proficient than they are, which is perhaps a shame.
As for Capa making us look bad, if it's true that he faked and/or staged half of the photos he is accused of, that's the real offense that would make us all look bad.
It's the photographer that makes a good picture. :pHiding behind equipement is not a good thing.;)
I know we can be interested in camera and lens quality, but don't forget that it is designed for picture taking. Not for shooting resolution charts.
How about some wonderful military shots taken aboard navy ships during WWII with Kodak Medalist ? Have you tried action picture with Medalist ?:eek: It teaches you humility.:D
BillBingham2
10-07-2007, 11:51
ARe the only good pictures razor sharp? What is perfect exposure? Must there be a computer involved?
B2 (;->
Capa was a great photographer and photojournalist, but we shouldn't feel demeaned by his talent. We can celebrate his achievements and still feel good about our own work - at least I do.
Gabriel M.A.
10-07-2007, 12:48
or maybe I should wonder instead, how is it possible so many crappy pics are taken today with the latest wonderkin darlings of the latest camera or lens test...
I'll draw another one of my "flawed analogies"...
Imagine a world where basketballs didn't exist. There weren't any memorable basketball players. Then it caught on. And then there were more basketballs to play and goof around with. There were many many many players without outstanding gifts (ok, let's take the Harlem Globetrotters out of the equation, those guys knew their stuff...) Then there were a few very memorable basketball players. But a heck of a lot more mediocre players.
The availability of more, better and improved basketballs, basketball shoes, and Nike ads does not guarantee every player will give Jordan results. Only a handful will know their stuff. But making it more available increases the chance of someone finding that as their true craft.
I know, I've tried to dunk a few, but the better, improved basketballs and shoes don't get rid of my crappy game.
Pherdinand
10-07-2007, 12:52
he had the best gear of his age.
And that includes a pair of the best eyes, too :D
He would probably do the same today, with about the best gear of today (if that is defineable).
About us...well. We just look and wonder and try to do our best. That shall be enough.
PS: technically his shots are far from perfect, but for his subjects in general he didn't really need ultimate sharpness, tonality or all that mumbo jumbo we think of utmost importance.
And i'm sure he produced lot sof useless frames too, but natural selection took care of those.
Todd.Hanz
10-07-2007, 12:53
I originally thought this was an introduction to another Pro-Shooter, I was interested in how you were going to bring Robert Capa back ;).
or maybe I should wonder instead, how is it possible so many crappy pics are taken today with the latest wonderkin darlings of the latest camera or lens test...
hmmm.
Stephen
not to hard to figure out, spend less time talking gear and more time taking pics
Capa was brilliant!
Todd
Gabriel M.A.
10-07-2007, 12:55
PS: technically his shots are far from perfect, but for his subjects in general he didn't really need ultimate sharpness, tonality or all that mumbo jumbo we think of utmost importance.
Try and explain that to the Delete Me group on Flickr. ;)
Pherdinand
10-07-2007, 13:00
As for Capa making us look bad, if it's true that he faked and/or staged half of the photos he is accused of, that's the real offense that would make us all look bad.
You can't really fake jumping out with a parachute with hudreds of soldiers in the night during heavy anti aircraft gunfire above enemy territory. You either are there or you are not. He didn't deny of being a chicken a few times and going home without getting into the action...
Staged? Yes i'm sure many of his shots were staged. Like the Ingrid Bergman shots, e.g. :D
Sorry he's my favourite and i won't listen to anything that might sound a bit negative about him :P
Pherdinand
10-07-2007, 13:03
Gabriel: Even the most talented cannot satisfy every member of our rapidly growing race... :D
but that's a funny group indeed
This morning I perused the Robert Capa book edited by his brother Cornell. Robert Capa: Photographs (Aperture Monograph)
His first published pics were of Trotsky giving a lecture. Not a bad professional start...
To me the quality of Capa's work is just amazing. The sad part is that he took all those shots with cameras and lenses are very sub part current levels of professional cameras and lenses.
