Lenses/film used by HCB?

Does anyone know exactly which lenses/focal length and film(s)

were used by Cartier- Bresson? This need not open a can a

worms about the talent being in the photographer, not the

equipment. I'm just curious.

Hi Erica-

 

Since the M-mount collapsible Summicron came out in 1954, I think that had been his primary lens through the years. Of course in the early thirties it would have to have been an Elmar. I've also read that in the later 30's and war years he used Zeiss Sonnar f1.5 in Leica mount (I may have the date wrong here)

 

Like you, I've always been curious about film too. I've read it was Ilford's HP3 in those days. I think there is a website that lists the timeline of Ilford films and their rated speeds.

 

Maybe we'll find out real soon :)

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=002lMD

Henri Cartier-Bresson was commonly considered the undisputed master of candid photography and was considered by most to be the father of photojournalism. He exclusively used the Leica 35 mm rangefinder cameras equipped with normal 50mm lenses. He would have the camera's chrome body taped black to make it less conspicuous. He used Kodak Plus-X and Tri-X films and never photographed with flash (available light only). He believed in composing his photographs in his camera and not in the darkroom. His showcased this belief by having his photographs printed full-frame and completely free of any manipulation.<div></div>

I believe this is regarded as in the public domain. He looked a groovy dude in

his time.<div></div>

>>He exclusively used the Leica 35 mm rangefinder cameras equipped with normal 50mm

lenses.<p>

 

That is a myth. He also used other lenses. There is no way <a href="http://

www.magnumphotos.com/c/htm/CDocZ_MAG.aspx?

Stat=DocThumb_DocZoom&o=&DT=ALB&E=2TYRYDZAJK8T&Pass=&Total=593&Pic=180&Su

bE=2S5RYDIFH5B6"><b>this image</b></a> was made with a 50.

It's intriguiing giong though those Magnum images, which include his Russian

trips, and seeing how consistent his geometry is, very often with a diagonal

from bottom left, to the upper middle right. It occurs

<a href="http://www.magnumphotos.com/c/htm/CDocZ_MAG.aspx?Stat=

DocZoom_DocZoom&&E=2TYRYDZAJK8T&DT=ALB&Pass=&Total=593&

Pic=189&o=UY5">again</a> and

<a href="http://www.magnumphotos.com/c/htm/CDocZ_MAG.aspx?Stat=

DocZoom_DocZoom&&E=2TYRYDZAJK8T&DT=ALB&Pass=&Total=593&

Pic=186&o=UY5">again</a>, and in the mirror image, <a href="http://

www.magnumphotos.com/c/htm/CDocZ_MAG.aspx?Stat=

DocZoom_DocZoom&&E=2TYRYDZAJK8T&DT=ALB&Pass=&Total=593&

Pic=190&o=UY5"> too</a>, pretty <a href="http://www.magnumphotos.com/c/

htm/CDocZ_MAG.aspx?Stat=DocZoom_DocZoom&&E=2TYRYDZAJK8T&

DT=ALB&Pass=&Total=593&Pic=191&o=UY5">often</a> .

The Magnum guys were very into geometry. I remember reading somewhere that Capa or

HCB advised photographers to select from their contact sheets upside down, so they could

analyse the geometry of the composition more objectively. <p>

(Of course, this could have been normal creative BS..)

There's a cool picture in a recent book of photos by Clemens Kalischer showing HCB

in NYC in 1946 using a Leica with a Zeiss Biogon 35/2.8. It's a Contax-mount lens

with a screw-mount adapter ring. In the "Instant Decisif" image posted above, which

was taken by George Hoyningen-Huene, he's got a 35/3.5 Elmar, and in another I've

seen from the same day's shoot, there's a 73/1.9 Hektor on a shelf in back of him. I

have also seen pictures of HCB using a Summar (not the collapsible Summicron

shown above) on an M camera, with a black VIDOM finder. Imagine perferring a

VIDOM to the built-in M finder! There are also pictures of him using a Leica CL.

 

Clearly, Cartier-Bresson was a bit of a fondler, in his own way! Leicas were talismanic

for him.

I understand the curiosity regarding the equipment someone like HCB used, what I don't understand is people duplicating his choices in the present. I don't know a single golfer, pro or weekend duffer, who carries the same kind of clubs Snead or Hogan used. I've got a couple of books by John Shaw the nature photographer, written maybe 15 years ago, in which he talks about his choices of cameras (Nikon F3 IIRC) and film. Recently I checked out his website, he's completely digital now, no longer shoots any film at all. I know it will incense a lot of people to say this, but IMO there's a good chance if HCB were still shooting today he'd be shooting digital too. Maybe a Digilux-2, no doubt Leica would supply him with one.

"...there's a good chance if HCB were still shooting today he'd be shooting digital too."

