Why Cartier-Bresson's Photos Are No Longer Relevant... 

A Cartier-Bresson of the future was based on suggestions you guys left on the last video, what other photographers do you suggest for the next episode? Thank you so much for watching!

I've worked for HCB in the early 90s till 2001 I've worked with his printers. He really didn't care all that much about his own work it seemed and did not enjoy the big classist fanfare that came with exhibitions and the "art" world, extremely humble person. Something unique about him is that he trusted his printers a 100% and would often ask for their opinion on artistic expressions when it came to his prints. He gifted us many, many prints out of kindness and they've paid for the collegue tuition of my children and my house.

Every so often current crop of artists will look down on the past giants of the industry. HCB is usually that punching bag for street and documentary photography. Maybe he is over exposed ahead of some other truly great photogs But HCB is still as relevant today as he was during his time imo. The idea that he was able to document these scenes but also with the precise eye on traditional compositional techniques of painters in a split second is truly unbelievable. He did it all in camera. Mind blowing!

We need to remember he was a pioneer in a age of the photos were taken. We stand on his and all of the great photographers' shoulders. To him the photograph was an instant painting as means of expression. Thankyou HCB

HCB was above all an 'artist' independent of his chosen media. His photography exhibits several universal elements. Composition (order), compassion (dignity of subjects), content (what the shadows reveal), and especially contemplation (the many and complex layers of what we claim to 'see'). Art endures the vagaries of time & place.

Henri Cartier-Bresson's photography stands as a pinnacle of artistic and technical mastery, revolutionizing the medium with his unique approach and acute sense of composition. Through his lens, he captured the essence of fleeting moments, immortalizing them with a blend of spontaneity and precision. From a technical standpoint, Cartier-Bresson's work is characterized by his mastery of the decisive moment-the precise instant when all elements within the frame harmonize to create a visually compelling image. His use of a small, discreet Leica camera allowed him to move freely and inconspicuously, enabling him to capture candid scenes without disrupting the natural flow of events. This approach required impeccable timing and foresight, as Cartier-Bresson had to anticipate the perfect moment to press the shutter button, often resulting in images that are both visually captivating and emotionally resonant. Artistically, Cartier-Bresson's photographs are marked by their simplicity, elegance, and depth. He had an innate ability to find beauty in the mundane, transforming everyday scenes into poetic reflections of the human experience. His compositions are meticulously crafted, characterized by strong geometric lines, dynamic angles, and a keen awareness of light and shadow. Whether photographing bustling city streets, rural landscapes, or intimate portraits, Cartier-Bresson infused each image with a sense of narrative and visual intrigue, inviting viewers to immerse themselves in the story unfolding before them. Beyond his technical prowess and artistic vision, Cartier-Bresson's photographs also serve as a timeless document of the 20th century. Through his lens, he captured pivotal moments in history, from the aftermath of World War II to the rise of globalization, offering a poignant commentary on the human condition and the passage of time. His work transcends the boundaries of photography, embodying the perfect synergy of art and technique.

An interesting mental exercise. One crucial aspect of photography when comparing past to present creators is how people now react to having their photo taken to how they reacted when HCB was shooting. Back then, a person carrying a camera walking the streets was unique and I think afforded a different "welcome" by the subjects. In a way having your photo taken back then I think made the subject feel more special and honored than what we experience today when everyone has a camera in their pocket. In 1999 I was sent to China to shoot an editorial. I took my Mamiya RZ 67 and Pentax 67 and tons of polaroid. I remember being in a fairly rural area and had just taken a photo, from a bridge, of a long, vanishing road with some cyclists riding along the avenue. I first took a polaroid. A group of young men had gathered around me and my assistant and when they saw the polaroid they were so curious and amazed by this instant photo one of them couldn't control himself and just took the polaroid from me. For better or worse, digital photography has made the process of shooting more mundane to people on the street. I think, for me, a slightly more interesting conversation would be how would HCB take pictures today!

