As you read the title of this, you might think that this photographer is crazy, but indeed, he abhors the (almost) universally revered 24-70mm f/2.8 lens for wedding photography. Check out his reasons why in this quick video essay.
Coming to you from Taylor Jackson, this video breaks down why he avoids using a 24-70mm f/2.8 lens for wedding work, instead opting for primes. Of course, the 24-70mm is the standard bread and butter lens of the industry, but Jackson does make a few valid assertions. In fairness, while such a lens is indeed heavy and expensive, a bagful of primes probably challenges the zoom on both fronts. Nonetheless, he makes some very interesting points about developing a consistent style and some of the other advantages of primes. On the other hand, a 24-70mm f/2.8 is about as pragmatic as a lens can get, and if there's any genre of photography that demands a pragmatic mindset for success, it's likely weddings. Still, many successful wedding photographers shoot with primes, so it really comes down to what works for you.
What do you think? Does the 24-70mm f/2.8 have a place in your bag?
...of course not! 24-105 is the way to go :)
I haven't worked with the new gen 24-105, I will assume it's an improved beast, but the older model that's been around is quite a miserable bastard.
.
...if you're blind...
.
the 24-105 V1 was never as sharp as a 24-70 and has a higher f-stop its a favorite lens just because Canon included the lens with so many full frame cameras so the lens got a ton of reviews from people who didn't own any other L quality lenses. if you need something with Vibration compensation, I would recomend checking out the Tamron 24-70 G2 lens it has their version of IS and is much easier on the wallet
.
Considering I work with a roster of 24-105s every day, I think I might have a clue...
.
Not my studios. I freelance.
Lots of money has been made with that old lens. I had a 24-70 but never really liked it. I hadn't originally been excited by the 24-70 because it was only f/4, but after getting one, I liked it a lot. I needed 100mm, and didn't always want to pull out the 70-200 to get it.
It's certainly not the worst optic, it's a bread and butter lens in a lot of production, but working with them all the time I've come to see some inherent properties, like the image smearing at the edges (especially wide), even stopped down, and it's unique CA, which strangely is rarely corrected by users (inasmuch as it's not severe, but there's something unique about it that I can't peg). I've worked with these lenses so long I can spot a 24-105 clear across the internet, at web res no less, due to it's CA.
It is an old lens however, so I can cut it some slack. I suspect the new model improves on it, at least I hope it does.
Oh damn, one of those natty light photographers that doesnt know how to stop down their lens. Must. Shoot. f/1.4
Just because he wants that OPTION doesn't mean he's constantly shooting there.
You're right, but somewhere after I made the assumption, yet before I posted this, I went to his portfolio site and verified my statement. YMMV
Your confirmation still doesn't mean he lacks the understanding of how to shoot a wider depth of field. Why would he tailor his portfolio to a style he doesn't want to shoot? He likes f1.4 why should that matter? If you like shooting a stopped down and think it looks better thats great. Why should a competitor start shooting like you, making your style less unique?
You should be writing this to Taylor.
But beyond that, why do you think any wedding photographer's work is individually "unique?"
Writing my response to Johnny to Taylor?
Johnny implied that Taylor didn't know how to shoot anything outside of a wide aperture and somehow thinks Taylor's portfolio confirms his suspicions but why would Taylor want to demonstrate he can shoot a style he doesn't like? This goes to say that Taylor could just as easily be able to stop down his lenses and get good results but if he's built his port around wide apertures it wouldn't make sense to show a range that he doesn't offer clients. It would potentially confuse future customers / art directors.
Johnny seems to like shooting stopped down which is fine. But if he thinks is a superior way to shoot then why would he want to convince other photographers of this if it would lead to more people in the field shooting the same way thus creating less differentiation?
I shoot all apertures as needed bruh. f/2.8 thru f/22 on MF for days
Good for you buddy! keep it up!
He makes the argument for lens ownership based on its f-stop. An f-stop which is actually problematic to use in a journalistic environment or with group photos for instance. Few images will actually be sharp if they're shot wide open. I've used the lupe and cameras can't focus a lens like that very reliably. And we don't have HP viewfinders these days kids. An EVF may address this and I do hope so.