 

I realize you prefaced this statement with "IMO," but I seriously doubt it (IMO). There are others just like HCB who still maintain digital images attainable today will not duplicate some characteristics of film. Besides, he just passed away about a year ago.

And by extension; why do any of us bother with non-metered Leicas at all? Life is surely much easier with a 20D.

<p><em>I understand the curiosity regarding the equipment someone like HCB used, what I don't understand is people duplicating his choices in the present. I don't know a single golfer, pro or weekend duffer, who carries the same kind of clubs Snead or Hogan used.</em></p><p>I've never heard of Snead or Hogan, but then I don't have any interest in golf (sorry). Still, I did fairly recently read -- either in the <cite>Guardian</cite> or in the <cite>IHT</cite> -- a most interesting article about how, despite dozens of technological improvements blah blah blah, golf scores had not improved in recent decades.</p>

"And by extension; why do any of us bother with non-metered Leicas at all? Life is surely much easier with a 20D."

 

Oh, sure, obsessing about exposure (Will I ruin this shot if I don't give it -0.3EV?) with a digital SLR is MUCH more relaxing than set-and-forget with a film camera... ;-)

Okay so I am sticking with the 50 and occasional other lens

scenario..but are we unanimous on the films of choice being

plus x and tri x?

"HCB ... Shooting Digital..."<br>

HCB was strongly against color photography... I remember in an interview, he just said "Please, do not even ask me about color photography". So I do not think he would be shooting digital today! <br>

Beside, being strongly opposed to reframing in darkromm and being very much into drawing and panting, I think it is safe to assume that film would remain his media if he was alive and shooting these days.<br>

Now, since we can pretty much assume he was mostly using Leica M with 50 and 35 mm lenses and Tri-X (?), it would be interesting to try finding what was his way of getting these shots. <br> In his interviews, he usually does not talk about technic, but he says that your mind has to be 'available' and ready to catch the decisive moment on... film. Then he would refer to Kyudo (Japanese Archery) which is a practice of zen. The arrow gets to the target by 'itself' etc... I let you guys read about kyudo, there is certainly a lot on the web about it... Anyway, he was certainly not an easy character and what he said about photography would certainly hurt our photographer's feeling, but he certainly was a genius in his art.<br>

Cheers!

<i>He looked a groovy dude in his time</i><BR><BR>

I really wonder what he would have said had he heard or read that. Colourful --paradoxically-- would be my guess.

<i>"[He] showcased this belief by having his photographs printed full-frame and completely free of any manipulation."</i><BR><BR>

This is where I am amused. Many people think that it's just "amateur" to show the picture full-frame, showing "all" to the viewer, and you must always "work" within your picture and crop (which is why many believe that 6x6 is the Non Plus Ultra of formats, where they can make cropping decisions as they please). I agree with HCB, that the cropping should be done in-camera, full-frame. The only time it may be done is perhaps to remove elements that you had no control over at the time (i.e. the hand that got in the way).<BR><BR>

But there will always be those who'll say "bull!". Some like Mozart, others Schoenberg. Some love jell-o, others, haggis (who, btw?)

I remember seeing a thing about David Douglas Duncan, who took some candid photos of

H C-B a few years back, which the latter did not like (to the extent that he sued). In those

photos, it looked like Cartier-Bresson was using a Leica Minilux.

John Dorfman, he used the VIDOM finder because it showed the image upside down, like a view camera, which seems to aid composition. The one time that I saw him in about 1980 and followed him through London, he was using a silver M3 with the VIDOM. At the time, I thought that he was using a black-rim Summar, but in retrospect I think it was a Sonnar (his camera was only visible for about 1/4 second when it went from concealed to eye and back, so I didn't get a really good look at it).<div></div>

it does not matter what he was using, it is the brain that counts. but I am sure HCB likes

fine things in life.

@ Bill Mitchell: The VIDOM finder doesn't show the picture upside-down the way a view camera screen would do, but right-left reversed. This does have a positive effect on composition - it helps alignment with the horizon.

About composition in the viewfinder: I cannot see how any geometrical precision of the kind exemplified by HCB is consistently possible except with an M3. The viewfinder brightlines on later Ms are correct only for close focus distances. At any normal shooting distance you get more than you bargained for and would have to crop later. That famous and wonderful landscape at Brie by HCB, with the line of poplar trees composed to perfection, would take some doing with a later M.

The VIDOM finder had a ring you could turn. One position gave you an upside down but correct left to right view, the other was right side up but reversed right to left. If you turned your camera for verticals the two positions worked in the opposite way. All the ones I remember seeing weren't coated and had a very low contrast image. Once the Imarect hit the market nobody wanted a VIDOM, and used ones sat unsold on dealers' shelves for a few dollars each.

Hell, Al, do you mean HCB composed most of his shots either upside-down or back-to-front? Is this widely known?