How do you learn to photograph like Henri Cartier-Bresson?

[M like Leica M6]

Let's collect all possible opinions here, no matter whether they are serious or just for the fun of it. No matter whether it helps you and me to get better results for the street photo project, it will be quite interesting to read what you think about it. :D

[stuken]

You don't. You can only try to find your own style. We already had a Cartier-Bresson.

[MickH]

Arrange to be born into an exceedingly wealthy family, play with cameras all your life and you might come close.

[BigSteveG]

I'd rather photograph like Salgado.

[dreilly]

I'd rather photograph like Salgado.

Me too. That's easy: train as an economist, work for the world bank, realize that you'd rather advocate for the poor instead of eradicate them with monetary policy, give it all up, buy some camera gear and start traveling--to overlooked places with overlooked people, and start talking to people.

[kdemas]

I agree with the comment above, go out...shoot and find your own unique style. Maybe it will be similar to some of the greats, like a Bresson, but it will feature the unique nature of your "Impassioned Eye".

HCB did what he did best, you find out and do the same for your skills and artistic talent.

Kent

[drewbarb]

The same way you get to Carnegie Hall- practice, practice, practice.

[SolaresLarrave]

HCB is a good model, but he wasn't perfect. He was good, and a good first street photographer he was.

Right now, check out the internet and you'll find people who are doing great things with images found in the street. Just get the knack for it. And, of course, you can always pay your respects to the inimitable, yet not perfect, HCB.

[nightfly]

Get a 50mm and stay a polite distance back. Look for puddle jumping boys and people bearing baguettes.

[rich815]

Practice, practice, practice, and then more practice. But that will only develop your own style, not his. Which is better. But whether your style is good or not is another point altogether.

Overall I find the more I shoot the better I seem to get, the more people like my images, and the more a style seems to develop (I hate doing planned "projects"). Same thing happens with my scanning, my printing, etc.

[SolaresLarrave]

I think that a great deal of HCB's charm is, precisely, that of gruffy Frenchmen wearing baggy pants and berets, cursing like maniacs and drinking wine in public. In other words, the vision of Europe that many of us have is largely his work.

Compare his stuff with, say, Winogrand's. Or Robert Frank's. Or even Douisneau. That's another story (another SF, another NY, another Paris).

One could go on and on and on... :)

[M like Leica M6]

Interesting.

What do you think about:

- Stop thinking
- Look at the geometry
- Smell, feel and see what is happening and sharpen our sensitivity

?

[SolaresLarrave]

Geometry is vital in B&W. At least, to me.

Also, for some people, HCB's shots tell or contain a story.

You choose what you want to do, and then work on it. Do it because you like it, because you can, and because it suits your mood, will or for no reason at all.

[shimo-kitasnap]

try not using the viewfinder, shoot from the hip with lens pre-focused at 8-10ft and aperture always at f8, compensate with adjusting shutter speeds, oh and don't use your light meter, just guess. You'll have tons of crappy shots with people's heads cut off and over and under exposed images. But you will have a few really good shots that stick out from the rest, usually a few per roll.

Keep spending more money on film and shooting like this and you might emulate/imitate.

I think it's more rewarding to just find your own style and do something unique and be yourself rather than someone else.

[SolaresLarrave]

Let me use this shot as something done á la HCB:

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=58882&stc=1&d=1209595844

At least, I like to think it follows the style, and although a lot of people would object and say "where's the story", I believe the style is... in that these people are obviously Europeans, in a European setting, very continental and exotic.

So, it may not be a case of just learning to shoot the HCB way, but also getting the right subjects. :)

[chikne]

Why would you want to shoot like HexaChloroBenzene?

[Rafael]

Open Shooting Menu > open photographer styles > select HCB > press shutter release > check LCD screen.

[mcgrattan]

I'm not sure I agree with everyone saying to leap right in and seek your own style. Copying someone else can be a pretty useful exercise, I think. Most great musicians, for example, start off pretty slavishly copying someone else. Photography isn't that different.

I'm a terrible street photographer and have a lot to learn. But, a while ago, I spent some time quite consciously trying to get a 'Rodchenko' look to some photos I was taking. The photos were pretty successful and I think I learned a lot in the process. I wouldn't want to keep doing that forever, but as a learning process, it's useful.

[chikne]

I'm not sure I agree with everyone saying to leap right in and seek your own style. Copying someone else can be a pretty useful exercise, I think. Most great musicians, for example, start off pretty slavishly copying someone else. Photography isn't that different.


This is something that always goes through my mind. How did the first musician ever did it, in your opinion that is.

[steve kessel]

Great thread, good question.

"Stop thinking" is the best response so far, in amongst the pictures where you just have to think.

Then learn from your own pictures, especially the lucky ones, the ones you didn't intend, the ones that come as a surprise.

Learn from the camera - it shows us what's out there.