I tend to use the 24-105 f4. I prefer the longer length. I don't like fumbling with lens changes. And in an live event I need focus to be spot on more often than not. 30% rejection rate is acceptable. Moments should carry your visual report, not some bokeh filter or false color toning. No one remembers that. They remember the humanity and joy of the moments.
Well, that's his style, and apparently it works well for him. Obviously it's not your style. He's simply stating his point, in his video.
To each their own. I'm no fan of primes. I rather like the convenience of zoom lenses.
I can agree with this, inasmuch as I shoot with zooms AND primes.
My 85/1.2 is also heavy, but I love it anyway.
I can understand his point and I do prefer to shoot with primes myself, but being able to zoom can be a 'life saver' in circumstances where you can't rewind and do it again. So I guess it boils down to how comfortable you are with your gear. You can always go for a zoom on one body and a prime on the next - and only zoom when it's really necessary.
And I do not own a 24-70, but I've used them. The only zoom I got is the 17-40L.
Wow! Serves me right for expecting something somewhat meaningful from a one minute rant. What nonsense.
Pretty sure it's to get throughput to his site for tutorial video sales.
Clickbait headline, clickbait content.
So, the mega-increase in background separation from f/2.8 - f/1.8 at 24mm or 70mm, (something that one just cannot do with a zoom, apparently), is so unbelievable! He should teach a class on how to get good subject-background separation. I might learn something.
Having only a 24mm and 70mm puts you in a box (true) which helps expand your creativity (true) so as to equip one to take on other framing ideas, such as using a zoom lens! Why would I want to limit my creativity by boxing it? As long as he is putting himself in a box, why not go with the 16mm fisheye and the 100mm macro? That would make the gallery so much sharper.
And of course, as to not miss a shot, a second body so I won't have to switch lenses. …which I can afford since I saved so much money buying two primes instead of one zoom. …or I can ask the happy couple to hold it while I switch lenses.
Two (of the many) aspects of photography are composition, (where one stands), and framing, (what FoV or focal length one uses). There is little to gain in limiting one's composition/framing (and time spent switching lenses) save for slightly more shallow DoF.
When there is a once (hopefully just once) in a lifetime event such as a wedding, I will not risk missing the perfect composition & framing by carrying only two primes (or only one zoom for that matter).
I use to carry two cameras; one for fast film, one for slow, or one for B&W, one for colour. Now I still like two cameras; one for the short zoom, one for the long. The time to put myself in a box so as to stretch my creativity was during my training years, and during my personal projects; not on a client shoot.
ive shot weddings for 10yrs, only ever used primes. I have some 24-70s, but use them only for video work.
…But do you use only two primes? (…And do you use two bodies, or, like me, meticulously plan each shot before the event)?
I shoot with 3 bodies so almost never a need to change lens until reception time (or macro). My meticulous plans always went up in smoke anyway haha...learned to shoot on the fly, and loved it!
The photographic gear of these days is so incredible,and young photographers are so spoiled,they have no idea in the world, what kind of incredible work can be done with very minimal equipment... Or they can make absurd arguments cotending that "prime" lenses lead to some sort of 'a higher level of quality'...
These days every beginner loves to chitter chat about "Primes", and the wonders of shallow depth of field... And they also wouldn't be caught dead shooting in anything but Raw...
Boring...Absurd...Ridiculous...
A good photographer uses whatever equipment they have with them at the time...
Ask the world's best photojournalists how dedicated they are are to "Prime" lenses?
I bought my first 8 by 10 View Camera when I was 22 years old...I know all about doing things the hard way...
Zooms are simply the most versatile and wonderful lenses ever created...(especially those with good Image Stabilization) for capturing the ephemeral magical moments of Life...
It is their speed and versatility of use...
(Of course that's why almost everyone uses them as their main Photographic tools)
If, in some rarefied circumstances, we can afford the luxury of prime lenses and ask and justify the scanty advantages that they provide...Great;who cares?
But to imply that the use of prime lenses automatically produces some consistently "higher quality" level of photographs...would be absurd and childish. The true mark of a defiant beginner...(such a Rebel!)
Ever wonder what Cartier-Bresson might say to an argument like this?
I'll bet he would have traded his first born child for a digital Rebel Kit from Costco, with an 18-55 and 55-250...
