Why are some photos THAT good? - Cartier-Bresson

[karusel]

Well, they say he was probably the best photographer ever, so I went to check for some of his photos and while I love them all, I must admit I do not clearly see the genious behind this, with some, I'm just not sure why I like them.. And with the photo of Coco Chanel I was thinking - Um, her head is exactly at the centre... why am I comfortable with this?

So can someone please explain to me why some (examples plz) of his photos are brilliant i.e. far much superior to your favorite average pro-photographer on pbase...

Link: click! (http://www.peterfetterman.com/artists/cb/cb_sm2.html)

[Jyoti]

I think it's his composition. It's flawless. For example, in the link you posted, when the thumbnails come up they all look brilliant. Even at that tiny size, they're captivating.

For me, this is what marks out a great photographer, a true artist. It may be Robert Capa or Weegee or Corinne Day or Yann Arthus Bertrand - they all have that fantastic flair for composition. And even when they break the "rules" they somehow make it work. I think they were born with that talent and then coupled that with diligent mastery of the technical aspects of photography.

I wasn't born with that talent: I have to work very hard at figuring out the best angle, framing, DOF and even then, 99.9% of my shots are pure cack.
:cry:

[kb244]

...
I wasn't born with that talent: I have to work very hard at figuring out the best angle, framing, DOF and even then, 99.9% of my shots are pure cack.
:cry:


Try not to try so hard. Alot of people who have the knack for it just relax and go with it. This doesnt not mean that people with a talent for it have their own batch of "crap". The photographer ( or artist I should say , i guess when a photographer starts making masterpeices he becomes an artist in the sense ). Henri Cartier-Bresson as linked above does have nearly perfect composition.

To give a couple examples. The ballerina, Moscow, 1954, indeed she is almost perfect center frame, but her surrounding helps the composition greatly, the other ballerinas in the frame to her left create a third diagonal going from the top left of the frame down to the bottom right. Their arms exteded flow with the horizontal of the beam accross the top-third of the page, and the extension on the bottom third of the frame. The stray ballerina just bove her head is slightly to the right, creating a further emphasis on a sort of triangulation. While the shot on just the ballerina in front is what one would consider center composition, and very square her surrounding is anything but square.

The same with Queen Charlotte's Ball 1959.

The man/woman pairs form the same exact triangle as with the ballerina. The man in the front is almost center, least so in the vertical sense like the ballerina. There are stray folks just slightly off center on top frame from the guy int he front. The table ends surrounding the first guy creates a diagonal opposite of that of the ballerina, but then the first guy to the second middle pair creates a symetrical diagonal. Of which continues on to the last pair in the top frame.

See it now?

The reason the thumbnails are so brilliant is because his genious in unique composition from can be clearly seen in just the thumbnails, most other works require a more detailed view to find something stunning about them, I am no doubt guilty of this, most of my shots while they may not be so striking as a thumbnail can be appealing once you see what the image is compromised of.

I guess the same can be said of Ansel Adams, what is it about his black-and-white that are so stunning (my opinion would be the way he uses contrast, but it varies for everyone).

[KennyG]

If you look at some of the great portrait photographs and come away thinking why do you like them, or what is the attraction, you will often find they follow some simple rules.

For example, one of the eyes in a portrait should fall on a diagonal line drawn corner to corner. Try cropping one of your own shots to make this happen and see how it effects the appeal. You could also see where Mona Lisa's eyes fall using the same technique. Some compositional rules were created long before cameras were invented. The great photographers, just like the great artists before them, can see this when creating the work. That's what seperates them from most of us.

[Ajay213]

While all of the above is true, there's another important piece of the puzzle. I'd bet dollars to donuts that he shot A LOT of pictures.

I was reading some information about the National Geographic guys, and they are shipping back 50-70-100 rolls of film only a week or two into a project, out of nearly 4,000 pictures there are going to be some keepers ;) and they still have weeks/months to go.

It would be really interesting to see all of the photo's the very top rated people shot, what is their ratio of best to normal.

Andrew

[dispatchermike21]

I agree I will bet he took alot of photo's but think about what he was shooting with as far as equipment goes to me that is what is impressive to get those shots ( the one with the man about to step into the water ) with what he had to work with compared to today with auto focus and printshop deluxe.

[charlesu]

HCB was a master. That doesn't mean you will care for his work. Joel Peter Witkin is a master. I dislike his work. Ditto Irving Penn. No biggie.

As for what is appealing about HCB's work? Well, one key is "the decisive moment". If you're not familiar with that, you might want to read up a bit. Another way to say it is that he simply had an eye for the image.

[300Dplus]

If you look at some of the great portrait photographs and come away thinking why do you like them, or what is the attraction, you will often find they follow some simple rules.

For example, one of the eyes in a portrait should fall on a diagonal line drawn corner to corner.Indeed simple but powerful technique. It creates a whole new perspective. Thank you KennyG for sharing...wish you could share more of those "simple" rules. One more time The Canon Forums proves itself to be a great learning tool!!

A quick sample of implementation of this rule:

[PhotosGuy]

I was reading some information about the National Geographic guys, and they are shipping back 50-70-100 rolls of film only a week or two into a project, out of nearly 4,000 pictures there are going to be some keepers and they still have weeks/months to go. When you're shooting in uncontrolled situations, you shoot each "decisive moment" as it happens, even if it doesn't! You try to refine each shot as you go along using your feet & creative controlls, loading one cam while you shoot with another, trying to not miss anything, or drop anything, wishing that one of your 3 cams had a different lens/filter/film, wishing that a**hole would get OUT of your shot, trying to not get runover by the guy with the water buffalo, & there's 3 pedi-cabs coming up behind you...
Get the picture? ;-)

[karusel]

Ah, yes, the famous decisive moment.... I've been googling a bit for HCB and this is what I found; the way HCB defined decisive moment was, he waited until subjects in the frame put themselves in a sensful composition then he 'stole' that moment and put it on film. I also realize it means the moment just before something happens, so that intention or movement is seen by the viewer.

Now I would like to find something to read about advanced composition. I know about the rule of thirds, golden spiral, etc., but I'm not quite familiar with the invisible lines of where people are going, looking, etc. etc. And I think this is a very fine and important key that would contribute greatly to improving the aesthetics of an intermediate photographer such as myself.

Edit: notice the unintentional pun in my signature. :D