[myoptic3]

You may as well ask "how do I learn to paint like Degas" Short answer, you don't, and you most certainly can't.

[mcgrattan]

How did the first musician ever did it, in your opinion that is.

I'm not sure about the first. But I've always interpreted the history of music was being about musicians and composers copying those that had gone before them and then building on that and innovating to do something new.

Very few art forms, I think, involve truly revolutionary changes. Or if they do, not that often.

In photography, I think, I've learned as much (or even more) from analyzing what it is I like about other people's photographs and trying, on some level, to imitate as I have from experimenting on my own (and then repeating the things that work).

[rich815]

You may as well ask "how do I learn to paint like Degas" Short answer, you don't, and you most certainly can't.

LOL! :D This is probably the best answer here.

[chikne]

I'm not sure about the first. But I've always interpreted the history of music was being about musicians and composers copying those that had gone before them and then building on that and innovating to do something new.


Yes, this can be seen also in the different genres of music. For instance Reggae gave birth to Hip-Hop, Techno and Dancehall, and was innovated by people who were listening to R&B, Jazz etc....

[BillP]

You will never be satisfied with your own output if you are trying to emulate another. Be confident in your own capabilities. Be definite about what you are trying to do. Be yourself, and be happy in yourself and your own style will evolve. It may echo HCB, or McCullin, or Weegee, or Korda, but it will never be them because you are you, and you, and your vision, are unique.

Regards,

Bill

[FPjohn]

I cannot give an opinion based on personal accomplishment but I suspect it involves shooting many rolls film and editing the images ruthlessly.

yours
FPJ

[colyn]

Imitating someone else is just being too lazy to create your own style of photography...

[FallisPhoto]

Let's collect all possible opinions here, no matter whether they are serious or just for the fun of it. No matter whether it helps you and me to get better results for the street photo project, it will be quite interesting to read what you think about it. :D

Copy everything he did and settle for being a second rater all your life.

[raid]

Become a Buddhist, and then keep on getting reincarnated until you hit gold, and you are a new Photography Master.

P.S. Sorry Frank!

[Russ]

You don't. You can only try to find your own style. We already had a Cartier-Bresson.

I agree. I still don't get all the hype and praise over Bresson. If I was to emulate anyone, it would be Salgado.

Russ

[mcgrattan]

Imitating someone else is just being too lazy to create your own style of photography...

I don't think that's true. Imitating someone else can be a tool on the road to developing your own style.

Respectfully, anyone who thinks they can just invent their own style completely from whole cloth and without reference to the work of those who've preceded them, is in danger of being deluded.

That's not to say that everyone works the same way. Some people like to take a more analytical approach and some a more free-flowing one, but I'd be surprised if anyone is completely free from some degree of influence.

[Russ]

You don't. You can only try to find your own style. We already had a Cartier-Bresson.


I agree. I've never understood all the hype and praise over Bresson. However, If I was to emulate someone, it would be Salgado. :)

Russ

[SolaresLarrave]

The musical analogy makes sense. In fact, you may try to do a "HCB-style" shooting session, just to understand what makes his photos unique.

You won't succeed at becoming the second HCB, but you'll understand a little better what makes his work different.

[raid]

Live, eat and sleep photos and photography.


This reminds me of what one of Math collegues tells all his students: "You don't have to sleep. You don't have to eat. But you must do your homework."

[pachuco]

Beats me but I'll give it a shot:

Find the smallest, most quite camera you can find. Keep it with you all the time. Shoot all the time. If you become good and well know, always act like you could not care less. When people ask you how you take such good pictures act uninterested and tell them you prefer to sketch now. Oh, and always say the type of camera does not matter, then say you use Leica, but then say it is just a tool. Inspire large numbers of photographers like me to go out and buy a Leica (you know, like HCB) and have our wives yell at us for spending so much money on a freaking film camera!

[bahibo]

Good artists copy, great artists steal , but you can never become the one you stole the style or the works.

So steal whatever you can, make it yours , one fine day , your shot have the shadow of his but the mid tone of yours and the highlight of the moment.

[colyn]

I don't think that's true. Imitating someone else can be a tool on the road to developing your own style.

I have to respectfully disagree.

I picked up my first camera at age 6 long before I even heard of HCB or any other photographer. As a result I developed my own style without being influenced by others.

I do however believe you can learn by studying other works but imitating is simply that.....imitating...

[dreilly]

When people ask you how you take such good pictures act uninterested and tell them you prefer to sketch now.

That's pretty funny.

Learning is the key and practice. Emulation is valuable as a part of the process. Sometimes by emulating you discover a technique that you can apply to your own vision, you figure out how another artist works. Writers do this all the time, copy over someone else's sentence to see how they string words together. Teaching is in large part a structured way of emulation, the good teachers know this and know it is only one step in a longer process.