... And no film to buy? " Sacre Bleu! "
And then he would have used his Leica for a sinker- when he went fishing in the canals of France....
Although I agree with most of this, I still think a dedicated macro and a good wide and tele can pick up where a zoom leaves off.
Good points, Peter, but I'm not sure Bresson would prefer any SLR with its slapping mirror and brief blackout.
Bresson has been dead for decades. So we don't know anything about what he would prefer.
We do know that he mostly shot with a 50 mm lens on 35mm film, and the occasional wide angle lens for many of his landscapes, so probably not the 55-250. However, we do know how he felt about new technology.
“Constant new discoveries in chemistry and optics are widening considerably our field of action. It is up to us to apply them to our technique, to improve ourselves, but there is a whole group of fetishes which have developed on the subject of technique. Technique is important only insofar as you must master it in order to communicate what you see... The camera for us is a tool, not a pretty mechanical toy.”
It would not be a stretch of the imagination to see him with an Olympus OM-D EM-1 II MFT camera and a M.Zuiko ED 12-100mm f4.0 IS PRO lens.
Let me break this down for the one person who just doesn't get it….
BRESSON: «Constant new discoveries in chemistry and optics….»
Translation: “New technologies….”
BRESSON: «…are widening considerably our field of action.»
Translation: “…are adding new tools to get things done.”
In other words, the topic is new photography technologies, which cause a paradigm shift in the way photography is done. A decade or two ago, it may be the switch to digital which many photographers (like me) were reluctant to embrace. Today, it may be the switch to smaller sensors on mirror-less cameras.
BRESSON: «It is up to us to apply them to our technique, to improve ourselves….»
Translation: “We old timers ought to embrace this new technology and apply it to our old techniques to make ourselves better photographers….”
In other words, stop sticking to the old stuff just because it is the tried and true, and try something new. You may become better with it.
BRESSON: «…but there is a whole group of fetishes which have developed on the subject of technique.»
Translation: “…but there are several neo nichés being discussed these days dealing with [new] techniques.”
This would be, for example, a reference to people calling the 150+ year old method of stitching together multiple images from small format cameras to make one large image to imitate the look of older large format cameras, calling it a new field of photography when it is no different than what your great-grandfather did.
I.e., what some nouveaux photographers call the Brenizer method, because they think some new kid on the block invented this method which was patented over 150 years ago, a technique I first saw in a turn of the century —20th century, that is— photograph, and first learned about in a WWII era book on photography.
BRESSON: «Technique is important only insofar as you must master it in order to communicate what you see….»
Translation: “The only reason for mastering a technique is to get the job done, not to say, ‘hey, have you tried this new technique yet?’”
In other words, no point in mastering a technique that won't help you, but still master all the techniques that will.
BRESSON: «The camera for us is a tool….»
Translation: “In light of what I said earlier, the new camera is a new tool which we ought to embrace so as to hone our old techniques….”
BRESSON: «…not a pretty mechanical toy.»
Translation: “…not a new way of doing [new] things.”
In other words, when one does embrace the newfangled devices, such as cameras with built-in light-meters or auto-focus —the stuff which would have been new to him at the end of his career— or cameras with 5-axis image stabilisation, AstroTracer™, PixelShift imaging, Composite Bright, Composite Average, Composite Add, Dynamic PixelShift, auto-leveling, et al, we should apply all these tools to the techniques we have already learned, and in doing so, become better at our craft, and neither shun them as a waste of time, nor think of them as a new era idea, nor treat them as a solution to bad photography.
The fact that Bresson made that statement strongly suggests that he was not averse to using new equipment. the fact that he never used new equipment is not evidence that he would have shunned new equipment.
APPLICATION TO MYSELF
When digital photography started becoming popular, I never thought it was good enough for what I did; (mostly portraits, fine art, abstract/creative. I needed detail, I needed dynamic range, I needed accurate colours. The first generation (and second, and third, and….), digital cameras were seriously lacking. I also had Pentax gear and was not about to trow that all away to move to Canon. Nikon nor Sony, the only three big names thus far which had embraced digital.