I can't help but wonder what he could have done with some really good equipment...
or maybe I should wonder instead, how is it possible so many crappy pics are taken today with the latest wonderkin darlings of the latest camera or lens test...
hmmm.
Stephen
Do you seriously believe that stong images are a product of technology and not the photographer?
CameraQuest
10-07-2007, 14:53
Do you seriously believe that stong images are a product of technology and not the photographer?
hardly, did you seriously believe that is what the thread is about?
Stephen
LeicaTom
10-07-2007, 15:21
I can't help but wonder what he could have done with some really good equipment...
Stephen
A Photographer is never "made" you have to be "born" to do this line of work....
I know someone here locally who has a Leica R with a digital back and thousands $$$$$$$ sunk into the camera and equipment and his pics look like they were taken with a cheap digital camera......
it`s not the gear it`s what you PULL out of it that counts :)
I use cameras that are all pre 1955 in my Retro PinUp business and my clients are all very happy with the outcome, I think sometime`s even "older" is better
When I used to live in Germany and I saw first hand what some men did with their camera`s back in the late 1940`s early 50`s with amazing sports photography with old beat up Leica IIIb`s and IIIc`s with Mooly Motors, Scnoo winders and Ploot housings, photos that would stand up to anything the modern cameras produce today...........
I think alot of it had to do with the caliber of the people in Capa`s generation as well, everything was different back then, people worked even harder and the finished product was appreciated more - nowadays, everyone wants everything so fast and does`nt care about quality, I think more thinking went into Photography in Capa`s time and also more adventure as well, people of that generation were more daring.........everyone I have met who lived through the great depression had guts and I think when you were a good Photographer that showed in your work, like it did with Capa`s :)
I still say.......It`s NEVER the gear, it`s whoever pushes the button that counts....
But, nonetheless it would have been amazing to see what Capa would have pulled out of a M6 and some modern lenses and even better film! :D
Tom
PS: Historicaly I don`t think Robert Capa had the chance to use the Leica M3 did he?
While he was killed in Indo-China about the same time the camera was being released, is there anyplace posted online that talks about that "last" photoshoot?
I know the photos from it still survive.....
Excluding myself, because I know my pictures suck, but I have seen better work from those with voigtlanders & russian cameras than many here with M8s and high dollar Leica film cameras with their several thousand dollar lenses. If you have a good eye for composition and good lighting along with a bit of luck, it doesn't matter much what you use. But to me it's about having fun.
drewbarb
10-07-2007, 15:39
You can't really fake jumping out with a parachute with hudreds of soldiers in the night during heavy anti aircraft gunfire above enemy territory. You either are there or you are not. He didn't deny of being a chicken a few times and going home without getting into the action...
Staged? Yes i'm sure many of his shots were staged. Like the Ingrid Bergman shots, e.g. :D
Sorry he's my favourite and i won't listen to anything that might sound a bit negative about him :P
Just to be clear, I'm not throwing my lot in with his detractors. I wasn't there, I don't know what he did for every shot. Of course he did jump out of planes and do all kinds of incredible things, and came back with some truly spectacular pictures. (Would some of those have been better if he had a modern wunder-cam? Perhaps...) My point is just that many people have claimed that various of his shots were faked and/or staged. This has been claimed of many photographers. For instance, many people swear the "Death of a Spanish Loyalist"- one of his most famous images- was faked. Whatever the truth is, allegations like this cast a pall over photography which is the thing that really makes us all look bad.
Wahtever the truth about this issue, Capa was unquestionably one of the greats.
Gabriel M.A.
10-07-2007, 15:58
Excluding myself, because I know my pictures suck, but I have seen better work from those with voigtlanders & russian cameras than many here with M8s and high dollar Leica film cameras with their several thousand dollar lenses.
I know, my photos suck big time.
Wait, you neglected the Zeiss lenses. Why the neglect? My Biogon feels offended. :o
Gabriel M.A.
10-07-2007, 16:02
Wahtever the truth about this issue, Capa was unquestionably one of the greats.
There will always be skeptics for anything. Capa's photography was great. Too bad that he tends to be tied, at least in RFF, with discussions of Nikon this, Leica that, Contax this, SLRs that...