Artists fall under each other's influence all the time. Sometimes the emulation ends up in mutation and brilliance, other times in a dead end that requires innovation. There's no one way to get there, no one "there" to get to. By emulating HCB, you may discover something entirely new.

Or maybe you'll catch that puddle jumper when he twists his ankle, and the baguette falls into the water...

[NB23]

My honest and modest opinion: Shoot with your own style until you master it. Then it's up to the public (luck) to elevate you to a LEGEND status or not. Same happened to HCB.
So it's only that: hitting people's hearts with your own unique style.

[ERV]

Its actually very easy.
Choose a place and hang around for a while.
Look for interesting things.
Don't think too much about cameras or lenses.
Don't talk too much.
Read books.
Wear regular clothes.
Walk like you know where you are going, even if you are going nowhere. Stop and wait.
Take lots of pictures, as if someone is paying you to do so even though nobody is.
Choose another place.
Repeat.

[Leighgion]

1. Be frustrated with your drawing and painting.

2. Get camera and go out looking for decisive moments.

3. Stop posting on internet message boards when you could be out taking pictures.

4. Do not take any interest in the photographic process other than loading and camera and shooting. Leave the chemical work to others.

5. More baguettes. :)

[M like Leica M6]

3. Stop posting on internet message boards when you could be out taking pictures.

Now, that's a point. But when I wrote this, it was late at night here on my trip in Barcelona, and I don't have Tmax 3200 and my 1.2 lenses with me :D

[Patman]

HCB I'm afraid is not one of my favorites, I also like Salgabo's work better. But all of their work is from a period in time & place that we can't duplicate now. I think some of our photographers in this forum are brilliant and their work is more inspiration because it's now. If I had to pick one of my favorite's here it would be Tuna, I think his work is exceptional. I'm just singling out one, their are many others. My biggest inspiration though was Ansel Adams, I know different type of photography, but who did more with B/W and gray tones, his Park images were magnificent. I wish I was a traveler or lived somewhere I could get out and do some photographic exploring but alas getting too old and have bad knees, so just do random shooting locally on short outings.

[Kevin]

Do not publish intermediate/incomplete work on the internet.

[furcafe]

Just because you had never heard of HCB or other photographers growing up doesn't mean you weren't influenced by them, if only indirectly. Unless you were raised by wolves in a cave, you were probably exposed to a lot of photographic styles via advertising, magazines, etc.

I have to respectfully disagree.

I picked up my first camera at age 6 long before I even heard of HCB or any other photographer. As a result I developed my own style without being influenced by others.

[Bluesman]

Shooting stuff "just as HCB did it" requires a different world. A slower pace, if you wish, and a different, more relaxed attitude from the subjects. That being impossible (we all know how paranoid people on the street are these days, not to mention overzealous security morons) I´d say stop trying. Develop your own style, shoot the streets as they are today. As YOU see them. Today.

They will NOT look the same tomorrow.

Finally: Remember that you are among the final chosen ones that still are able to actually document our times as they are, and whose documents (prints/negatives) will be there for the coming generation(s). You are already privileged. Forget HCB. YOU are the man in charge of YOUR pictures, YOUR vision of the world today. Now go shoot some street stuff.

And - have fun :-)

Cheers /R

[Windscale]

Buy yourself a camera with a standard lens and then go out and shoot shoot shoot! HCB can only be a reference for inspirations. One can never copy a master. And it is better to be a master yourself!

[M like Leica M6]

Interesting replies... I have no doubt that it is impossible to become King HCB II., but I have to explain some details about this question.

I firmly believe, that good street photography requires:

- a certain state of mind or mood

- good power of concentration

- a sixth sense to predict situations

- and an extra part of the brain dealing with composition.

With composition and the statement of a photo, I am actually unsure what is first in my old brain: composition or statement. I often find that if I concentrate on the purpose of an image first and then compose it is more difficult than composing and finding the purpose instantly when composition fits... the golden ratio seems to be somewhat linked with meaningfulness. I can't explain this in a better way and hope that someone here understands what I am talking about.

In the past I often used symbols or signs in my photos, let's say a fat woman in front of a beauty on an advertisement. It's quite easy to find these combinations in a city - but in the meanwhile I almost hate to do that, it's so banal. What I try to do is find meaningfulness and composition by cultivating compassion.

[Gabriel M.A.]

I see that Salgado needs to have more followers so that then there's a critical mass of Salgado-bashers. I like Salgado's work, too. The day will come when he's shouted down and derided in numbers.

Like Newton once stated: Action->Reaction

[Roger Hicks]

Cynical answer: arrange a private income (so you can spend lots of time shooting) and a time machine (so you don't get arrested as a terrorist/ paedophile/ flavour-of-the-month useful bogeyman).

Practical answer: do the very best you can to shoot the same subjects in the same sort of way. If you're any good, your own style will assert itself. If you're not, you will forever be a wannabee. Either way, you aren't going to shoot like HCB.

