In light of the the great interest in HCB shown below, there's a question about him that I've often pondered: How much of HCB's work was staged; not in the sense of a pre-conceived studio shot, but, let's say, re-enactments. For example, I've often wodered if he said to that little boy, "I'll give you five francs if you would run past me again clutching that wine bottle. Oh, and this time smile." Does anyone know?

Oh, and about HCB not being a nice person. I've heard HCB has been on this forum posing as Phill Kneen.

-- Dennis Couvillion (couvilaw@aol.com), March 17, 2002

Answers

What prompted me to ask the question was a quote from Alfred Eisenstaedt that I read in the March, 2002, issue of LensWork. He said, about the necessity of contolling the subject: "You need to re- stage things, rearrange things so they work for the story, with truth and without lying." Perhaps he was speaking in a different context, but it makes me wonder what hte rules were (or are).

Knowing for certain that HCB staged shots wouldn't diminish the elegant beauty of his work. In fact, I've always assumed the shot of the little boy with the wine bottle was staged. (Look at the children laughing in the background, as though they were the audience.)

Should photographers' works contain disclaimers? "This shot was a re- enactment."

The quetion is not intended as HCB bashing.

-- Dennis Couvillion (couvilaw@aol.com), March 17, 2002.

I've no idea if the wine-carrying boy was staged or not. I suspect not. But the most famous scandals of this nature is Doisneau's shot of the kiss before the Hotel de Ville in Paris. One or both of the kissers showed up and proved that Doisneau's shot had been staged. It didn't do him any credit.

-- Mitch Alland (malland@mac.com), March 17, 2002.

Thanks for the clarification, Dennis. That's an interesting story about Eisenstaedt. As for HCB, I have never read of him doing any re-enactments of any sort, nor I have I ever heard it suggested.

-- Richard (rvle@yahoo.com), March 17, 2002.

Mmmmm? Kind of blows his whole 'decisive moment' thing out the window?

-- Phil Kneen (philkneen@manx.net), March 17, 2002.

Let me give you another example of what I am talking about.

There is another famous HCB shot, taken in 1945, of a woman in a deportation camp denouncing a Nazi informer. The woman looks quite emotional. In the book, Bystander: A History Of Street Photography (Westerbeck & Meyerowitz), it says that at the time the photo was taken HCB was filming a documentary for the U.S Office of War Information. It suggests that HCB took the still shot at the same time it was being filmed.

That makes me wonder how staged the scene was; or whether the subjects were emoting for the camera. The woman certainly must have known she was being filmed; this isn't exactly a candid shot as I had first assumed.

I'm not suggesting this makes HCB a bad guy. I just wonder how much photgraphic artists manipulate their subjects.

Oh and the comment about Phill Kneen was a joke. Why don't we all lighten up and quit the insults?

-- Dennis Couvillion (couvilaw@aol.com), March 17, 2002.

I believe HCB is 94 this year.

-- Philip Woodcock (phil@pushbar.demon.co.uk), March 17, 2002.

"Phil Kneen, the Philistine"

Sorry, I couldn't resist...no offense, seems to fit this thread. As for photographer manipulation of the subject, that happens everytime a lens is mounted, an angle is chosen, and when one decides to release a shutter. It really becomes a matter of degree, does the picture reveal what the shooter thinks he sees? Whether that image makes social comment or helps sell a pair of shoes, it is a manipulation of reality, subjective at best. When it takes words explain or clarify one's work, that work becomes increasingly suspect. Hey, a picture is worth 10,000 of them, so I'm told.

-- Mike Barber (hax@htc.net), March 17, 2002.

From an earlier thread:

"hi all, hcb used a 50/1.5 zeiss sonnar in ltm for most of the 40s, 50s and 60s. regards, kenny -- ken younts (ojingoh@sitespecific.net), August 21, 2001. "

I thought this was a Leica forum.

-- sait (akkirman@clear.net.nz), March 17, 2002.

Haven't we learnt anything form the last thread?

Come on guys, a bit of dissagreement is healthy, but flamming is not what this forum is about. We are all here with different experiences and knowledge to share. I thought this was a Leica Photography forum, not a flamming forum.

Sure i am not perfect either, but the fact remains that whether we are a fan of HCB, or whether he is a nice man or not, cannot take away his accomplishments. And his don't come around very offfen, and for that he deserves credit.