Hardly ever about his work only.
I know musicians rave about their instruments, but musical discussions hardly ever degenerate in Yamaha vs. Stradivarius interchanges. More about...the music.
how is it possible so many crappy pics are taken today with the latest wonderkin darlings of the latest camera or lens test...
I started to type a response that went something like this:
"Thank goodness there are so many ordinary pictures taken with the latest gear! If all the pictures taken with the latest equipment were good, there wouldn't be very many of those cameras sold and camera manufacturers like leica would have been out of business years ago. Furthermore those new techologies would never have been developed and filtered down to affordable models most people can afford."
I think this is an argument most people here would have heard before, but I'm not sure how true it is.
I got thinking, if that really was the case, and only pro's bought pro gear, would there really be no investment in new technologies for consumer/affordable cameras? Somehow I doubt it. Surely the sales in consumer models for (the larger companies at least) like canon and nikon are substantial enough to warrant investment in improvements in features. But then again, I really don't like any of those new technologies! (Ok, so you can pry film scanner from my cold dead hands, but otherwise...)
Just how long have amatures been buying professional equipment???
The classic, old adage "f8 and be there" comes to mind. The real message of that is not the f8 part, but the there part. Knowing where there is ... that is the key.
hardly, did you seriously believe that is what the thread is about?
Stephen
I was not sure.
I know, my photos suck big time.
Wait, you neglected the Zeiss lenses. Why the neglect? My Biogon feels offended. :o
Sorry Gab... but you have talent and don't realize how much you have. Your one of the ones here who could take a Cannonet and make an outstanding photo. I do understand that there is equipment than one can aquire to help out the process. MOF you will be pleased to read this months article in Popular Photog. by Herbert Keppler on how photographers went crazy with lense test in the 40's & 50's and found that Japaneese Nikkor lenses were sharper than Leica made lenses and equal with Zeiss lenses. Interesting read. If you can afford top equipment then go for it. What kills me are those that because they have a Leica in their hands makes them a photographer and it doesn't. It wasn't on RFF but someone with a Leica asked me one time not long ago....Do you own a leica or do you aspire to have one? I said no, not really....And that person hasn't talked to me since. Those are the ones i'm talking about.
There will always be skeptics for anything. Capa's photography was great. Too bad that he tends to be tied, at least in RFF, with discussions of Nikon this, Leica that, Contax this, SLRs that...
Hardly ever about his work only.
I know musicians rave about their instruments, but musical discussions hardly ever degenerate in Yamaha vs. Stradivarius interchanges. More about...the music.
Not directed at you Gabriel, but just a thought occured to me from your comment:
Capa shot full frame. (Not just 35mm, but 6x6 medium format.)
Don't know why I bring this up, but...
There will always be skeptics for anything. Capa's photography was great. Too bad that he tends to be tied, at least in RFF, with discussions of Nikon this, Leica that, Contax this, SLRs that...
Hardly ever about his work only.
I know musicians rave about their instruments, but musical discussions hardly ever degenerate in Yamaha vs. Stradivarius interchanges. More about...the music.
My thoughts exactally. I bought a Apature book about WeeGee and some of his photos. He carried that big camera with enormus flash. His photos at least to me anyway are awsome and interesting to look at. They might not pass the critics test for exposure and all that, but one thing when you see a WeeGee photo or any photo of that era MOF you can almost 99.9%of the time know who took it.
They might not pass the critics test for exposure and all that, but one thing when you see a WeeGee photo or any photo of that era MOF you can almost 99.9%of the time know who took it.
Or most work done by most of the photographers of that era never survived the test of time.
What's so terrible about the Zeiss and Leica lenses Capa used?
I have photos on my site that were taken with a $60 Canonet, consumer grade lenses and bodies, Canon L professional lenses. I have taken decent and lousy shots with every lens/camera combination I own.