When the first Pentax digital came out, —something they took a long while to do, since they thought the way I did— I eagerly went to buy one. Looking at it in the store, and taking some sample images, I went away without it. Eventually, they came out with the K-7, which I thought, maybe, but no; not really worth it. Still not quite there. Then came the K-5, and I thought, okay, now I can go into digital, if I feel I need a new camera. Then came the K-5 IIs and I decided, that it is definitely time.
By the time I thought I had enough disposable income, that if I am not happy, it is not a great loss, the K-3 came out, and I bought that. No regrets.
THINGS TO NOTE
① I took awhile (quite awhile) to get into digital, because, for me, it took awhile for digital to get good enough for what I do. During that time, many photojournalists, documenters, and sports photographers had already embraced digital because it was more than adequate for what they did. It far exceeded their needs. Some of them were using digital from as far back as the 800×768 pixel models.
② I did not buy the first digital camera that came my way, but carefully weighed its uses against my needs, and even then, went in cautiously.
③ When I finally did get a digital, I applied it to my techniques. Thus far, I have never used the AstroTracer™ feature, as it rarely applies to my genres. It was not a newfangled way of photography; it was a new tool (filled with features) to strengthen my well applied technique.
④ I really want a 5×4 or 10×8 view camera (like the Intrepid, perhaps), to do some things I have wanted to do with lift/shift/tilt/swing for ages; things which, in the past, I had to do in post with an enlarger. I would love to do that in camera.
Problem is, to invest in a 5×4 or 10×8, then the lens holder, the lenses, and the darkroom equipment, it is the equivalent of changing from Pentax to Brand B, and not necessarily worth the expense, without a “no regret” amount of disposable income. A lot of what I can do with a l/s/t/s camera, I can do in the digital darkroom with the right technique applied to my K-3.
⑤ If I never buy anything but Pentax for the rest of my life, it does not mean that I am averse to the Olympus MFT, nor the Intrepid 5×4/10×8 view cameras.
Your "translation" of Henri Cartier Bresson:
"In other words, when one does embrace the newfangled devices, such as cameras with built-in light-meters or autofocus —the stuff which would have been new to him at the end of his career–...we should apply all these tools to the techniques we have already learned, and in doing so, become better at our craft, and neither shun them as a waste of time, nor think of them as a new era idea, nor treat them as a solution to bad photography...The fact that Bresson made that statement strongly suggests that he was not averse to using new equipment."
I'm so glad you brought up built-in light meters. I wonder what Bresson would say about that "newfangled" device? Surely he wouldn't straight up shun them, because that would mean your convoluted "translation" is an inaccurate misread of his statements.
Hey. Wait. Check this out:
"You mustn’t use a light meter, you have to know exactly what to weigh the light. A cook doesn’t take a scale to know how much salt you should put in a cake. The salt you put to enhance the sugar. It’s intuition, it’s instinctive, and it’s the same thing" -Henri Cartier Bresson
Oh...
One more quote from him before I bid this silly exchange adieu:
"I am constantly amused by the notion that some people have about photographic technique."
Me too, Monsieur Bresson, me too.
Mis-represented me again.
My ‘translation’ was,…
“New technologies are adding new tools to get things done. We old timers ought to embrace this new technology and apply it to our old techniques to make ourselves better photographers but there are several neo nichés being discussed these days dealing with [new] techniques. The only reason for mastering a technique is to get the job done, not to say, ‘hey, have you tried this new technique yet?’
In light of what I said earlier, the new camera is a new tool which we ought to embrace so as to hone our old techniques not a new way of doing [new] things.”
…but you cannot follow a conversation.
STOP MIS-REPRESENTING ME!
«You mustn’t use a light meter, you have to know exactly what to weigh the light.»
Irrelevant. He was mostly a street photographer and a little bit into landscape photography. Nothing anyone* needs a light-meter for, (once he is familiar with the light-loss of his lenses, if they only use one or two lenses). Nevertheless, this statement, if taken as a blanket statement, would only prove that Bresson has limited himself, and is NOT the type of person from whom one would take photography advice.
…But when it comes to street photography, I agree with him; one ought to already know to what one needs to set one's camera long before one is ready to bring the thing up to one's eye.
«“I am constantly amused by… photographic technique.”»