The type of scenes he noticed and the way he framed them - that’s what set him apart and what made him the monument he became. Today’s photographic landscape exists because of his work. There are, however, a myriad of people who, nowadays, share similar sensibility and skill to HCB, and none of them stand out, much less will they ever be an important figure in photographic history. History is made out of current context, always.

I think you only have to look at Vivian Maier to see that newly found images shot back in the day on equipment with limited technology on B&W film can still make a huge impact today, despite there being way more photographers and images to compete with.

Foremost, I appreciate your videos very much. Thank you for sharing them with us. Then, a few months ago, I sold my big collection of Cameras and Lenses, to buy a Leica M (240) and the same Summicron 50 mm (type IV) as you did. The M240 is a solid Camera, the Summicron is an outstanding lens. IMHO, you can't get a better 50 mm lens than this. Nothing compares with this, period. BTW: MPB was a solid partner in changing my gear. I did this, because modern Cameras with all these bells and whistles, high speed this and intelligent that, zooming high and low, hindered me to make the photos I want. And yes, HCB is definitely one of my role models. Everyone who wants to give himself a new approach in photography should keep in mind, simple is (!) better. Again, thank you for your work, Tatiana!

You can't duplicate the era he took these photographs in. It really defines much of his street photography. He was ahead of his time in his technique and composition.

I liked when you drew a little comparison between Ansel Adams from the first episode and Bresson in this episode at least it puts things more in perspective and I think you’re right it’s a question of principle why he didn’t shoot in color, I read somewhere before that he disliked Eggleston’s work a lot. Kudos for the new video!

As always an other beautiful video … a lovely perspective on Bresson’s work. And glad to see the notification pop up for my B-day … with a coffee … my day (in New Caledonia) start perfectly ❤

I think that what is overlooked about HCB is that like all photographers, he was of his own time. His minimalist technique was based upon having somebody else printing his work - ironically much like how William Eggleston practiced colour photography by farming out the production of his dye transfer prints. This is what gave HCB the critical edge. The truth is they were both affluent amateurs with time on their hands, and the world is a better place for it.

This is Keith B. I haven't been around lately. This is my newer channel focused on recovery from alcoholism. I am amazed how awesome your channel has grown. I have always liked your historical angle and great low-key informative style. I think I am going to haul all my film cameras over to London and see what's up here in the future.

Great topic Tatiana, I believe after hearing your points I would have had to come to the same conclusion. I like this idea for videos in the future it definitely makes one think. Have a great weekend my friend.

Thanks--love your vids. The Decisive Moment will never be "irrelevant" or "out of fashion." HCB's (as well as Winogrand's and other's) talent for anticipating a scene, getting into position to make the exposure (with the "right" composition and light), and tripping the shutter at the "right" time more consistently than others (anyone can "luck out" occasionally) is what makes photographers of that ilk special. Re color, even "purists" realize that certain images simply render better in color, while others are more effective in B&W. There are many times I see a scene I think would work in B&W, but after setting my EVF to monochrome, I see that color is necessary to make the desired statement. That's another thing--it's really hard for me to imagine that any photographer wouldn't want the huge advantages mirrorless offers! Speaking of gear, I also wonder what photographers from other eras would use if they were shooting today (if they were in their physical prime. of course--obviously, a 122 year-old Ansel would be hard-pressed to lug around a large-format view camera). Ansel was clearly open to digital and I strongly feel that he'd love the freedom of Micro Four Thirds, as he could easily carry a full range of lenses anywhere and produce prints every bit as "acceptable" (as he'd put it) as he could with film, plus he'd love that deeper DoF. I'm sure he'd also dive into digital post-processing--what a luxury to have so much capability without the constraints--and toxic chemicals--of the darkroom. I think he'd favor DxO or Capture One over LR/PS, as they're workflows (and often results) "feel" more "filmlike." As for HCB, Winogrand, et al, I doubt they'd limit themselves with rangefinders, as auto-focus/exposure would enable them to capture quickly-evolving scenes more easily. They could also effectively use longer lenses to capture scenes you'd miss if you relied on getting close. Avoiding detection can be crucial, as of course people behave differently if they know they're being observed/recorded (although in many places, we're all being seen/recorded these days)!