I doubt most people could determine what equipment was used for any particular shot, they probably could not determine the film used, but they can tell me if they like or dislike the images. I have to admit I use mostly newer gear because I don't have the patience for rehabing old non-functional gear. I do believe the gear/format can influence how you shoot so I choose my gear/format with that in mind. I don't collect gear, I put every penny I have for the best gear I can reasonably afford and the rest goes for shooting and collecting photography books. If I had more time and money, I am sure I would expand my gear/format options, but for now I just have what I use so no gear sits on a shelf for too long!
Mael, I enjoyed your portfolio, you look like one collector who knows how to make nice images with the gear he collects!
waileong
10-07-2007, 20:34
1. It's the Indian, not the arrow. That's why Capa's better than us.
2. With digital photography now in everyone's hands, is it any wonder that there are so many crappy pixs around? It's basically dumbing down.
Comparing today's average to yesterday's exceptional is always going to lead to flawed results. This applies to photographers just as it applies to cameras.
Pherdinand
10-08-2007, 00:31
While he was killed in Indo-China about the same time the camera was being released, is there anyplace posted online that talks about that "last" photoshoot?
I know the photos from it still survive.....
The "legend" says, he had a contax and a nikon around his neck that time, the nikon was found further on the field but still protected the film enough. No legends about Leica.
darkkavenger
10-08-2007, 02:13
Thanks to f2eyelevel for his post. I thought of writing something similar when this thread was started. You can HCB or Doisneau me how much as you want, for me Capa remains the reference. Whatever camera he used, he did the job putting his heart & soul in, and I don't think he spent days discussing the particularities of one or another lens as so many people seem to do here.
Let's admit it once and for all, no matter how much a camera costs, some people are good at taking photos, some have this skill naturally, some learn and improve, and some will simply never get it. Even with $5000 in their hands. It's sad, but it's life.
Spider67
10-08-2007, 02:16
"When a young samurai rode to an archery competitionhe he saw an old samurai sitting on a rock. he joked about the old man's worn bow and continued on his way. On his return he found the rock with several arrows sticking in it. Deeply ashamed the young samurai feel to his knees, humbled by the old man's lesson"
I read that somewhere and I think it fit's.......The strange thing about photography nowadays is that people are perfectly happy with pictures the size of a matchbox label. They rarely enlarge them anymore. But wasn't it the same in the thirties when people were content with contact prints from theri folders?
...When he came back to photojournalism later - and to meet death in Indochina - he used a Contax IIa and a Nikon S. He was hired by a Japanese newspaper to take some photographs of the daily life in postwar Japan - as a deal, he had to use a Japanese camera and so, he used a Nikon S. When in Japan he was contacted by a press agency to cover war in Indochina. He reluctantly accepted. ...
I have a Japanese autobiography about R. Capa and despite the fact that I can`t read the text it has the most interesting photos about the post-war Japan, I have ever seen. The photos in that book are a wonderful documentation of the daily life and my Japanese friends (who didn`t know about R. Capa before) were very astonished that a "gaijin" (foreigner) can see and photograph Japan in that way. I guess that his talent to point out the essential in his photos no matter in which area of the world and under which circumstances makes him an outstanding photographer, who used his equipment very efficient.
This morning I perused the Robert Capa book edited by his brother Cornell. Robert Capa: Photographs (Aperture Monograph)
His first published pics were of Trotsky giving a lecture. Not a bad professional start...
To me the quality of Capa's work is just amazing. The sad part is that he took all those shots with cameras and lenses are very sub part current levels of professional cameras and lenses.
I can't help but wonder what he could have done with some really good equipment...
or maybe I should wonder instead, how is it possible so many crappy pics are taken today with the latest wonderkin darlings of the latest camera or lens test...
hmmm.
Stephen
I think it is only marginally interesting to see Capa's work just in a technical context. He is interesting in a historical and social behavorial context too. He tried to cover the great historical events, wars, killings and injustices of his time. With, as you say, marginal equipment. What couldn't a photographer of today have done with the flawed Normandie Beach Landing Scenes? Capa had a message to his 'viewers', telling of the injustices of the world. And the world listened/watched. Like my father, who did three landings in the Med during WWII, Robert Capa was shocked and appalled to see the lack of respect of human life shown. From all sides.
