DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> General Discussion >> Henri Cartier-Bresson - useless out of focus junk!
Pages:   ...
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 306, (reverse)
AuthorThread
06/14/2009 05:59:25 PM · #1
it seems some think so:

//www.flickr.com/photos/andrerabelo/70458366/

i know pawdrix is one photographer here at dpc who worry much more about the composition and 'the moment' rather than post processing.

Its sad to see that people give so little importance to composition.
Most of photogs are worried about sharpness and noise of photo.

I remember once i posted an image of 1x for others to view and discuss, thinking that it is rare thing to see. It was about famine in bengal. Around three million people died in that. And all these guys could talk was how bad the photo was.
06/14/2009 07:33:20 PM · #2
Very interesting to see, yet not all that surprising =(
06/14/2009 08:00:27 PM · #3
Would have been voted, upper 3's low 4's here on DPC.
06/14/2009 08:06:16 PM · #4
Without knowing anything... and studying the picture for a minute. I came up with the thought that it was an accident, because I don't see any reason to post up a camera in the spot or position he is in.. and if he was posted up there waiting for a bike rider, then the general scene would of been composed better and not such a blur.

Turns out..it was an accident, and I would toss this photo out too.. there is nothing interesting about it, except that it's an interesting cubby hole that he is in, and it might have some potential for a re-shoot. However..it would still be boring.

That's my take.
06/14/2009 08:16:43 PM · #5
I think there's plenty interesting about it. Besides the beautiful range of tones across the image, all of the lines are spiraling or leading straight into the position occupied by the bicyclist. If the bicyclist wasn't there, or was stationary, I think the image would carry an entirely different feeling.
06/14/2009 08:22:38 PM · #6
Originally posted by Intelli:

Without knowing anything... and studying the picture for a minute. I came up with the thought that it was an accident, because I don't see any reason to post up a camera in the spot or position he is in.. and if he was posted up there waiting for a bike rider, then the general scene would of been composed better and not such a blur.

Turns out..it was an accident, and I would toss this photo out too.. there is nothing interesting about it, except that it's an interesting cubby hole that he is in, and it might have some potential for a re-shoot. However..it would still be boring.

That's my take.


Time to put this thread on ignore...

and I was in such a good mood, too.

Message edited by author 2009-06-14 21:41:57.
06/14/2009 08:24:32 PM · #7
Originally posted by pawdrix:

Originally posted by Intelli:

Without knowing anything... and studying the picture for a minute. I came up with the thought that it was an accident, because I don't see any reason to post up a camera in the spot or position he is in.. and if he was posted up there waiting for a bike rider, then the general scene would of been composed better and not such a blur.

Turns out..it was an accident, and I would toss this photo out too.. there is nothing interesting about it, except that it's an interesting cubby hole that he is in, and it might have some potential for a re-shoot. However..it would still be boring.

That's my take.


Time to put this thread in ignore...


LOL ...oops sry =)
06/14/2009 08:24:52 PM · #8
what a coincidence, i'm doing my photography project right now on Henri-Cartier Bresson and how inspirational he is to street photography. That was one of my favourites by his.
06/14/2009 08:52:30 PM · #9
I don't understand did these people not know it was a Cartier Bresson photograph. Is a fairly famous picture I would argue one of his most famous.

edit: after reading some more of the comments on flicker and some in this topic. Are you serious that you can't see interest in this picture. Its fantastic. Its basically a flawless composition. leading lines of the handrail bringing the eyes in a spiral pattern around the image to the top left were on the rule of thirds axis the main subject matter is a cyclist (a cyclist that convey to the observer a sense of motion perfectly). not to mention that the image has wonderful tones.

and I completely agree this image would bomb at DPC, which is a very sad thing to say.

Message edited by author 2009-06-14 21:00:07.
06/14/2009 08:56:34 PM · #10
Originally posted by Intelli:

there is nothing interesting about it, except that it's an interesting cubby hole that he is in, and it might have some potential for a re-shoot. However..it would still be boring.


You must be joking, right?
06/14/2009 09:34:40 PM · #11
Originally posted by Zigomar:

Originally posted by Intelli:

there is nothing interesting about it, except that it's an interesting cubby hole that he is in, and it might have some potential for a re-shoot. However..it would still be boring.


You must be joking, right?