Even then, you'll need to spend more time shooting than most people are prepared to do, if they want a conventional job, income, etc.

From the 'practical answer' above, you can see that I am in the camp which believes that we all owe something to the past and that the 'uncontaminated' photographer is a fantasy.

Cheers,

R.

[bobbyrab]

I actually believe you can study and learn how another photographer composes a shot, you can't replicate what they did, you are you as has been said, but can identify the shapes of composition that are used, especially so for HCB who I believe often saw the shape and waited for something to happen within the shape. One would be the converging streets, roads, and long shadows that create an abstract pattern, wait for man,woman,child,bike to enter centre stage, preferably mid stride and fire. Lots of his images have a pyramid structure with the point just off centre, others are simple shapes within the rule of thirds, the talent is capturing something of interest within these shapes. I don't believe any great photographer gets there in isolation, they learn all these rules even if they go onto swim against the tide. If you've ever seen early Martin Parr, he makes use of quite classical composition, a la Bresson, in B&W, and at some point has rebelled against it and found his own thing, you may or may not like where he went with it, but he's arguably been the most influential photographer of the last twenty years, but he started out doing very very good work, but really quite derivative.

[findwolfhard]

Arrange to be born into an exceedingly wealthy family, play with cameras all your life and you might come close.

How do you know, that his family was "exceedingly wealthy"?
Maybe they were,- did they save their "wealth" through the economic depression of the 30ties, world war II ?
How can you tell?
Best regards Wolfhard

[Roger Hicks]

How do you know, that his family was "exceedingly wealthy"?
Maybe they were,- did they save their "wealth" through the economic depression of the 30ties, world war II ?
How can you tell?
Best regards Wolfhard
Dear Wolfhard,

The Cartier Bresson firm was a very big -- perhaps the biggest -- manufacturer of thread, embroidery materials, etc., in France.

To be sure, as a young man, HC-B did not have to worry too much about money. Given that he was born in 1908, even the Depression is unlikely to have stinted his childhood or teenage years.

I don't know how the firm weathered the 30s and 40s, but the very rich (if they are half intelligent) seldom lose their money fast.

Yes, he was a genius, but he was also in the right place at the right time with the right financial background. That did him no harm.

Cheers,

R.

[findwolfhard]

Dear Wolfhard,

T.............................................
Yes, he was a genius, but he was also in the right place at the right time with the right financial background. That did him no harm.

Cheers,

R.

Hi Roger! Right you are.
But,- let me just add,- I have found no information whatsoever concerning the later history of the business, maybe forum members in France can enlarge on that.
What I strongly object to is the kind of "ultra-pragmatic" notion, that you can achieve things by going "the easy way"! Forget it!
Give 100000 plus x talented photographers all the means and equipment and support they want, what will come out of it? .
I also strongly object this kind of "socio-economical" argumentation. It`s basically poor reasoning: "Give me a million and I will show you!"
Best regards Wolfhard

[Erik Johansen]

The magic of a good shutter and the eyes to the motivation;
I was lucky to get my leica from 1936 and my, Minoltina40mm,f1.8 for a good price. Then I had this understanding of a paradigmic change of sensing what is is about; capturing the moment..
Erik

[tom@home]

The great painters began by copying their masters. As they gained excellence in that, they developed the confidence to explore new technique and style.

Photography can be the same. If you want to be like HCB, you'll have to seriously ask yourself what about his images appeals to you. If' it's the slower pace of a bygone era, you can still find that pace, but you'll have to go out and shoot. I saw great potential just last week driving on I-95 over the Rappahannock river - people out, sunning, fishing...you can't tell me there weren't some great images there. Of course, I didn't get them - I had normal life stuff to do. Cheers.

[NB23]

You just have to see what other people don't see. This is possible everywhere at any moment. Right now, as a matter of fact. You can be filthy rich or poor like Nikonhswebmastrer's artist friend with a long biography that can barely make it in New York. You either got the eye or not. For this, you need practice. Eating Horse Steak Versus Hot dogs is best since the proteins are much better for the brain and body ;-)... so being rich might help, actually, to shoot like HCB, and the biography migh follow, who knows!

[mw_uio]

Like others have said, just do what you feel like doing! Why do you need to copy someone's style? It is like everyone going to the same famous spot in front of the Eiffel Tower and taking a photo. You will never get anywhere if you try and copy/emulate someone else's style.


Mark

[Pablito]

I see that Salgado needs to have more followers so that then there's a critical mass of Salgado-bashers. I like Salgado's work, too. The day will come when he's shouted down and derided in numbers.

Like Newton once stated: Action->Reaction

Salgado needs no more followers; this place is like Salgado worship camp. There is no need, IMO, for Salgado bashers either, but perhaps an informed critical dialogue would be too much to ask? For example, one could argue there is a very big difference in feeling and spirit between the earlier work (Other Americas, Uncertain Grace) and the more recent stuff.....

oh, and as for the topic of this thread, there would be no Salgado if not for Cartier-Bresson...