Today we have seen the americans and british murder, directly and indirecty a million innocent Iraqis in four years (you asked for it Stephen!), - we get it all in Technicolor and stereo sound. Not to mention the attack on the World Trade Center. Technically far better than the coverage of any spectacular scene of the WWII. But since Robert Capa's day's; we are all exhausted; we don't want to know and we don't want to see. Had he lived, he would have been in Iraq today, Robert Capa. Nor that I think that it would have made any difference. Exept for technically.
Pherdinand
10-09-2007, 12:04
The Complete Collection, pub. Phaidon, is a must-have book for any Capa enthusiast.
f2, i guess you mean the "definitive" collection, aka this one http://www.amazon.com/Robert-Capa-Definitive-Richard-Whelan/dp/0714844497/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/104-2539605-2246319?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1191960160&sr=8-1
?
i am thinking of buying it...
Steve Meltzer
01-06-2008, 07:16
This morning I perused the Robert Capa book edited by his brother Cornell. Robert Capa: Photographs (Aperture Monograph)
His first published pics were of Trotsky giving a lecture. Not a bad professional start...
To me the quality of Capa's work is just amazing. The sad part is that he took all those shots with cameras and lenses are very sub part current levels of professional cameras and lenses.
I can't help but wonder what he could have done with some really good equipment...
or maybe I should wonder instead, how is it possible so many crappy pics are taken today with the latest wonderkin darlings of the latest camera or lens test...
hmmm.
Stephen
Stephen
Check out the work of the French photographer Jacque Henri-Lartigue. His books ofthe turn oof the century France are stunning.
The kicker is he took most of the amazing photos in his book when he was 12. And with simple folding cameras.
Two or three years ago the Pompidou Center in Paris did a show of his work. And they present many of the original images.
So on the wall you'd see this great shot of a couple of guys in a 1912 racing auto with wheels exaggerated by panning and blur. Then you'd look down and see the original image that was just 2x3 inches.
And JHL never had his pictures enlarged. Until the1950s they were snapshots in his family photo albums.
JHL proves to me at least that gear is irrelevant. I think as a photographer i've always looked for gear that felt comfortable and then struggled to ignore it and focus on the pictures.
By the way I studied pj in NY with Robert's brother Cornell and whenever someone in the audience asked what camera was used to make which picture, CC would grimace and ignore the questioner. Once he got a bit annoyed at this person and said, " Why does it matter to you so much what camera was used? Look at the picture, that's what matters."
Amen.
Steve
I think it's totally wrong to say that Capa's work was not partly driven by the technology he had at his disposal. The aesthetic of his work as well HCB snd others was a direct result of the speed of use, portability, and size of contax and Leica RF's, as well as advances in film technology. These pictures could not have been taken by the large format cameras and the slow film of a generation earlier. The size of the cameras also made a difference, they were less imposing and made it easier to get close to your subject.
The type of work that he did not exist before 35mm photography - that is not a coincidence.
>> My point is just that many people have claimed that various of his shots were faked and/or staged. This has been claimed of many photographers. For instance, many people swear the "Death of a Spanish Loyalist"- one of his most famous images- was faked. <<
My recollection is that the photo's caption was embellished by a magazine, and Capa rode with it. At the time he was relatively unknown and sending prints and negatives out from Spain to whichever publication would use them, with very little control over the final published product.
A number of us on this forum would point out that the technical quality of sonnar lenses was comparable to today's lenses, and generally exceeded the resolution of the film. The Contax is a pretty quick handling camera with shared viewfinder/rangefinder. Capa used multiple bodies to allow for multiple lenses and in case the film ran out at a bad moment.
findwolfhard
01-06-2008, 08:08
Well, I believe it`s a matter of "philosophy" and personality, if a I might call it so. Reading HCB`s essay "The decisive moment" once in a while helps to regain the idea that photography was seen as a cultural act not as a pastime. And all the famous photographers were in abundance of talent and commitment. That distinguishes them from the lesser gifted and the amateurs. Where are the folks that even come close to the ones like
HCB, E.W.S, Franck, Erwitt, Capa, Doisneau, Faas . just as they come to my mind.
