[Leica] Are we anal puddle jumpers or what?

[bd at bdcolenphoto.com (B. D. Colen)]

I've been reading this thread and have a couple thoughts:
1. Equipment: Of course equipment is important, it was important to HCB,
it's important to all of us today. It is not, however, the be all and end
all many endless discussions of micro contrast, glass, and pixels would lead
one to believe. Someone yesterday or today made the comment that today's
photographers keep upgrading their equipment, and need to, if they are
serious about their craft. Well, yes, but what isn't mentioned is that
today's camera body is not simply the light-tight box bodies were 20 years
ago, but it is the box AND the film. That is, today a photographer is
required to upgrade equipment with some frequency because digital sensors
are still evolving, just as film evolved over a period of many decades. So
in order to be able to meet client and publishing standards, a photographer
is required to upgrade. But the photographer who bought a pair of M3s in the
1950s, did NOT have to upgrade his bodies ? EVER ? if he didn't beat them to
death. The photographer did, however, upgrade her film.  But the Nikon or
Canon glass from 20 years ago is plenty good to shoot with it today. So, for
that matter, are Leica's first generation aspheric lenses plenty good today.
If someone wants the latest $7k Summicron, good for them. But there is no
NEED to make that upgrade.
2. Analism: Anal is as anal does. HCB was not the film era equivalent of a
pixel peeper. He did not wear a loupe around his neck for counting
eyelashes. He was an artist who cared most about composition, and the ways
in which visual elements came together and played off each other. Counting
facial hairs is not photography, and really has little to do with
photography. Does a particular lens effectively suppress veiling flare when
shooting with strong backlighting? That is important to a photographer,
because it effects her ability to successful capture a given image. But
being able to examine a pimple on the face of the man in the moon in a night
shot of lower Manhattan? Not so much.
3. HCB and how many times he pushed the shutter release: Yes, HCB shot
thousands of frames we have and will never seen. But don't kid yourselves
that this somehow means that he, or similar 'giants' weren't as good as
we've been lead to believe. The question is not, did he shoot thousands of
frames he discarded? Rather, it is how good are his keepers, how to they
compare to everyone else's keepers, and how many of them are there? We all,
in our life times of shooting, may come up with one or two HCB-like images.
What we will never come up with are the hundreds he produced.
4. Was the Puddle Jumper posed, and does it matter: As I said before, and I
gather various people's searches have indicated I am correct, that image was
an unposed one-off. But some people have suggested over the last couple of
days that it's the outcome that matters, 'art is art,' and we shouldn't care
if it was posed. I vehemently disagree. Because if that, or other supposedly
unposed images were posed, it tells us that HCB was a completely different
kind of artist from what we thought he was. Philippe Halsman, a wonderful
Magnum Photographer, made jumping his gimmick. He produced terrific images
of everyone from Richard Nixon to the Duke and Duchess of Windsor jumping on
command. But Philippe Halsman was not HCB. He was not a chronicler of the
"decisive moment." He is not noted for creating incredibly composed images
of moments in real life and real time; HCB is. If it turns out that HCB
posed images ? and I am NOT suggesting, nor do I believe, that he posed
anything other than some portraits, then he simply was not the photographer
we thought he was and his work needs to be reconsidered. (When Bruce
Davidson's Outside Inside came out, I went to hear him speak at Boston
University. During a rambling discourse he said that he ALWAYS asked
permission before photographing his subjects. IF that is true, I think his
work needs to be reconsidered. He still is a brilliant photographer, but IF
that's true, he is more a brilliant fashion-type photographer, than the
documentarian he has been thought to be. (I must note here that I have heard
from a number of sources I trust, and concluded myself from listen to him,
that age has really caught up with Davidson's mental faculties, and I would
NOT take his saying he always  asked permission as reliable testimony.)
5. The Decisive Moment: For all the talk about the Decisive Moment, and the
idea many have that HCB saw these special moments flash before his eye and
grabbed them,  I would contend that the true decisive moment is that instant
in which he ? or anyone ? saw or sees the photographic possibilities in a
scene, a situation, and THEN begins to work that scene, until all the
compositional elements come together. With the anal puddle jumper, the
decisive moment would have been that instant when HCB saw the hole in the
fence, realized what was going on, and started shooting. All of which to say
that the fulfillment of genius requires hard work.
Back to anal puddle jumping. :-)