The man is a master of photography then and now leave the man alone.!

To paraphrase the great film writer / director Greta Gerwig, if Cartier-Bresson’s images aren’t relevant today, then I don’t know what photography is about.

To me the relevant question about street photographers of the past is not really about their gear or any material questions, but rather if their photos would be interesting or strong without the history documentary aspect. They are always a striking memory of times we mostly didn't know ourselves, like for Vivian Meier for example, or Doisneau. But those photographes have a certain aesthetic that makes their work stand out regardless of that i think, like HCB. So i think Vivian Meier or HCB shots didn't have that fascinating "documentary from an other time" vibe back then, and they had to be more "ordinary" in a way. I guess i'm more wondering about if photos need time to become that striking. So i guess i would answer photos are more and more relevant with time.

Thanks, plenty of food for thought. Very happy to have seen images and films of him that i haven’t seen before. I studied him much when younger.

Another great doc Tatiana and love the super trolly title. Loved hearing that is process was really simple. I live a fairly minimalist lifestyle and am minimalist with my photography, I have one camera and 3 lenses but shoot 98% of the time with the 50 mm equivalent, I shoot digital but do very little post work, I even use Apple Photos which I've been told isn't professional! Nice to get the confirmation that I don't have to drown in gear and Lightroom presets.

Coined the Decisive Moment, never cropped a picture. Always printed the full frame negative. That's an incredible discipline. Incredibly relevant still, even if his Humanism seems quaint to the desensitized today.

I absolutely love HCB's photos, and the slightly more humanistic ones of his 50mm contemporary Robert Doisneau. There's a feeling of real documentary (even though some photos were staged) and also a little bit of Shakespeare in the quirkiness. The best of current street photography seems to owe a little less to slow charm and a little more to immediate impact and editing.

love the video, I am a huge Bresson fan, and I often channel his persona when doing street photography. i would love to see a similar video on Man Ray and P Halsam

The Mind’s Eye was written 48 years after The Decisive Moment. HCB was so groundbreaking and different and informal and realistic because - he was one of the very first - he was super discrete and no one expected photos might be taken - he shot 10 rolls per day - he had everything lab developed and printed - he had a publication hit rate of about 0.1% - he went to places that 99% of European and Americans of the time never could He was delivering perfectly imperfect imagery that his audience could relate to and still wonder over. He was invisible. When he did give interviews (infrequently) one thing he spoke of repeatedly was in relation to the skills he learned as a hunter; to see without being seen; to quickly predict the best shot; that if you missed you had missed, no point trying time and again, the moment was gone. You want to shoot like HCB? - take lots and lots and lots and lots of photos. With one lens. One film stock. Sunny 16. And don’t look at the results that day. - don’t touch up. Don’t open photoshop. Don’t over analyse. Don’t spend more than 5 seconds wondering if something is interesting. Don’t get invested in the result. Just take that shot and another 20 that hour.

It is a very good question….is Bresson’s work relative today…well…can we say that Rembrandt’s work is relative today or even Monet? Absolutely YES!! Very well thought out video as usual…I don’t usually comment, but this struck a chord with me. Peace!!✌️

Very interesting topic. Nowadays, a lot of photographers are shooting film with amazing results. They are building on what the previous generations learned and experienced.

Thank you for making these videos. Fun to speculate along with you!

Good work is timeless.

I really enjoy your Paris photos. They each brought me a smile and a "Ooh!! Look what she did there!" sort of feel! :) With all Ansel Adams did to manipulate his photos, especially with contrast, he'd be ALL over digital work, just so he could dive deeply into digital editing.