By the way ? What about Josef Koudelca? I loved his fotos from the 70ties and 80ties.
Best regards Wolfhard
wonder what he could have done with some really good equipment...
Taking a sharp shot here.
http://img91.imageshack.us/img91/9729/capaoneud5.jpg
(http://img91.imageshack.us/img91/9729/capaoneud5.jpg)
Steve Meltzer
01-06-2008, 08:36
I think it's totally wrong to say that Capa's work was not partly driven by the technology he had at his disposal. The aesthetic of his work as well HCB snd others was a direct result of the speed of use, portability, and size of contax and Leica RF's, as well as advances in film technology. These pictures could not have been taken by the large format cameras and the slow film of a generation earlier. The size of the cameras also made a difference, they were less imposing and made it easier to get close to your subject.
The type of work that he did not exist before 35mm photography - that is not a coincidence.
I beg to differ and Jacques Henri Lartique's work at the turn of the century certainly has the kind of decisive moment and visual freedom that you attribute to a later generations Leicas.
Its the photographer's eye that matters, gear is just the tool.
Steve
Capa was a great photographer and photojournalist, but we shouldn't feel demeaned by his talent. We can celebrate his achievements and still feel good about our own work - at least I do.
Hi Oldprof,
I think a lot of time passed since I saw any of your postings. May I say welcome back ? Well I will say it for me.
I think your post is touching the most essential issue: Us.
No doubt most of the chances are that none of us will achieve his greatness, but for each one of us, what attitude or approach we embrace in our daily creation is the most important of all.
And I think you are right. I cannot imagine any master of photography looking at serious photographers and judging them by their equipment or achievements, but by their dignity towards photography.
I don't feel bad at all for my pictures being several farenheit degrees below Capa's, as we were born and grown under very different circumstances, with very different built in talent.
On the contrary, I feel proud of Capa being one the highest torches enligthening our trade.
Cheers,
Ruben
Pherdinand
01-06-2008, 09:12
prosaic, i guess you were kidding :)
I guess the sharpness of the shot multiplied by the sharpness of the bullets is a physical constant.
I beg to differ and Jacques Henri Lartique's work at the turn of the century certainly has the kind of decisive moment and visual freedom that you attribute to a later generations Leicas.
Its the photographer's eye that matters, gear is just the tool.
Steve
This quote from www.lartigue.org
"1904 The cameras given to him by his father are increasingly sophisticated, light and easy to handle. Now he can shoot anything, even in motion"
In other words Lartigue could not have made some of his most famous images without the technical advancements in the camera technology of the time. The photographer's eye certainly matters and buying an expensive camera won't make you a great photographer. However, the quality of the cameras you have available makes a huge difference, technology has always enabled creative photographers to be more creative, just as the discovery of new pigments and paints was instrumental in the birth of the impressionist movement.
chris91387
01-06-2008, 09:39
Taking a sharp shot here.
http://img91.imageshack.us/img91/9729/capaoneud5.jpg
(http://img91.imageshack.us/img91/9729/capaoneud5.jpg)
something interesting happening in this image.
look about 2/3 up in the frame. it's more than just normal slow speed blur but rather almost a doubling up...like a flash went off and stopped some of the action (a mortar?). but it didn't happen in the foreground.
great thread, stephen.
- chris
>>something interesting happening in this image.
look about 2/3 up in the frame. it's more than just normal slow speed blur but rather almost a doubling up...like a flash went off and stopped some of the action (a mortar?). but it didn't happen in the foreground.<<
That might be related to the verticle travel of the Contax shutter with a slow shutter speed. The negatives were badly overheated in drying (by a lab tech) and so the surviving images have many difficult-to-duplicate artifacts. Most frames were melted away completely.
ClaremontPhoto
01-06-2008, 10:02
By the way I studied pj in NY with Robert's brother Cornell and whenever someone in the audience asked what camera was used to make which picture, CC would grimace and ignore the questioner. Once he got a bit annoyed at this person and said, " Why does it matter to you so much what camera was used? Look at the picture, that's what matters."
