No one ever looked at an Henri Cartier-Bresson print and said

Composition and subject matter is a stupid normie meme.

All that matters is the detail and quality of a photo

If I see a model, and you can't discern individual Poor's and ultra fine details, it's shit, no questions. The whole point of photography is the raw capability of the lens and Canon body working in unison to make a fantastically detailed picture, and that's all that matters

Fuck Sony and Fuji, Nikon is ok if your poor.

>>3103655
no one ever has said the same about you either.

>>3103660
Wait, do you mean no one has said that my prints are sharp or that no one has ever said about me that it(referring to me) looks sharp?

File: installation-e-web.jpg (196KB, 1200x800px) Image search: [Google]

196KB, 1200x800px

Don't tell me that it isn't a nice experience to go to a gallery and see a huge large format print with all its detail.

>>3103655
>No one ever looked at an Henri Cartier-Bresson print and said "Look how sharp it is!"
Oh please, what would his then-gearfag Leica cost in today's money? $10k?

As far as I know it was even said he went "shit" on wanting a second lens and finding out it'd cost him a *lot* more money again, otherwise he'd have bought more lenses.

>>3103655
>Henri Cartier-Bresson
Only chinks care about hacks.

>>3103658
the autist's perspective

>>3103664
When HCB was shooting, a Leica was the equivalent of a Canon.

>>3103664
The perfect encapsulation of someone that misses the point completely.

>>3103667
It was essentially a Phase One. Only pretty rich people could afford one with some effort.

Yea, it was sure less bulky than some alternatives, but still: fuckexpensive gearfag gear.

>>3103669
So how many blurshit pictures do you remember from then?

File: Jean.jpg (733KB, 1800x1141px) Image search: [Google]

733KB, 1800x1141px

>>3103671

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS3 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2014:07:21 14:19:22
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	1800
Image Height	1141

File: traffic-ernst-haas-1963.jpg (77KB, 1305x874px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 1305x874px

>>3103671

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS4 Macintosh
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2012:02:01 22:44:38
Comment	originally uploaded @ http://melisaki.tumblr.com
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	1305
Image Height	874

>>3103674
Never seen that one before. Shit image even by artfag standards.

File: ceb24b64f7972cba38e16afee188fa4a.jpg (139KB, 600x401px) Image search: [Google]

139KB, 600x401px

>>3103671

>>3103671

>>3103674
>>3103675
>>3103678
lmao, absolutely savaged, my man.

>>3103675
Photographer became famous for gearfagging color gear? Wow. Wouldn't have guessed.

>>3103678
My guess is gearfag camera in a line of cameras that photographer had again, but who knows.

>>3103682
>color gear
You don't actually take photos, do you?

beside pro's legacy, what does makes Leica so special?

>>3103685
I do shoot now. Which, really, gives you very little chance to get famous for *pioneering color photography*.

>>3103687
Not the point. There's no such thing as "color gear".

>>3103671
It was the mainstay 35mm camera, along with the Conrad, for photojournalists in an era when more PJs used large and medium formats.

1940s-50s prices reported in this thread come out to around $4000-5000 in today's dollars, on par with a modern pro-level FF body.

https://www.photo.net/discuss/threads/camera-prices-then-and-now.462648/

KR's IIIa article corroborates. http://www.kenrockwell.com/leica/screw-mount/iiia.htm

HCB was from a wealthy family, but a Leica did not cost the equivalent of $40K+.

>>3103689
Wtf Conrad? Contax.

>>3103687
>The only reason I didn't legitimize color art photography is because I live now instead of then!
wew

File: maxresdefault.jpg (220KB, 2000x1325px) Image search: [Google]

220KB, 2000x1325px

>>3103671
>It was essentially a Phase One

Wouldn't that have been a Hassleblad?

>>3103689
Hm.

> HCB was from a wealthy family, but a Leica did not cost the equivalent of $40K+.
Does anyone from a rich family truly need to save up and feel bothered by a $4-6k Canon and its lens, though?
In that regard, it might be more like a Phase One

Well, I figure it could be likened to either. Both are extreme gearfag cameras either way by /p/ standards.

File: 3fd06dfd9de3169496887156fff6df339018636e.jpg (183KB, 1200x803px) Image search: [Google]

183KB, 1200x803px

>>3103692
Yup. If you shoot something like this, nobody will remember this photo, even if you publish it to a FAR larger audience initially they won't spread it for shit.

>>3103658
>Nikon is ok if your poor

nibba what? Nikon can be expensive as fuck if you want to go pro

File: 6129284_orig.jpg (322KB, 1100x781px) Image search: [Google]

322KB, 1100x781px

>>3103658
>Nikon is ok if your poor
???

>>3103724
original black paint is about 10x more expensive

>>3103666
>>3103724
>>3103700
how dumb are you guys?

>>3103686
It is a honest-to-good camera?

I mean, it was one of the first good quality, reliable "pocketable" cameras. SLR:s are a much later thing, back then it was a cumbersome brownie box, a folder, or the Leica.

You also got the rangefinder viewing/focusing, which some people prefer ovet SLR, and if you wanted that, then Leica was the name of game - the Canon of small format cameras of the era.

I think, god these photos are soft and shitty and why do photophags like them? And then I skip to something better.

>>3103655
>street photography
Stay pleb, kek.

Everyone cared about how sharp ansels images were though ;)

>>3103675
Ernst Haas shot Nikon as well as Leicaflex. I wouldn't call that Leica-fagging as much as "choosing to shoot a quality camera", because you're not a brokeass and you use it every day.
Also, it's really only in the modern age of digital rot that a Leica is an extravagance; even if your M3 cost $10k equivalent (it didn't), you could expect to be shooting it for the next 40 years with the occasional bill for servicing.
Today, your 10k Leica will be deprecated in 2 years, and can be matched for IQ by a 4 year old $500 Sony.
>and in 4 years the sensor will be corroded to shit
Anyone who's been shooting for more than 5 minutes knows that the cost of gear is just something you allow for, and that it's more about personal preference than anything else at all.

>>3103658
Wrong. Nikon is almost always a good choice no matter the budget.