[sirius]

I guess to shoot "like" someone can mean many things. If you truly shot like Bresson then you would be realizing your own personal vision. I think he did. He learned how to see the humanity of the world in a moment of telling geometry. His work inspires me because it is able to speak on so many different levels. He's first and fore-most a teller of stories. He's interested in people and interested in expressing his own feelings about them. I always found it telling that he called himself a surrealist and an anarchist. It's telling that he looked for the odd and unique in the world and tried not to get stuck with too many rules. I hope to shoot like Bresson and all the great photographers, in that I wish to achieve my personal best. It can probably be encapsulated like so:

Work hard and heart felt.

[Nh3]

"Photography is fool's paradise." C Manos

To take a good picture is hard but to take a great picture is virtually impossible.

Some of the famous photographers have no more than two or three great pictures, HCB has tens of them. That's why his a standard and considered as one of the greatest.

[amateriat]

(Caution: Name-Dropping Alert)

I was a tech assistant/gofer for a lab that sat cheek-to-jowl with Magnum's old HQ in midtown Manhattan around 1980. We did a lot of work for them at the time, and I got to meet most of the "name" Magnum folk (Davidson, Erwitt, Uzzle, et al). One day, while hustling up a batch of contact sheets to their front desk, someone grabbed me by the arm and said "Hey, Barrett, here's someone you've wanted to meet." Sure enough, it was HCB, making what seemed to be made out as a relatively rare showing at Magnum NYC. On the one hand, I was thrilled to get to shake his hand (hey, I was still wet behind the ears, okay?), but then again, there was this thing in the back of my head that asked: "Huh? That's him?"

To put a Douglas Adams spin on the moment, it was a case of just this guy, you know? Yes, he took some of the most breathtaking photographs I've ever seen, but he was this affable mortal, like all the other guys and gals at Magnum I got to rap with.

To "Be like HCB?" What's the point? I think he got tired of "being" HCB, hence hanging up his Leica and picking up a pencil and tablet. but I like to think I got just a sliver of a spark of inspiration from him (and Erwitt, and Uzzle, and Davidson, and so on) to keep digging for something with the camera, something between the tangible and intangible, the stuff in the back of the brain thrust forward by a random juxtaposition of events before the eye, a moment which, if you're extremely lucky, catches you with camera in hand, eye and nerves prepared.

Bresson might as well have said to me, "Never mind me...what have you brought to the party?"


- Barrett

[Kevin]

Give 100000 plus x talented photographers all the means and equipment and support they want, what will come out of it?

Flickr.

It is like everyone going to the same famous spot in front of the Eiffel Tower and taking a photo. You will never get anywhere if you try and copy/emulate someone else's style.

Flickr.

[MickH]

Hi Roger! Right you are.
But,- let me just add,- I have found no information whatsoever concerning the later history of the business, maybe forum members in France can enlarge on that.
What I strongly object to is the kind of "ultra-pragmatic" notion, that you can achieve things by going "the easy way"! Forget it!
Give 100000 plus x talented photographers all the means and equipment and support they want, what will come out of it? .
I also strongly object this kind of "socio-economical" argumentation. It`s basically poor reasoning: "Give me a million and I will show you!"
Best regards Wolfhard

findwolfhard, you missed my point completely.

[NB23]

OK Mick -- I looked at it, seems to imply all you need is an "exceedingly wealthy family."

Can you expand on that?

Same as if I had access to murcielagos and Lamborghinis and Ferraris. I'd be a much better driver. Care to argue?
I see his point. No point in arguing, really.

[Al Patterson]

Same as if I had access to murcielagos and Lamborghinis and Ferraris. I'd be a much better driver. Care to argue?
I see his point. No point in arguing, really.


So, exactly how many children of millionaires drive in NASCAR or Formula One anyway?

The only thing wealth brings to the table is the ability to practice a craft without all that pesky time worrying about working for a living. I've never been to a photo exhibit of Bill Gates' work. Or Warren Buffet either.

[NB23]

So, exactly how many children of millionaires drive in NASCAR or Formula One anyway?

Formula1, all of them are bourgeois.

In Nascar, the Kids have unlimited access to all the best, most performing cars around. So what we're you saying?

[Roger Hicks]

The only thing wealth brings to the table is the ability to practice a craft without all that pesky time worrying about working for a living.
Dear Al,

I's interesting, though, how many photographers do come from well-to-do families, and how few are working class.

