Petra Ford

jhnmyr:

I just came back from seeing an amazing exhibit by the photographer Henri Cartier-Bresson at the Musem of Modern Art. I was lucky enough to get to accompany a few of my friends at Leica Camera and have a walk-through during closed hours.

The one thing that struck me after seeing hundreds of his photos is that not a single one of them features a shallow depth of field. With faster lenses being made, it’s easier than ever to feature the subject of the shot in focus while leaving everything behind it a blur, and while it’s immediately satisfying to look at, it definitely lacks impact from a storytelling perspective. I’m guilty of taking pictures that way, and I think I’m going to try moving away from it. (Interesting that Cartier-Bresson was also a painter, which would explain why every detail in the photo was in focus - you can’t paint a blurred background.)

this post may come off a bit highfalutin, but if you’re a fan of photography you should definitely check this exhibit out.

Now, I suppose it’s entirely possible that I’m just trying to validate my own very modest f/3.5 lens. Or just looking for another excuse to reference Cartier-Bresson for the third time this week. But I really agree with this post and I think it verbalizes some of the essence of photojournalism and street photography.

When I first got into photography, I was impressed with so many things that I’m running from now. Back then, a photo made with a shallow depth of field was one of the things that signaled “professional” to me. (Afterall, a point-and-shoot can’t make pictures like that!) The only thing everyone on flickr seemed to be concerned with was bokeh. Oh, and God forbid you forgot to crop out that random dude standing in the background. Or that billboard. Or whatever slice of Americana that won’t be considered “interesting” for at least a couple more decades.

The thing that I now treasure about street photography is the fact that it embraces the qualities that other types of photography try so hard to avoid. The lighting doesn’t have to be studio-quality; motion blur (and hell, even a bit of camera shake) is acceptable….and interesting. And those “distractions” in the background that could so easily be blurred out or cropped out are part of the story. Look quickly once and you may see a man standing at a street corner. Look again and you notice the kids behind him, laughing at some unknown joke. And a woman….what’s she thinking about? And there’s a brand-new (fill-in-the-blank) car over in the corner, forever dating the photo. These are all a good things. To try to avoid these details would be leaving out so many chapters of the story.

I’m not trying to tell you to throw out your fast lenses. I’m just asking you to give that background a chance. (Now I’m the one who’s coming off as highfalutin. Awesome.) ;)

*Thanks to John Mayer for the original post, above.**