Ok.. First, I've never seen this photo in my life, and I've never heard of the photographer. I keep going back to this photo trying to find what so great about it. The more I go back to it.. the more it changes, I see things I didn't see.. if there wasn't such a debate about it, I would of just passed it up like any other photo. But someone obviously stared and picked at this photo untill they realized as a photograph there is nothing wrong with it in terms of what photographers see, the form is good. What I see, is a guy on a bike.. in an old stone street.. there is not a WOW factor..as the famous pitchman would say. There is no emotion, not much of an event, and no beauty factor (and beauty comes in many forms).

But like I said.. I do keep seeing more and more each time I visit it.
06/14/2009 09:40:27 PM · #12
I agree that it has some nice eye leading composition. I also agree that it would get killed in voting here. Would probably get criticized as a snapshot and too soft. The blurred cyclist would also get critiqued. I had a recent challenge entry where one commenter perceived a blurred hand as a flaw, while another person said it added to the mood and conveyed what was happening. I always enjoy getting conflicting comments on the same aspect of a shot.
06/14/2009 09:50:03 PM · #13
There's another website that posted a variety of famous photographs and then critiqued them with typical online photo-challenge standards. Hilarious stuff. The link was posted in this forum before but I couldn't find it last time I looked. If someone has the link, please post it!

EDIT: Another photo by a famous photographer was used on DPC.
It didn't do well, by the way.

Message edited by author 2009-06-14 21:57:28.
06/14/2009 09:52:22 PM · #14
I read about this Flickr posting last April on the NY Times website but never saw the actual posting. Here is the article fron the Times:
//www.nytimes.com/2008/04/27/magazine/27wwln-medium-t.html?_r=2&pagewanted=1&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

Thanks again for sharing the link! :)
06/14/2009 10:07:22 PM · #15
I can show this picture to my mother, my co-worker, or the son-of-a-bitch across the street, and I know I'd hear the same "I don't get it" response. Face it, the picture does not have commercial appeal. Today's standard for art is the three minute pop song and sepia treated babies in flower buckets. Anything that reveals itself slowly (such as this incredbile image) is quickly left behind by the masses who require instant gratification in everything.
06/14/2009 10:22:41 PM · #16
Originally posted by Intelli:

Originally posted by Zigomar:

Originally posted by Intelli:

there is nothing interesting about it, except that it's an interesting cubby hole that he is in, and it might have some potential for a re-shoot. However..it would still be boring.


You must be joking, right?


Ok.. First, I've never seen this photo in my life, and I've never heard of the photographer. I keep going back to this photo trying to find what so great about it. The more I go back to it.. the more it changes, I see things I didn't see.. if there wasn't such a debate about it, I would of just passed it up like any other photo. But someone obviously stared and picked at this photo untill they realized as a photograph there is nothing wrong with it in terms of what photographers see, the form is good. What I see, is a guy on a bike.. in an old stone street.. there is not a WOW factor..as the famous pitchman would say. There is no emotion, not much of an event, and no beauty factor (and beauty comes in many forms).

But like I said.. I do keep seeing more and more each time I visit it.


Do not worry about being different side to general opinion. If you really thought it was not good enough composition then its all right to have an opinion.

having said all this, i really think comments like it is useless because it is blurr or has some technical difficulty do reflect our general thinking that a good photograph has to have a ultra-sharp focus , near perfect lighting etc.

at dpc like on many other sites a photograph set up in strictly controlled set up with carefully controlled lighting with masterful post processing is very likely to win ribbon than a very difficult photo (to take) with good composition that has something to convey.

one is very likely to win ribbon here with a apple than compared to a very strong candid taken in difficult and challenging situation (specially where photographer has no control on lighting etc and he get fraction of second to capture moment).

That flickr thread is big satire on our bling to impress culture.
06/14/2009 10:36:10 PM · #17
I've always thought it an interesting question was whether Henri, given access to today's equipment, would have chosen for the image to be sharper if he could (not the biker of course)? In other words, was the softness a product of the equipment available at the time or did Henri choose to make it soft? Did he choose the Leica for it's image aesthetic or because it was compact?

I think it's unfair to the general public to pose a picture that is, what, at least 50 years old (not sure the exact date he took that one) as a modern picture shot with a digital camera. If this picture had been shot with a dSLR, chances are better than not a mistake WAS made in the shooting of the picture (in other words, given a random picture, it's more likely the person didn't know what they were doing rather than they purposely manipulated the shot to be soft).