Partly it's the fact that rich parents can afford to buy their kids cameras and (in the past) can give them the space to set up a darkroom, and partly (I believe this is the greater part) it's the ability to faff around for a few years at art school or university, without having to earn a living immediately (or feeling he has to earn a living, or being told by his parents that he has to earn a living...) Those few years can make an enormous difference

This was of course far more true in the past, but by definition, the best-known photographers -- the legends -- tend to come from the past rather than the present. After all, the past has been in business longer.

Cheers,

R.

[lZr]

I know for sure, we have already some HCB guys here in RF. To understand what I mean, wait 40, 50 years and you will see

[rxmd]

The decisive thing about HCB was probably that he had lots of time, access to good equipment, access to unlimited material, and access to a printer. HCB was a snapshooter. He could have someone print a contact sheet from the hundreds of frames he snapped, and then pick the decisive ones and have them printed. Over time, this workflow probably shaped HCB's visual style as much as anything.

In that vein, what you need to photograph like HCB today is lots of time, a computer, and a good digital camera.

Philipp

[MickH]

Partly it's the fact that rich parents can afford to buy their kids cameras and (in the past) can give them the space to set up a darkroom, and partly (I believe this is the greater part) it's the ability to faff around for a few years at art school or university, without having to earn a living immediately (or feeling he has to earn a living, or being told by his parents that he has to earn a living...) Those few years can make an enormous difference

Got it!

In that vein, what you need to photograph like HCB today is lots of time...

I said, "all your life"... Time is money!

...and I did qualify my proposition by stating that you might come close.

..AND, I was trying to be complimentary, praising the chap for having had the dosh and opportunity denied to many, and using it to create some pretty good snaps instead of converting it into white powder and rotting his sinuses.

My post wasn't intended to be a fully reasoned treatise. It was a quick answer to a light thread entitled, 'How do you learn to photograph like Henri Cartier-Bresson?'

I'll try again: Time, money and application may get you close... but no cigar.

Using short-hand can be problematic on a forum can't it?

[Roger Hicks]

Funny we did not seem rich, I doubt my dad ever made more than $15,000 in a year.

Dear Fred,

Rich is as rich does. My father was in the Royal Navy; my mother, a schoolteacher. My father bought me a Pentax SV when I was 16, partly because his father had been a keen amateur photographer; he was killed off Crete on HMS Gloucester.

The point really is that before World War Two the gap between rich and poor was vastly greater than in the 50s and 60s, and that ownership of consumer goods was far lower: motor-cars, refrigerators, telephones, things we regard as everyday. Good-quality cameras were proportionately much more expensive than today. The early 50s were still pretty bleak in the UK -- but as soon as things got better, the first noted working class photographers (David Bailey, Brian Duffy and the incomparable Terence Donovan) appeared in the 60s...

Cheers,

Roger

[MickH]

Funny we did not seem rich, I doubt my dad ever made more than $15,000 in a year.

My parents bought me my first camera, a Kodak Pony when I was about 12, I also had a Nikon F by the time I was 19. There was a darkroom in our basement, with running water, safelight, and an enlarger of unknown pedigree.

They let me go to art school for 6 years, and never asked me to get a job, although I did work part time all through college. In fact my parents never mentioned money to me, ever, they did not find it a subject of discussion among polite people.

They let me move to New York, and the fact I never got a regular job, never seemed to interest them. 40+ years have gone by since I left home and still no regular job... maybe someday, but I continue to like going to movies in the afternoon.

I don't own a lot of stuff.

So, considering all the above and relating it back to the original question, did you learn to photograph like Henri Cartier-Bresson?

[MickH]

Nice one! :D

[Roger Hicks]

Probably more money in the US, after all we had huge prosperity, not bleakness, in the '50s.

Funny you mention Terence Donovan, I always think of him as the basis for Blow up, I guess because of his fashion work of course.
Dear Fred,

For the first point, yes, indeed. People often forget, though, that despite the enormous generosity of the 'arsenal of democracy', Britain had to pay for munitions as long as she could. Between the cost of the First and Second World Wars, a huge amount of the wealth of Britain and the Empire was poured into American coffers.

Also, of course, Britain had a vast amount of reconstruction to pay for. My father recalls overlooking Plymouth city centre the day after the worst of the bombing. There were five buildings left standing (four -- I've forgotten the fifth -- were Methodist Central Hall, a cinema, the Western Morning News building and the Bank of England). The rest was in ruins.

Note to those who take offence easily: this is NOT an America-bashing thread. The Allies could not have won without American assistance, and without American matériel England would have been lost even before America joined the war. But it wasn't completely free, and Britain was appallingly damaged.

For the second, most people think of David Bailey, not Terence; but I think Terence was a better photographer, and everyone I know who knew both (I have never met Bailey) reckons that Terence was a nicer guy.

