Entire internet credits snapper for taking great pic while actually dead One of the web's best loved classic photographs - universally credited to the great photojournalist Henri Cartier-Bresson - was taken just six years ago, quite some time after Cartier-Bresson's death. Let's meet the bloke who snapped it. It's an atmospheric image of a girl and a dog on a beach, with a storm brewing in …
It is a common misconception that HCB's Leica was an excellent setup. It is actually not quite true. It was compact, reliable and sturdy, something new at the time (dominated by bulky and fickle setups), which made it ideal for photo-reporters like HCB. Leica's lenses were quite good at the time, especially regarding undesirable edge and corner effects (which pretty much disqualifies the present pic right away).
But it was certainly not anything remarkable by today's standards. Any current middle-range reflex with a middle range lens is several bazillion times better in any possible aspect, despite selling for an order of magnitude less on eBay (thank you, hipsters).
> Go out and take a better picture
I actually do... I currently have 3 (real, not phone) cameras within arm's reach, and I'm at work (a work that does not involve cameras; well, not that kind of cameras).
I must admit that I also take worst pics. A lot!
And toy cameras are fun to use actually, I did not say that I disliked the present pic immensely, just pointed out that it was most likely taken with a bad camera, possibly -probably?- a bad-on-purpose camera like a Lomo. That's Andrew's assertion that I disagree with, I have nothing against the photograph (well, the compo IS a bit bland I suppose, but that's no mortal sin).
I think I'll just leave for a beer now, probably snap a few pics on the way too ;-)
Have a nice long WE.
... than a hipster who thinks shit pictures as art just because they are shit.
And one of these things is an article, on a tech den, defending that very same "if it's a very bad photo, then it must be art" stance.
This photo shows very bad border effects, incompatible with even the very old setup used by Cartier-Bresson. Even beaten up as it was after years of use in harsh conditions.
It is also pretty bland in the composition dept.
One more point, the bokeh is extremely half-arsed, but still there, meaning that it was never likely to be a photo by HCB (who worked mostly under the rule that everything visible on the photo had to be sharply in focus, as much as technically possible) and is not likely to be taken as a good photo by modern standards (the bokeh is not sufficiently marked to avoid distracting the viewer's eye away from the subject).
I don't care if someone managed to google-bomb that photo into internet fame: it can't possibly fool anyone with even basic notions of photography or photo history, and the lady's trainers ain't the cause.
I have a joke for y'all: how do you know that Andrew Orlowski doesn't know much on a given topic?
He writes about it on El Reg.
Well done, mister O, well done. With the long WE looming, that's a good let's-troll-the-commentards-while-we-relax-on-a-tropical-beach (1) article.
Respect. Andy represent (or something to that effect, whatev's)
(1) or is it "tropical-bitch"? as a French MoFo, I have always seem to get those mixed up.
Good photo by renowned photographer -
"photo is amazing! He is truly the most wonderful camera button pusher in the universe, I will quote him, order framed prints of his work and generally act all stalkery around his relatives"
Good photo by little known photographer -
...(already skipped past image)
Whilst not a fan of the journo who wrote this piece, I do appreciate "art lovers" going apoplectic over an image which they claim is by their favourite person, whose style they admire, whose images all have a certain character - only to find that the style, image and character all belong to a different, entirely unknown artist - a fact that they, as "art lovers", have completely, utterly failed to realise.
The sad result is that most art critics, in order to save face, will now hold up "new" photographer as the prodigy of who they thought actually took the photo, and try and bring the second photographer up on a pedestal that no-one else will ever reach - until someone else takes a photo, and credit is given to the well known photographer, etc...
I felt compelled to go and see what sites are using this picture with the incorrect attribution, and already quite a few have had comments added from readers of this article. Some by Andrej too, although I'm not sure he is being assertive enough - if I was the true author I'd probably be using stronger language.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