My mother once (or more) told me "If you haven't anything nice to say, don't say it at all". Easier said than done, but we must try, out of respect for each other.

-- Kristian (leicashot@hotmail.com), March 17, 2002.

Refering to Sait's comment about the relevance of the HCB/Zeiss thread: I remember reading a letter written to "Camera Shopper" magazine a few years ago from a man who was with the foreign press corps with HCB during portions of WW2. I believe his name was Mr. Smalls. He recalled that HCB prefered the Leica cameras but that the Leitz lenses of that era were too slow and too soft. He therefore had a Zeiss 50/1.5 Opton adapted to fit his Leica screw-mount. Mr. Smalls also recalled that the most common greeting among the European press corps was "Cheers". I have often wondered if others on this forum had heard this story, too, since "Cheers" is such a common parting comment here. Anyway, it was a cute story because Mr. Smalls provided an intimate look into a period of photo history that has been often eulogized and romanticized. Cheers, Pat.

-- Pat Dunsworth (pdunsworth@aryarch.com), March 17, 2002.

Dennis,

HCB never set up any of his photos, though at that time he was probably one of the few photographers who didn't. Everything that I have read about him or from him said that he only shot spontaneous moments. I remember a quote from him (I forget where it was from) that basically said he didn't like staged photos. As Phil Kneen said before staged photos are the opposite of his "decisive moment" which he championed. Not only did he not stage photos, he would try to shoot pictures in ways that the subject wouldn't know they were being photographed - only carrying one camera in his hand with an extra lens or two in a small bag or his pocket. I've even read that he would wrap his camera in a hankerchief to try and conceal it.

In the early days Life Magazine (whom Eisenstaedt worked for) would give their photographers a shooting script - a list of the photos they wanted for the story - before the photographer would go out on assignment. Oftentimes these lists were very specific. The photographers would then set up photos to get the pictures they needed. This is not to say that they set up every photo, but they would do it to tell the story.

HCB along with other photographers and the better photo technology helped to bring in the new style of spontaneous photography which is the standard now in Journalism.

john

-- john locher (locherjohn@hotmail.com), March 17, 2002.

John: Thank you for the informative reply.

Dennis

-- Dennis Couvillion (couvilaw@aol.com), March 17, 2002.

HCB never set up any of his photos

The only way I can see someone saying this is if they haven't seen much of his work. HCB did huge numbers of portraits, which were obviously set up. He even did setup nude shots.

-- Jeff Spirer (jeff@spirer.com), March 17, 2002.

Jeff:

I vaguely remember seeing an HCB shot, from the 30's I believe, of a couple swimming near the bank of a body of water, and the woman's breasts are exposed. That struck me as a shot where the subjects obviously knew they were being photographed.

John's comments are well taken. HCB did champion a more spontaneous brand of photography (aided by the smaller Leica camera), and he usually shot that way. However, my insticts tell me he probabaly fudged a little, too, sometimes. Some of his shots look so good, it's hard to imagine they weren't helped by a little planning. (HCB has said it's important to know your subject, so maybe the familiarity is what allowed him to work closely with his subjects to avoid the look of a planned shot.) On the other hand, the majority of his work looks like straight, spontaneous photojournalism.

While I find the work of other photographers more entertaining (such as Elliot Erwitt), HCB's is still the most fascinating. His pictures remind me of small black and white paintings.

I still think he fudged a little sometimes and set up shots, but IMO that doesn't diminish his work one bit.

Dennis

-- Dennis Couvillion (couvilaw@aol.com), March 17, 2002.

Pat:

The authori of the letter was probably Marc James Small, a noted authority on all things Zeiss--it's true, HCB used Zeiss lenses, which were superior to Leitz products of the time.

-------- Refering to Sait's comment about the relevance of the HCB/Zeiss thread: I remember reading a letter written to "Camera Shopper" magazine a few years ago from a man who was with the foreign press corps with HCB during portions of WW2. I believe his name was Mr. Smalls. He recalled that HCB prefered the Leica cameras but that the Leitz lenses of that era were too slow and too soft. He therefore had a Zeiss 50/1.5 Opton adapted to fit his Leica screw-mount. Mr. Smalls also recalled that the most common greeting among the European press corps was "Cheers". I have often wondered if others on this forum had heard this story, too, since "Cheers" is such a common parting comment here. Anyway, it was a cute story because Mr. Smalls provided an intimate look into a period of photo history that has been often eulogized and romanticized. Cheers, Pat. -- Pat Dunsworth (pdunsworth@aryarch.com), March 17, 2002.