Yes, and the previous quote I made and explained makes that all clear. There is no point to be made with a quote out of context. I could have just as easily left the quote I posted as, “Constant new discoveries in chemistry and optics are widening considerably our field of action. It is up to us to apply them to our technique, to improve ourselves,…” but that would be disingenuous.
«…I bid this silly exchange adieu….»
[EDIT] {delete} Oh, thank God! {/delete} {insert} Darn! {/insert} [/EDIT] …but I thought you did that before. Tell you what, though, I shall bid this silly conversation goodbye.
Goodbye!
[EDIT]{insert} I said, good day! {/insert}[/EDIT]
*Some landscape scenes, with dissimilar lighting area in highlights and contrast, will require spot metering/split metering to properly do the zone system, but this was not Bresson's style.
"STOP MIS-REPRESENTING ME!"
I'm not, chill out. And this isn't about you, other than your ignorant assumptions and mis-representations about Bresson.
"…but you cannot follow a conversation."
Says the self-absorbed guy who responded to himself and wrote paragraphs describing his own life experience without prompt.
"if taken as a blanket statement..."
It was. Look it up, rather than using Wikipedia to learn about Bresson. Sections of your previous posts have been taken nearly verbatim from there. Example:
Wikipedia:
"Cartier-Bresson nearly always used a Leica 35 mm rangefinder camera fitted with a normal 50 mm lens, or occasionally a wide-angle lens for landscapes."
You:
"We do know that he mostly shot with a 50 mm lens on 35mm film, and the occasional wide angle lens for many of his landscapes"
That's some middle-school level rewording of a text to try to avoid plagiarism. You and Wikipedia are wrong, by the way. From Bresson:
"I think with the 50mm you can cover a large number of things. Sometimes, especially for landscape, you need a 90 mm because it cuts all the foreground which is not that interesting."
Dude, you really have no idea what you're talking about. This hole, it's so deep. Stop digging!
"...would only prove that Bresson has limited himself".
Exactly, duh. My point, Einstein.
"There is no point to be made with a quote out of context."
This wonderfully distills your entire ramble on this forum.
You're wrong about Bresson. Admit it. Stop misrepresenting him.
[Please, Allen, do not respond to this post, just to the almost identical other post. This post is simply for those who cannot, (for obvious reasons to them), read my real reply in the other post].
«…ignorant assumptions and mis-representations about Bresson.»
Let’s talk about that.
«“You mustn’t use a light meter, you have to know exactly what to weigh the light” It was [a blanket statement]. Look it up….”
Okay, let’s look it up and see who is mis-representing Henri Cartier-Bresson.
<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>
Henri Cartier-Bresson discussing candid street photography (specifically, geographic essays).
“Famous Photographers Tell How,” vinyl, 1958, transcribed by Erica McDonald. →
Cartier-Bresson: First I would like to say that it is only a rule I established in myself, a certain discipline, but it is not a school, it’s not a… [sic] it’s very personal.
….
Q: Well I guess that goes back to your intuition. It has to be there, completely.
Cartier-Bresson: Yes. And for technique, technique is not a thing in the abstract. You can’t evade it. The technique has to be something to express what you want to say. You have to master your own technique, to know your tools to say what you have to say. Technique doesn’t exist in the (abstract)…you have to know your lenses, but it’s not that difficult. You learn it very quickly. It’s like a typist mustn’t look at his keyboard, and then he types. But then, when he knows how to type he’s concerned only with what he has to say, it’s the same thing. You mustn’t use a light meter, you have to know exactly what, to weigh the light. A cook doesn’t take a scale to know how much salt you should put in a cake. The salt you put to give, to enhance the sugar. It’s intuition, it’s instinctive, and it’s the same thing.
…
Q: I wonder if you can talk about some technical aspects of photography.
Cartier-Bresson: We don’t need very big equipment. Practically I work all the time with a 50 mm, a very wide open lens, because I never know if I’m going to be in a dark room taking a picture in this moment and outside in full bright sun the next moment. So… [sic]
Q: The compactness has become very important. Small cameras… [sic]
Cartier-Bresson: It is very important. And people don’t notice you so much.
Q: In the old days when they had colloidal plates and whatnot.