Cheers,

Roger

[rxmd]

Also, of course, Britain had a vast amount of reconstruction to pay for.
Britain suffered quite a long time from reconstruction, but I guess there must have been other, presumably domestic elements of economic crisis in the 1940s and 1950s. Destruction in Britain was arguably less heavy than on the continent, and Britain received some 20% more aid under the Marshall Plan than France and more than twice as much as West Germany, which recovered much faster from more severe destruction. Food rationing ended in 1950 in West Germany, but only in 1954 in the UK. I've never really understood why this was.

Philipp

[Sparrow]

Britain suffered quite a long time from reconstruction, but I guess there must have been other, presumably domestic elements of economic crisis in the 1940s and 1950s. Destruction in Britain was arguably less heavy than on the continent, and Britain received some 20% more aid under the Marshall Plan than France and more than twice as much as West Germany, which recovered much faster from more severe destruction. Food rationing ended in 1950 in West Germany, but only in 1954 in the UK. I've never really understood why this was.

Philipp

Britain sold off the silver to fight the Great War so when the second one came round we had no choice but to mortgage the Empire, we eventually paid off that debt in 2006, six years late I believe

[MickH]

Food rationing ended in 1950 in West Germany, but only in 1954 in the UK. I've never really understood why this was.

Philipp

Rationing may have ended, but shortages of food went on. In Great Britain while rationing continued everyone had at least a half-decent meal of sorts each day, while in West Germany many still went without.

Blimey, where am I sending this thread?

[Roger Hicks]

Britain suffered quite a long time from reconstruction, but I guess there must have been other, presumably domestic elements of economic crisis in the 1940s and 1950s. Destruction in Britain was arguably less heavy than on the continent, and Britain received some 20% more aid under the Marshall Plan than France and more than twice as much as West Germany, which recovered much faster from more severe destruction. Food rationing ended in 1950 in West Germany, but only in 1954 in the UK. I've never really understood why this was.

Philipp
Dear Philipp,

You are of course right. My own belief is that there was a heavy revanchist element in the class warfare of the post-World War Two Labour government in the UK. I believe it was a French general who described the armistice of 1919 as a 20-year truce, and there was still quite a lot of the old order in the UK between and during the wars.

My mother recalled going into a butcher's shop in Malta shortly after my father was posted there in the early 50s and asking (being a young housewife conditioned by rationing) "What can I have?"

The butcher indicated his stock and said, "Whatever you like, madame..."

There was also plenty of blinding stupidity and arrogance. During the war, many kinds of cheese were banned as being too labour-intensive or wasteful. When it was proposed (well after the war) that this restriction should be lifted, one Labour MP apparently demanded in the House, "Why? No one needs more than one kind of cheese."

But blinding stupidity and arrogance are not the exclusive preserve of any nation, political party or politician...

Even so, the United States (despite its generosity with the Marshall Plan) mostly spent its war budget internally, meaning no overseas debts, and had effectively no reconstruction, which was why the Fresswelle hit them before Germany. And is still rolling...

Cheers,

Roger

[M like Leica M6]

Rationing may have ended, but shortages of food went on. In Great Britain while rationing continued everyone had at least a half-decent meal of sorts each day, while in West Germany many still went without.

Blimey, where am I sending this thread?

Just for historical correctness: in Germany things were different in the fifties than you would expect. The word "Wirtschaftswunder" (economic miracle) describes that time perfectly. It started with the "Fresswelle" (eating wave) about 1952, followed by the "Bekleidungswelle" (clothes wave) around 1953 and many others. My parents bought their first car in 1954, a house in 1956, a refrigerator in 1957, a washing machine in 1959. They spent their first vacation in Switzerland and Italy in 1958, by car, and my father tried his new Zeiss Ikon Contaflex. They were not rich, just middleclass. At that time some young british musicians worked in Hamburg for a while, partially because making money as a new band was much easier in Germany than in Liverpool.

Capitalism unclasped, with social security for everyone, that really worked. And, of course, an all out will to forget the past.

Back to the topic:

Apart from developing a personal style, what do you all think is the best way to open up your mind to be awake when the right moment comes?

Proposals:

Coffee.

Zen meditation.

More coffee.

[M. Valdemar]

Yes, but they didn't spend time worrying about "footprints" and memorials....they rebuilt quickly, as did most of Europe as well.

Here in New York City, a still relatively rich and powerful place, almost seven years after 9/11 we still have an ugly, politically motivated hand-out pit/hole in the ground with no sign of reconstruction......

Dear Fred,



Also, of course, Britain had a vast amount of reconstruction to pay for. My father recalls overlooking Plymouth city centre the day after the worst of the bombing. There were five buildings left standing (four -- I've forgotten the fifth -- were Methodist Central Hall, a cinema, the Western Morning News building and the Bank of England). The rest was in ruins.



Roger

[rxmd]

they rebuilt quickly, as did most of Europe as well.
The house I live in was rebuilt in 1959, largely from the original bricks that had been lying around for 15 years. Not much of a special house, just a generic suburbian city block built by a collective. Beautiful 1920s architecture with ten-foot ceilings.