-- Chris Chen (Washington, DC) (furcafe@NOSPAMcris.com), March 17, 2002.

"HCB never set up any of his photos". I don't see how someone could possibly make this above statement with total certainty unless you were actually there with him for all the images he made. One of my friends has a print of the boy and the wine bottle on his wall, and it does have an enormous amount of character to it-(staged or not we'll never know 100% for sure) it is a great shot.

-- Andrew Schank (aschank@flash.net), March 17, 2002.

I think you'll find the lens in question was a 1.5 50mm Zeiss Sonnar, not Opton. And there would have been no need for HCB to have it adapted: Zeiss made quite a few of their Contax lenses available in LTM, for sale to Canon as well as Leica owners. The 85mm Sonnar turns up on eBay in LTM fairly frequently. When Nikon got ahold of the Zeiss patents after the war they continued the practice........

-- david kelly (dmkedit@aol.com), March 18, 2002.

Who gives a shit if 1,2 or "some" or "most" pictures were "staged" or not. What counts are the images, their emotional and informative values, their own role in the history of photography and in the perception they give us of certain times and places.

HCB's photography has become an intimate part of Western culture, and his images have become an important part of what now forms our own personal representations of key moments in the 20th century. They achieved that value at the moment they were shot. They do not rely on nostalgia.

His genius is that he has been capable to repeatedly see with utmost clarity, as he was shooting, during those irreplaceable milliseconds, the key elements of what was needed to give us certain essential emotions of extremely enduring value.

Some posts here are absolutely pathetic and make me think of a crowd of ants attacking the Tour Eiffel: vain, useless, arrogant.

BTW, ALL pictures are staged. Choosing an angle of view, shutter speed and aperture is the first step in staging a picture: those actions introduce the photographers subjectivity as main point of reference to determine what portion of reality is fixed on emulsion.

If even only 1 protagonist of a scene realises a photographer is present at that time and place, you may rightfully consider that the whole scene has potentially been influenced by the photographer's activity, to the point of casting a permanent doubt on the fact that an event would have taken place or not if the photographer had not been there.

How many people are dying each week in Gaza or the West Bank simply because media are visibly present? How many shots fired by the IDF or by Palestinian gunmen simply because a camera has shown up in the street, triggering the thought on the gun holder's side or on the stone thrower's side that this camera might relay a certain action? So, are these photographers "staging" the events or not? My answer is "yes". Does that make their work uninformative and worthless? My answer is "no".

90 pct of Salgado's social pictures show at least one person in the crowd/group peeking at the camera, proving beyond doubt that the photographer has influenced reality. To what point? Does that diminish the informative and aesthetical value of Salgado's work? Not of a micron. And if Salgado had waived or smiled to attract a kid's attention? Not even. And if he had uttered a few words asking soemone to do something again a little differently? etc, etc, etc.

-- Jacques (jacquesbalthazar@hotmail.com), March 18, 2002.

I've been corrected: it seems "Opton" was added to "Sonnar" when the lens was made in West Germany, "Jena" when it was made in East.........

-- david kelly (dmkedit@aol.com), March 18, 2002.

"Phil Kneen, the Philistine"

So Mike,why do you think I'm a philistine? Do tell.

-- Phil Kneen (philkneen@manx.net), March 18, 2002.

Phil, I don't. My comment seemed to sum up the reactions you had gotten to your posts. As mentioned, I couldn't resist. In fact, I think I kind of agreed with your "Mmmmm? Kind of blows his whole 'decisive moment' thing out the window?" To accept the power of an HCB image despite to possibility of unacceptable manipulation is less than honest IMHO. If one is going to 'talk the talk', he should 'walk the walk'. It's funny how some get wiggle room with their work, others never would. Politics -- social or ideological -- will trump aesthetics. That said, Phil, sorry if I offended, continue to stir the pot as required ;-)

-- Mike Barber (hax@htc.net), March 18, 2002.

Cheers Mike! stir I shall,but not now.

I would say that 75% of HCB images were manipulated.As soon as anyone sees the camera,even if it's one person in a crowd of 1000,you have manipulated the photograph,you have changed the situation by being there with a camera.The only way to avoid this is to have a hidden camera and as we all know this wasn't Mr B's style.

-- Phil Kneen (philkneen@manx.net), March 18, 2002.