This video discussion demonstrates what I think is a crucial lesson for any artist: keep your toolkit as simple as possible. I personally use an iPhone Xr and edit with the stock camera app. That's it. The camera is my electric guitar and that's all I need to make music. Digital technology does open doors that were only imagined in past eras, but it's important to understand the basics of photography and art, just as you only need to know the essentials of music to play the guitar (viva Ramones). As always, any creative person is a product of their era, and if you were to place them in a different time, their art would almost surely be different in at least some small fashion. But would they be as good? Would their work find an audience? If The Beatles started out today instead of the 1960s, would it have been the same? Would we still have had a Sgt Pepper, White Album or Abbey Road? Debatable. But all art is both a product of its time and also timeless, speaking to future generations. And we all know of art that is hailed as "ahead of its time," misunderstood or dismissed when new but celebrated by later fans. I know that everything I've ever created was crafted as a dialog between myself and the world around me, and I've often rebelled against what I found around me in the world, as well as my fellow artists. The time where I live is a crucial ingredient in the formula for my work, and removing that would be like baking a cake without flour or sugar. Great video, much thanks.

Tatiana, you are amazing. Thank u❤

That's an interesting question. I believe Bresson inspired a lot of people to pick up a camera and shoot, and I think that quality will continue far into the future because people tend to gravitate toward certain role models or mentors to help inspire them. His body of work has a timeless quality to it. It doesn't matter what others say about his work. It's what we believe that matters most.

Another excellent video...always such a pleasure to watch 😊

It's really difficult to properly contextualise or evaluate HCB from a modern perspective because ultimately, he so fundamentally changed the way people see, his impact can never be overstated. His work and work of other older masters can seemingly be diminished by imitation over time but actually, I think that reinforces the power of the original work. He remains the font from which the instinct to document the world around us springs from. I find it astounding that critical appraisal of him (in the wider context) almost resists to credit him with what he achieved. Anyone is free to not like the work for whatever reason of course. I think that's a mistake but each to their own. One of the biggest ways in which he teaches, is he's the ultimate anti gearhead photographer. He made masterworks with worse bodies and lenses than you can buy for next to nothing now. Food for thought.

Tatania, you are a relaxed professional on-screen and I’m grateful for your research and way of presenting it. Seeing the ciné footage of HCB working in the street - moving quickly like a big cat - tells me he knew what he wanted and he knew how to achieve those ends. In action, he appears as anything other than a dilettante. His work will stand the test of time. There’s a thread running through his photos of building up his subjects’ dignity. I don’t detect the faintest whiff of cynicism nor nihilism in his prints. Your recent foray into Paris with equipment similar to HCB’s is a brilliant tactic to “walk in his shoes” for a few miles. That adds a lot of authority to your video and various hypotheses. Thank-you and good luck.

Everything has been seen and already done. Really? Does that mean I should put my camera down and read a book? Everything hasn’t been seen and done already. The best is yet to come. If Joel Meyerowitz was to walk the streets of NYC with HCB vs.Gary Winogrand his photographs would be different. They saw and are attracted to different things. Their images would still hold their importance today. They changed and grew as they were exposed to different things. HCB chose to paint in B&W. Whereas you state he saw his drawing and photography as being separate. How could that be? The painter starts off with a blank canvas and populates it with what they want. The photographer has the scene populated already and changes the frame by selecting the elements in their frame. The same but different. I believe HCB, like us all, would grow and develop as time goes by. After all, he started his artistic journey as a drawer, then became a photographer and returned to drawing. No straight line there. Mask On Nurse Marty (Ret)

Thanks, T. Interesting thought experiment, for sure. You mention Adams. I attended a lecture by Ansel in the early 70's where he brought up, with obvious interest, the very early technology of digital imagining. I could certainly see him being deep into the modern digital workflow. Others, Bresson perhaps, might be more reluctant. You never can say for sure, but certainly interesting to ponder. I occasionally feel the pull of my darkroom from the 70's, but even though I shoot a bit of film, have so far resisted the temptation to set up a new one. Too much work for an old fart!!