Steve
That's made my day. Thank you.
Steve Meltzer
01-06-2008, 10:41
Jon
That kind of stuff made my life. What I learned from CC and Roman Vishniac and Duane Micheals and Gene Smith was that it was all about the picture and to the extent that it didn't matter what anyone else thinks of it or how its used, it simply something a photographer, a true photographer, has to do. Has to.
I have to take pictures. Long ago passed the point of should I or could I.
Steve
something interesting happening in this image.
look about 2/3 up in the frame. it's more than just normal slow speed blur but rather almost a doubling up...like a flash went off and stopped some of the action (a mortar?). but it didn't happen in the foreground.
great thread, stephen.
- chris
That emulsion on this negative was melted by processing accident at LIFE labs didn't help. One can't judge the initial sharpness of a capture by a surviving negative from destroyed roll.
Capa is something of a personal hero of mine. I recently bought a bio on him called "Blood and Champagne." The title seems to sum him up. I liked not only his photography and his philosophy - that if your picture is no good, get closer, but his larger than life personality. Always kinda reminds me of Rick on Casablanca - tough, cynical but heart of gold, hurt in love (the love of his life Gerda Taro a Polish photojournalist was killed in an accident during the Spanish war.)
I don't know that I would call Capa the consummate professional ( he played life far too hard for that) but he has a real "Mensch" as they say and died with his boots on photographing the Indo-China war.
I saw an interview with HC Bresson on Youtube recently and while he was guarded I gained the view that his opinion of Capa was a bit negative (although there was still admiration too.) In relation to his work at Magnum he commented something to the effect that while he and other journalists made the money and "Shim" Seymour knew how to invest it and find new sources, RC just spent it.
Incidentally the interesting thing about his famous D Day photos is that today I think it might be possible to digitally rectify some of the damage. The emulsion melted so the pictures while they were hanging in a drying closet so they all "ran" in the same direction due to gravity. There is software which allows you to fix pictures blurred due to severe image movement or for whatever reason . I am not sure if the kind of software that is commercially available to non pros would work or is powerful enough but I have seen results of some top end software used by police to sharpen the extremely blurry photo of a speeding car so the number plate could be read. As long as the injury to the picture has a pattern to it (ie all the blur runs in one direction) it should be able to be "unwound" by the software by repositioning pixels to the the correct location. There was also some software of this sort used this year to arrest a pedophile who blurred his face in photos in a "swirl" pattern which totally obliterated his features - or so he thought. The police used software to reverse the process and produce an image of the mans face. That kind of software should work one would think at least for the published images which were still recognisable.
>> I liked not only his photography and his philosophy -that if your picture is no good, get closer, but his larger than life personality. Always kinda reminds me of Rick on Casablanca - tough, cynical but heart of gold, hurt in love (the love of his life Gerda Taro a Polish photojournalist was killed in an accident during the Spanish war.) I don't know that I would call Capa the consumate professional but he has a real "Mensch" as they say and died with his boots on photographing the IndoChina war.<<
His story is immensely fascinating. Andre Friedmann and his girlfriend/work partner Gerda Pohorylle invented an imaginery "famous American photographer" named Robert Capa to better sell their work. Eventually, Friedmann adopted the name and the persona. Pohorylle took on the name Gerda Taro to make her work more saleable. Her death in wartime Spain devastated him but at the same time prepared him emotionally for World War II. Just as Ernie Pyle, the writer, was emotionally prepared for the war by the fact that his longtime wife was committed to an insane assylum. Doing this kind of work is much less about the equipment set than about the mindset.
I feel this thread became a discussion about the role of technology in photography, while in the middle we have left unattended a highly important aspect of Capa: he was a war photographer, highly involved with international politics, and much of the most important of his era.
Not that this encompasses it all, but he was among those in our trade that risk their own skin. He was not the only one and I would not like to make comparizons. But these breed deserves our utmost respect.
Respect is not bounded to blind loyalty. Yet somehow this gear talk at this thread belittles a great man, and his breed among us. I think that for gear talk we could use other great photographers, who lived a more comfortable life.