I do like the picture quite a bit, but I sorta cluck at the "we're-so-awesome-cuz-we-identified-a-picture-and-they-are-cretins-because-they-didn't" crowd.

Message edited by author 2009-06-14 22:36:34.
06/14/2009 10:41:53 PM · #18
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I've always thought it an interesting question was whether Henri, given access to today's equipment, would have chosen for the image to be sharper if he could (not the biker of course)? In other words, was the softness a product of the equipment available at the time or did Henri choose to make it soft? Did he choose the Leica for it's image aesthetic or because it was compact?

I think it's unfair to the general public to pose a picture that is, what, at least 50 years old (not sure the exact date he took that one) as a modern picture shot with a digital camera. If this picture had been shot with a dSLR, chances are better than not a mistake WAS made in the shooting of the picture (in other words, given a random picture, it's more likely the person didn't know what they were doing rather than they purposely manipulated the shot to be soft).

I do like the picture quite a bit, but I sorta cluck at the "we're-so-awesome-cuz-we-identified-a-picture-and-they-are-cretins-because-they-didn't" crowd.


i read the comments in that thread and one thing one person mentioned was that the lense he used is one the most sharpest lenses ever produced.
So sharpness issues due to equipment were really not important.

Plus we through another thing in discussion that henri himself thought that it was good enough to show to others. A photographer of his calibre if thought it was good enough than i guess there is some weight to photo.
It was not like he was incapable to taking sharp photos, he did not care much about sharpness as we do.

Message edited by author 2009-06-14 22:42:30.
06/14/2009 10:42:29 PM · #19
I think the picture is good, but regarding the debate itself, I think it is flawed. A piece of art like this was never intended to be displayed on flikr for an audience who takes an average of a couple seconds to look at a piece of art... so it was never intended to have a "WOW" factor. I would think that it was intended to be displayed in a gallery, or on a wall, and the intention was for the audience to take time to look at it, perhaps as a conversation starter. In that atmosphere, the photo shows its strength, just as intelli pointed out, the photo reveals more the more he looks at it.

Message edited by author 2009-06-14 22:44:16.
06/14/2009 10:59:29 PM · #20
Originally posted by citymars:

There's another website that posted a variety of famous photographs and then critiqued them with typical online photo-challenge standards. Hilarious stuff. The link was posted in this forum before but I couldn't find it last time I looked. If someone has the link, please post it!


I think this is what you were looking for.
Great photographers on the internet
06/14/2009 11:09:18 PM · #21
So...
This thread is something like discuss how the earlier Ford models were useless because they didnt have ipod dock´s or GPS... without mention the engine HP´s...
06/14/2009 11:32:43 PM · #22
Originally posted by jotaga:

So...
This thread is something like discuss how the earlier Ford models were useless because they didnt have ipod dock´s or GPS... without mention the engine HP´s...


It's like discussing nutrition in a meth lab.
06/14/2009 11:33:31 PM · #23
Originally posted by citymars:

There's another website that posted a variety of famous photographs and then critiqued them with typical online photo-challenge standards. Hilarious stuff. The link was posted in this forum before but I couldn't find it last time I looked. If someone has the link, please post it!


//theonlinephotographer.blogspot.com/2006/06/great-photographers-on-internet.html (NSFW)

Edit: Beat by Yo_Spiff. I should refresh the page before posting.

Message edited by author 2009-06-14 23:34:13.
06/14/2009 11:36:26 PM · #24
Beauty & art are in the eye of the beholder. Personally I hate being told that I'm a Philistine just because I don't hold the same high opinion of some photographer that I'm just not into his work.

If I don't like it, I don't like it.......period.
06/14/2009 11:55:41 PM · #25
Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Beauty & art are in the eye of the beholder. Personally I hate being told that I'm a Philistine just because I don't hold the same high opinion of some photographer that I'm just not into his work.

If I don't like it, I don't like it.......period.


• I know a few beholders with dim eyes.
• We may know what we like, but what would that have to do with art...?

Message edited by author 2009-06-15 00:30:57.
Pages:   ...
Current Server Time: 03/28/2024 10:21:06 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 03/28/2024 10:21:06 AM EDT.