I humbly think if any photography is relevant today? The goals have changed, the proiorities have changed, the technology has changed and above all the values held by photographers have changed. Forget Ansel Adams for moment since I am absolutely sure that his work is so misunderstood and trivialized at the same time, but do ypu honsly think that any of the new generation of photographers would even bother to look at the work of likes of Robert Adams or Raymond Moore? We are junkies in these day and age, and we are addicted to photographs that shout look at me, and not see me or hear me. Adams was very keen on what he called electronic imagery. Ironic how correct his description of today's digital photography was.

Cartier Breson's photos are timeless in any age.

they are still very relevant on two counts: - they are incredibly important works of art - they exist as a huge inspiration to both new and old photographers - they are the reason so many 50mm lenses sell BTW, there are three kinds of people in this world - those who can count and those who can't...

"How did we get here?" is always a relevant question. HCB has some relevant answers. Before the digital age, people in darkrooms still looked upon him in awe. Yes, he used a professional printmaker with detailed instructions about shadows, highlights, contrast, and whitening. Nothing was directly from the camera; that's a misunderstanding.

People are still talking about him, analysing his photographs and, like yourself, creating videos about him. I think the question of relevance answers itself 😊 Could he replicate the same impact if he were to start photography today? I don’t know. Would the Beetles have had the same impact if they’d started in 2023? Maybe not, but without them so much of the music we listen to today would not exist without them. The question, I think, should always revolve around the influence he created. The rest is semantics.

He created some of the most marvelous masterpieces of photography of all times. Because he had a special talent to anticipate the decisive moment of unique human situations. On the other hand I can't imagine Cartier-Bresson becoming a successful photographer for National Geographic on assignment to illustrate a predefined story.

To me, the phots are valuable because of his bond with and insight into his subjects and his subject matter. 35mm Kodak B&W with a 50mm to, maybe an 24mm lense means a lot of thought and a lot of dark room time

Interesting thing that you mentioned Saul Leiter. He and HCB studied painting, yet their street photos were different. HCB photos felt like standard photojournalism/photodocumentary, the "hey I'm in the street, can you feel it"? Leiter's were different. He's a big fan of vibrant red, yellow, and wet windows. Thightly framed with longer lens, the results were abstract-ish. Very painting like. When I started learning street photography many years ago, HCB was one of my idols. These days? Leiter. Let's say I'm done with HCB.

You just cannot compare 20th century photography, the way its constraints influenced everything, the way even a wealthy photographer was shot-limited, the way it even wasn't a one man work in the first place, to todays photography. These are two separate worlds.

A very interesting video and food for thought

His work is great, but in my mine is more of a collection of historical photography works. When we contrast and compare the technical side, his work would be technically outmoded by today’s digital technology. I have much respect for him and his work and he definitely holds a place among the masters of photography.

Excellent work in Paris!

Hi, would be even better today than 99% of today's street photographers. Photographic vision and who is behind the camera are what matters.

no cropping, no retouching, no colour as a matter of principle. That's Cartier-Bresson in a nutshell.

More relevant than ever. Timeless.

I think it would be interesting to look at Don McCullin's photography in the film days and think about how he would have work with the new digital tools. He had a lot of war photography that had to be performed in very difficult environments. Perhaps the real question concerns how or how digital changed war photography.

The fact that you HAD to do a video about HCB, demonstrates that he was and still is relevant, like Omer is for anyone who wants to write poems today...

His prints were small, so I can’t imagine why medium format would interest him now, any more than it did while he was shooting. Maybe he would have used a digital Leica, but I can’t imagine why he would have been interested in anything other than Leica, because they worked for him.

Is the Sistine Chapel not relevant today? because we have digital art and ai generated images? Does Lonardo´s Davicni or Pabo Picaso work would have any relevance if they did the same today??? First of all many of the things we take for granted or seen as commun now a day its because this people did what the did, they were artist they were doing inovations, breaking grounds and molds so to ask what if they where doing the same today is pointless.... and if they were living today probably they would be pushing boundries and using the tools we have now in a different creative way as they did when they were alive.