Cartier-Bresson: I think with the 50mm you can cover a large number of things. Sometimes, especially for landscape, you need a 90 mm because it cuts all the foreground which is not that interesting. But this you don’t decide beforehand…I’m going to work with such a lens…no. It depends on the subject. The subject guides you, it’s there. Your frame, you see it, it’s a recognition of a certain geometrical order, as well as of the subject.
>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<
So, no, it WAS NOT a blanket statement. It was specifically about being able to capture a moment in time at just the right time, and taking out a light meter was not going to cut it.
Yes he sometimes used a 90 mm f/2.8 for landscapes, but most of his landscapes are actually done with the same 50 mm f/2.0 or, sometimes with the 35 mm f/2.0. …And the fact that he sometimes used a 90 mm was NOT lost on me, which is why I suggested he may not have been averse to the 12-100 mm lens, so he CAN crop tight on some landscapes and still get street photography done with a single lens.
«Exactly, duh. My point, Einstein. [Cartier-Bresson limited himself].»
IF I were to suggest one lens of choice for him to use on the OM-D E-M1, BASED on HIS QUOTES, I would have to go with the 12-40 mm f/2.8 weather-proof, because it is fast for low-light situations, and it mostly covers the range he used. HOWEVER, bear in mind that his choice of lenses was mostly limited by his choice of camera, which originally came with three choices; 50 mm f/2, 90 mm f/2.8, & 135 mm f/4.5, other choices coming later, (including the 35 mm with a viewfinder adapter), but none of them were zooms, because,… well,… rangefinder! It only had markings in the viewfinder for framing at these three focal lengths.
He never really limited himself in the sense that he was averse to knew technology, only in that he had a Leica M3, and used what came with it, just as I used a Pentax K1000 to shoot sports for quite sometime before buying a Pentax with autowind.
«"…but you cannot follow a conversation."
Says the self-absorbed guy who responded to himself and wrote paragraphs describing his own life experience without prompt.»
…again, would have all been relevant IF you could follow a conversation, and, since you do not realise why I ‘responded to himself,’ I posted this one where you might get the message.
«Wikipedia:…. You:…. »
“Talking Photography” by Frank Van Riper, pg. 166 →
“He never carried his camera over his shoulder, preferring to carry it in his hand or nestled in the crook of his arm, always ready to shoot. He covered the beautiful brushed chrome of his Leica M-3 vith black tape, to make it less conspicuous. …He almost always shot in black-and-white; his favorite lens was a 50mm f/2 Summicron, on occasion a medium-wide 35mm f/2 or a 90mm f/2.8. He never owned, much less used, a telephoto lens.”
Funny, Wikipedia, Van Riper, and I used different words to say the same thing! Wikimedia must have been correct. Thank you for quoting it, but it is not my main source of anything, (although I often use it for a bibliography).
I submit that the only telephoto available was too dark, (at f/4.5), and will admit that, although still not out of the realm of the possible, is probably more probable that the 12-100 mm f/4.0 may not have a wide enough aperture for his liking, leading him instead to the 12-40 mm. (Cartier-Bresson did not enjoy having to swap lenses, as it may mean missing a moment, and did not ever crop after the fact).
Good day, sir.
I'm not sure if you're being too dense, too stubborn, or flat-out lying here, and at this point I don't care. It's sad to see an adult caught red-handed trying so desperately to save face and failing so miserably. I have no respect for such actions and such people.
Oh and by the way, you lifted Wikipedia's text that misrepresented Van Riper's quote (although at least Wikipedia had the decency to cite where they got their information from, even if they were wrong). Van Riper never said that Bresson shot landscapes with his 35mm lens. You copied inaccurate information from Wikipedia, and then when caught tried to pass it off like you picked it up from Van Riper.
You stole, and then you lied about it. Shameful.
① You replied to the wrong place, ② I did not lift WP text at all, ③ I just quoted word-for-word from Van Riper and neither I nor your WP quote matches VR, ④ most of what I know about C-B comes from either the Time-Life series, or from street photographers who showed interest in him. Not a street photographer myself. Did some photojournalism, but that is about it. Also, not a fan of VR either, although I did find his book an interesting read. He, too, is not a big fan of the techniques of C-B, although he does admire his work.