Sorry for communicating this, but this is my feeling.
Cheers,
Ruben
Here's a picture of Taro:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=54070&stc=1&d=1199656171
© International Center of Photography -- Posted for historic value.
crawdiddy
01-06-2008, 11:21
Incidentally the interesting thing about his famous D Day photos is that today I think it might be possible to digitally rectify some of the damage. There is software which allows you to fix pictures blurred due to severe image movement or for whatever reason . I am not sure if the kind of software that is commercially available to non pros would work or is powerful enough but I have seen results of some top end software used by police to sharpen the extremely blurry photo of a speeding car so the number plate could be read. As long as the injury to the picture has a pattern to it (ie all the blur runs in one direction) it should be able to be "unwound" by the software by repositioning pixels the the correct location. There was also some software of this sort used this year to arrest a pedophile who blurred his face in photos in a "swirl" pattern which totally obliterated his features - or so he thought. The police used software to reverse the process and produce an image of the mans face. That kind of software should work one would think at least for the published images which were still recognisable.
...concerning the digital manipulation of Capa's D-Day images in order to sharpen them....
But it would be wrong to do it. I don't mean to sound moralistic, or to treat Capa's work as some sort of religious artifact. But it's Art. You can manipulate it digitally, in order to extract data from it. At that point, you've crossed over into Science. It may be interesting, and you may learn things form it, but it has nothing to do with the Art.
M. Valdemar
01-06-2008, 11:34
No, why not try to recover the intended images from Capa's destroyed negatives? I wonder if fragments of some of the really badly damaged ones still exist?
And Roman Vishniac was a wonderful photographer, rarely mentioned these days.
...concerning the digital manipulation of Capa's D-Day images in order to sharpen them....
But it would be wrong to do it. I don't mean to sound moralistic, or to treat Capa's work as some sort of religious artifact. But it's Art. You can manipulate it digitally, in order to extract data from it. At that point, you've crossed over into Science. It may be interesting, and you may learn things form it, but it has nothing to do with the Art.
I agree that doing this would be a matter of science not art, but I do not agree that it would be wrong. I am not suggesting it could be done for aesthetic reasons - but for historical research reasons. As to the art - I much prefer Capas original (as they turned out). The blur is a part of history now that adds somehow to the immediacy of the D Day. Never the less it would be good to see the photos how he originally intended them to look.
The original LIFE captions described the D-Day images as "slightly out of focus" with no reference to the bungled darkroom work. Capa used the phrase for the title of his autobiography.
Very interesting thread. I've always loved Capa's work. I think a skilled photographer can wring compelling photos from almost any working camera, especially if he has a little time to become accustomed to its limitations.
I also like the idea of de-blurring his damaged D-Day photos. Capa certainly didn't intend for a technician to melt his negatives, so I don't think I'd personally classify that accident as "art". If such a repair technique had existed in his time I expect he'd have demanded it.
While technology might improve possibilities, I think there is a limit to the ability to make great photos. Over the history of photography, there have been those who stand above others due to their ability, no matter what the level of technology was during their time.
I think that taking 21st Century technology and trying to improve on historical documents like Capa's D-Day photos amounts to revisionism instead of restoration.
Fixing what lab technician botched up is not revisionism.
I'll draw another one of my "flawed analogies"...
Imagine a world where basketballs didn't exist. There weren't any memorable basketball players. Then it caught on. And then there were more basketballs to play and goof around with. There were many many many players without outstanding gifts (ok, let's take the Harlem Globetrotters out of the equation, those guys knew their stuff...) Then there were a few very memorable basketball players. But a heck of a lot more mediocre players.
The availability of more, better and improved basketballs, basketball shoes, and Nike ads does not guarantee every player will give Jordan results. Only a handful will know their stuff. But making it more available increases the chance of someone finding that as their true craft.
I know, I've tried to dunk a few, but the better, improved basketballs and shoes don't get rid of my crappy game.
My basketball game is very crappy even when I put a Leica pin on my shirt. What went wrong? :D
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.