Two things informed Cartier-Bresson's work, surrealism and print media. Surrealism was highly influential in HCBs youth, and can be seen in the work of Eugene Atget and others. Curious juxtapositions and bodies framed in fragmentary ways. The influence of print media is unimaginable in today's world, and had a similar presence to the internet. For most of that time colour photography was irrelevant, and associated with advertising. Now monochrome is viewed as a variety of abstraction, something one works in to run against the grain. It's impossible to see Cartier-Bresson's work in the way in was originally received.

Great art is always relevant.

HCB's photographs will still be relevant when we stop asking if his photos are still relevant.

For me personally, yes, his pictures definitely do touch some strings in me.

To me, Cartier-Bresson was a truly great photographer when he was "on song" however there are many of his pictures that aren't all that good and it would be ridiculous to suggest that every time that he pressed the button he created a masterpiece. His early work was, again in my opinion, better than his later work and his portraits were in many cases poor. I have virtually every book that has been published on him right back to "The Decisive Moment" and I am and was greatly influenced by his work BUT we have to be realistic and not just be sycophants blind to some mediocrity that he produced. I worked for many many years as a press photographer and I am sorry to say that if I had submitted some of his portraits then the Picture Editor would have thrown them straight into the bin and I would have been looking for another job. As I stated though he absolutely did produce work of pure genius, so what I have written is absolutely NOT as a overall criticism but as a realistic evaluation of his work. Regards

No way Cartier-Bresson can be irrelevant today. The patience, precision and 'critical moments' he exhibited should be, and are, emulated today. No digital shutter bursts to achieve the perfect blurless image. No zoom lenses and no editing masks or AI -- only maybe dodge and burn techniques. One of the greats!

Nice concept and new video 🎉

Hi Tatiana, how are you ? You have such Brazillian name ! ahahaha Do you have plans to make a video about Sebastião Salgado ? Also there is another very famous photographer here in Brazil called Araquem Alcântara (he already published 50 books)

There is a certain genius to certain individuals like Bresson Michael Jordan Ayrton Senna that transcends logic. They adapt to situations by intuition. You can't teach that and it will always be relevant. There genius is the operate in a zone that mere mortals rarely find

Cartier-Bresson was a purist. He would not even develop his own film (he has a trusted lab tech. to do it for him). He probably would still shoot in BW as he was after the composition and "le moment décisif". Not many photographers have mastered that decisive moment as he did. I doubt that he would ever use PS. He started the 'trend" to use the black borders in the prints as to show that the framing was done in-camera, as a testament of authenticity. He seldom used the 35mm as he found it quite challenging. When he worked at Magnum and did reportage for the magazines of that era (e.g., Life), he probably would have used different focal lengths (but I'm not sure).

I first saw CB in the early 50's. He has always been interesting. I have not enjoyed all his work but do enjoy some a great deal. I believe some of his work is more "available" than others. And like other great artists his work will be accepted as better than the ordinary and better than even the really good for a long, long time. I am thinking now of the French having a picnic at the bank of a river as an example. From my years in France I can tell you that the image captures the essence of France, especially at that time. There are others. If you have not yet done a vid on Vivian Meir I would enjoy that. I prefer her to CB.

While I think it is worthwhile to speculate on how photographers from an earlier stage of technology and society might have adapted to today’s workflows, maybe it could be interesting to also consider some of today’s important and visionary photographers qua artists (for example, Richard Mosse) to imagine how future vloggers like Tatiana Hopper of the future might retrospectively look at what is going on now, especially as things like AI and drones etc. begin to interfere with the leftover purism of camera photography.

I think he is as much of an artist as he was a photojournalist. And that's why I think his style is timeless, and, more or less, any contemporary photographers owe his artistic vision.

What about a video combining both Edward Hopper and Saul Leiter? That could be an interesting perspective. Thank you for your thoughtful and thought provoking video essays.

Thanks! Great, thaought provoking video :-)

Your opening question about whether Cartier-Bresson would be relevant/popular if he were making the same images now makes me think that you are a high school student -- is this correct?