I will give up on your constant mis-representation of both me and C-B, whom you still seem to believe taught that a light meter is never to be used by any photographer, although I had put YOUR QUOTE of him in almost FULL CONTEXT, since you think I am lying about a quote YOU asked me to look up, (apparently you were too lazy to do yourself, otherwise, you would not have made that lame excuse that C-B was making a blanket statement about using a light-meter).
Context is always key.
…Ignore points ①-④. I concede. You win, I am stupid.
Stupid? Possibly. A liar, most certainly.
You still win, …but, (out of curiosity), which lie? Because now it's libel.
I don’t need to repeat myself. I already showed it. [edited from here] But, since you're accusing me of libel:
I stated that you lifted a sentence from Wikipedia and reworded it. I placed your sentence and the Wikipedia sentence side by side to show the similarities in word choice, content, style, and sentence structure. Then you continued to deny it. C'mon, man.
Further evidence: The sentence you lifted and reworded from Wikipedia is under the site's "Technique" section on Bresson. Your post with the sentence in question then uses the exact same quote from Bresson used in the Wikipedia page: "Constant new discoveries..." complete with the exact same ellipsis "master it in order to communicate what you see... The camera for us is a tool"
So to be clear: you're telling me that your post, which uses the same sentence (slightly reworded, but with similar content–complete with the same inaccurate statement on Bresson's use of wide angle lenses for landscape–style, and sentence structure) and goes on to use the same quote from Bresson (with the exact same portions removed with ellipses) as the "Technique" section of the Wikipedia entry on Bresson, you're telling me you did not take this information from Wikipedia?
First off, if I have a quote, it does not matter where the quote comes from, as EVERY source of the quote would be EXACTLY the same! (That is why it is called a quote).
Second, I first came across C-B in the Time-Life series back in 1980, and again by visiting lecturers between 1985-1997 while teaching at the UWICC, and again, about 2004, in “Talking Photography.”
What I said about his equipment, aside from being in, “Talking Photography,” is mentioned at least twice in the Time-Life series; at least once in, “The Camera”, and at least once in “Great Photographers: 1840-1960.” I believe it is also mentioned at least once in, “Photojournalism”, but I really do not have the time to look for what is common knowledge. So, no, you have not proven anything.
…And, no, it is well known and not in the least bit inaccurate that he used three lenses, as I have stated. Time-Life agrees, Van Riper agrees, and C-B himself said what I said, in that he mostly stays with the 50 mm. …And I actually quoted VR for you to see.
…But here,… rather than saying, “look it up,” (which you ought to do when entering a conversation on an unfamiliar topic), here is one quote from Time-Life; “He carries his battered little Leica in hand—the chrome taped black to make it less conspicuous—sometimes wrapped in a handkerchief. For most of his pictures he uses a 50mm lens; he also carries a 35mm lens, a 90mm lens, half a dozen rolls of film and a spare Leica body.” → Life Library of Photography: “The Camera”, page 214.
You know what, I’ll give you two more; “he used only one kind of camera, a Leica, and two EXTRA lenses,…” and, “But one of the greatest of modern photographers almost never changes lenses. Henri Cartier-Bresson,… ussually does his work with a lens of normal focal length….” ‘The Camera,” pgs. 15 & 125.
Yep, Everyone who knows C-B, knows that he used a Leica M3 and one main lens, the 50 mm f/2.0, plus, on a few occasions when shooting landscapes, a 35 mm f/2.0, or a 90 mm f/2.8. One of his famous 35 mm images, (although more street photography than landscape), I believe is, “Little Greek Girl Mounting a Staircase.”
So it is not that I lied, it is that you, not knowing what is, thought I lied. Still libelous.
Anyway. having given you all of my actual sources, down to the page numbers, I am really done this time.
[EDIT] P.s., I actually did not give you all of my sources. The one source which you say I lifted off of WP, it actually came from his book, “The Decisive Moment,” (which is a re-write of a book he did in French), but I did not have that book to get the right quote, so I had searched for it and found it on a blogger's sight, with the ellipsis.
I have since found the full quote from the book, and if any one else would like it, (which I doubt), I'd be happy to give it, (and not just the first sentence of the last paragraph which you quoted out of context).