Taking your time in reconstruction may not be a bad thing. Here in Germany, many now tend to ascribe more value in terms of quality of life to cities where rebuilding was done more slowly. The city where I went to school, a centre of the mining and steel industry, was 40% destroyed and rebuilt very quickly in what we now consider drab early 1950s architecture in an effort to get the industry up and running. The city where I was born was about 60% destroyed (the city centre more than 90%), and they rebuilt it comparatively late and largely in the original style. The latter is now considered a more successful example of reconstruction.

Philipp

[Roger Hicks]

The city where I was born was about 60% destroyed (the city centre more than 90%)...
Philipp
Dear Philipp,

Much the same with Plymouth and Bristol, where the centres were rebuilt in 1950s brutalist style; I find Koeln (much of which was rebuilt in the original style) much more attractive, especially around the Fischmarkt area.

Cheers,

Roger

[M like Leica M6]

If you ever come to Wroclaw, which was called Breslau before it became a polish city, have a look at the city center: the polish conservators, which have a reputation as experts in this busness, did the impossible and rebuilt the city - it had been completely destroyed. They did an amazing job.

If you want the opposite look at some east german city centers. I recommend Chemnitz (formerly known as "Karl-Marx-Stadt") and some parts of former east Berlin - they were rebuilt in a style that fitted the east german regime so well: concrete, boring, artificial... well, some cities in west germany are not much better.

[Pablito]

Exactly like him, right after I gave up painting exactly like Hans Hoffman while I was in art school.

giving up painting exactly like Hans Hoffman was a good thing.....:D

[MickH]

The house I live in was rebuilt in 1959, largely from the original bricks that had been lying around for 15 years.

Bricks more than likely reclaimed by my then teenaged mother who, among many many other girls and women, were used as virtual slave labour (in that they weren't paid) by the occupying Soviet army at the time.

I've never Googled, but there must be some pretty impressive photographs knocking around of the work these women did. (phew, got it back to photography there in the end!)

[pawel7]

some notes on the topic:
- be well read and well educated in the history of art
- be a painter
- become familiar with lenses you use that way, so you can crop and see the perspective without lifting camera to your eye
- be aware and understand what's going on.
- photograph alot daily, travel alot
- leave the darkroom for someone that's better than you in it.
- don't be shy :)

Then, if You fulfill all of above, and your inspirations are similiar to cartier-bresson's like surrealists painters (and more that i don't know of), your sensivity is developed enough.. Then you will be much closer to Cartier-Bresson than regular photograper, maybe you can even be very close. (Assuming that youre very good at what youre doing).
cheers.

[ZeissFan]

Middle-class folks in the U.S. did well in the 1950s and 1960s but by no means were rich. I remember my parents telling me that in the 1950s, they felt they would be living a very comfortable life if my father could make $100 a week.

These days, there is an incredible amount of disposable income here in the U.S., as witnessed by $400,000 homes, SUVs and the fact that people don't bat an eyelash at spending $1,500 or more every 18 months on a digital camera.

We've forgotten what it's like to struggle. My wife is working on a story about a World War II vet, and his story is like millions of others: He survived Normandy, marched and fought through France and and continued to fight in countless other battles across Europe. And many of these men then turned around and fought in Korea several years later.

These days, the complaints from people have more to do with what they can't have than why they're grateful for what they do have.

I think we're all incredibly lucky to live in a wealthy era and in free societies that allow us the freedom and disposable income to buy countless cameras and lenses.

For those of us who live in democracies, we can join online discussions about nearly anything and not have to worry about the police knocking your door down because you've criticized the government. We can vote (or choose not to vote) without fear of being shot by the ruling party's gang of thugs while going to the polls. Sure, there are problems, but it's a great thing to not live under tyranny.

By the way, my answer to the original question is to not mimic any photographers. Study their photographs. Learn about the photographers. Then get out there and create your own style. Every person's personality helps to create their individual approach to photography -- just as it should be.

[Al Patterson]

At 62 I am too young to remember any struggle. My father came home to a booming economy, where his $75 a week income at Westinghouse, allowed him to buy his family a home, and his children (me) bicycles and a vacation to Wisconsin every year.

By the time I was in high school, he was making $10000 a year, and owned a huge house in the suburbs, and sent me to college.

When I came to NYC there were cheap rents and lots of jobs, even during the so-called recession. Milton and others fixed it.

Only since Clinton left office have I become fearful that my money might actually not be stable, because of the reckless war spending.

From my cheaper seats the struggle is now, not when I was a kid.


True, but you seem to forget the 1970's. The period right after the first gas crisis in '73 to '74 was horrible. My parents struggled just to keep us from having the house forclosed. This is not a new phenomenon, and has happened before, and will happen again. And keep in mind, we're not even in a recession yet. If history is any indicator, it will get worse before it gets better.