I want to compliment you on your interview with Bob Patterson of Street Photography Magazine, I enjoyed it much

If you are *great* in any era, that skill would likely translate to another time. HCB was a fan of newer photographers like Joel Meyerowitz - what would have happened if he was able to study the greats of the last 50 years? He'd probably be killing it, just in a different way.

of course he would be as valid today as he is from his time as vision is ageless it's not the equipment or software as without vision you have a dead image. would you try the tools available to today? YES I belive so as I feel his artistic drive would be intrigued by the potential. Even the God of large 8x10 film Ansel Adams was excited by the birth of digital photography. excellent thought journey

This is from a long time ago, but I can’t recall if it’s either a documentary or a book where HCB said he was using a 135mm or something longer on his Leica for his street shots because he wanted to use something no one has used for street shots, I could be completely wrong, or it might not even be about HCB. Would really appreciate it if someone could told me what the documentary/book it was if they happened to have read/watched the same thing that I was referring.

I really don't think judging the photographs HCB made decades ago using today's standards is fair... or relevant. Especially when one thinks that his work was truly pioneering WHEN he did it and paved the way to generations of street shooters, up to the ones working today. Beyond that, would HCB, if he were active today, be copying the HCB he was all that time ago or would he be doing something entirely different? We just don't know.

Great video. I agree, Cartier-Bresson would still be relevant today.

Are we really discussing HCB as a photographer? We? Really? Jeez what a bunch of arrogant people we are, if we really do so

When Cartier-Bresson was working, it had ALL been DONE, for many thousands of years going back to Lascaux, perhaps further to the very first human to dare to imitate life through their own intellect and to pictorialize it in some way. Either in tales around the fire or in gestures acting out some event, or on the walls of caves where they lived, humans have been moved to express themselves and their experiences. Now I know that is a bit of an exaggeration, but it gets my point across. Especially in the realm of the "everyday" (journalistic or street) photography, the maelstrom of human activity is constantly changing, so NO "IT" will NEVER be DONE! Why keep painting after Vermeer, Rembrandt, Matisse, Van Gogh, Picasso, Bongé, Rothko, Klein, Hockney, Bacon? Why keep sculpting after Michaelangelo, Brancusi, Giacometti, Rodin, Claudel, Noguchi...? Why keep writing plays? Why keep photographing after Dauguerre, Brady, Riis, Stieglitz, Weston, Adams, Minor White, M.B. White, Lang, Cunningham, Bongé, Siskind, Caponigro, Maier, Winship...? Why wake up in the morning? Why keep breathing? BECAUSE the world will ALWAYS be filled with MAGIC and WONDER! And, WE will ALWAYS be enchanted by it and MOVED to express our joy in the beautiful divinity of this amazing existence by wanting to share it with others. Perhaps the most famous photograph of all time, Behind Gare Saint-Lazare, is ONLY someone who is crossing a large rain puddle and about to get their feet wet. And who cares? It happens thousands, nay millions of times per day ALL over the world, is happening NOW and will continue to happen, yet Cartier-Bresson pressed the shutter release at the precise moment that MAGIC happened and immortalized that moment for the ages. Humans will derive wonder and awe at it's ephemeral beauty until the sun engulfs our orb and renders ALL to dust!

An interesting question and concept you ask here. At the time of Cartier-Bresson photographic career, photography was still a new way of creating 'art'. Some thought it was hobby then a career. Cartier-Bresson's photography like the master photographers like Paul Strand, Edward Steichen and the godfather of photography Alfred Stieglitz who may inspired him, Cartier-Bresson's photography happened in the right place at the right time.

You shoot street photography with heart and mind, is what Henri was trying to get through to people. His works compared to some of the modern days perfect renditions of nothing, indeed are more relevant than ever. In his time there were many other great photographer, and they too made works which stand the test of time. Fast forward to today we have those shooting great works which stand the test of time with ease. Those works will not be those of fashion, such as how good the bokeh looks, but rather the whole of the photo, the meaning, the soul. All efforts to preserve the moment are appreciated -- those which can incorporate great composition and/or complex elements are even better. Then we have street photography solely done for shapes, light and shadow -- the fine art photographer. I assume this compares more closely to Ansel Adams as those street photographers more like landscape shooters, and are more involved with the darkroom aspects of the art. Think of Henri as the writer / composer, and the darkroom man as the producer / engineer in the music world. Have a great weekend, Loren Schwiderski

The "provenance" of a painting or photograph has a lot to do with its value. To compare a "good" photograph by some contemporary photographer with an equally good photograph by Bresson would just not be fair at the get-go.

HCB is known to have used a 90mm lens and seemed, according to some writings, to actually have found the 35mm wide angle difficult because it included more of the subject and thus presumably made his delicate "balancing of elements in the composition more complex. I think it's unlikely he would have been very interested in digital technology - he hated "effects" of any kind and famously handed over all his printing to others notably (from 1947) Pictorial Service labs in Paris.

His skill was amazing. Also he don’t have AF everything was manual.

The HCB coffee table book in front of me says he is a compositional master with an amazing eye… the art market agrees. I’m betting that in 100 years people will still love his work and today’s photography, that is tending towards digital art will be forgotten. Side note : IMHO the avg amateur photographer will get far more keepers using a camera with a modern autofocus system.

HCB is still very relevant, partly because of the era and composition and the way the world was back then. Very few contemporary photographers stand out today. Most street photos today are bland, vacant and simply not interesting

Are "influencers" doing the influencer thing and thinking that what they're doing now started with them?

HCB did believe in cropping images. One of his most famous photos (man jumping over the puddle) is a cropped image.

I don't understand the point of these questions, or the click-bait title either. Obviously his photos are still relevant ,because many people shoot in his style. He's influenced generations. What is the point of asking if he'd shoot digital or change his mind about color? So what? He did what he did and he's dead now. I don't care if he were alive today shooting in color. Those pictures don't and won't ever exist. The guy is considered one of the greatest of all time because he existed when he existed, and thus influenced millions later. You can not separate a person from his/her time. The period of time one lives in is just as much the person as the skin, bones, heart, and head are.

I think a lot of his success as a pioneer of street photography certainly I the early years was to do with his complete anonimoty. The camera he used was so radically different from what the public thought of as a camera that most didn't realise that's what it was. He also was completely anonymous, he dressed more like an office worker that an artist, the better to blend into his surroundings. That said his eye for composition was second to none. Many say he wasn't a technical photographer, yet to with the rangefider cameras he used he had to be able to focus accurately and set the expose to within a couple of stops of being correct to capture a usable negative. To capture those decisive moment he needed to be able to do that quickly. You've said yourself that you've missed images because you couldn't operate the completely manual camera quickly enough. His images are as relevant today as they were when they were taken.

his pictures are random snapshots at best. his pictures were admired at the time because not many people had cameras back than

many of his pics and thise of photographers of those photo magazine periods are being reproduced by the thousands everyday now by even housewives- thanks to social media and smartphone - in fact we have seen so many god pics on a daily basis that we are pretty 'numb' to it I believe. however his creative input to timing and composition in some of his pics must be applauded

If Cartier-Bresson had not taken those photos and became famous because of it, someone else would have emerged as the eminent photographer of his/her generation. In other words, he is the right person at the right time. Essentially, it is futile to compare what the did in the past to the present as the world in terms of culture, outlook, taste, fashion, etc are so different.

as long as theres an intangible

I've always been interested on the middle decades of the 20th century, basically the Cartier Bresson era, because it was the time my parents and grandparents knew, and was at the same time very different but also very similar to the world I have known. Because of this I am of course fascinated by photos from this time but unfortunately Cartier Bresson's photos don't really convey anything to me. His closest comparable photographer is, arguably, Robert Doisneau, who is just one of many other street photographers from that period whose work I find far more meaningful.

Although I really appreciate your videos I have to say this: i don't think I realize the importance of the question or the premise of this imaginary situation. If bresson was photographing today he wouldn't be having the same type of images, those ones belong in the past, the situation the subjects his approach to capturing images of all bounded to his reality and time, theres no IF

That title tho 😂🔥💯