papasnap
Well-known
I just read & really enjoyed this quote from Winogrand:
Taken from:
http://www.oreillynet.com/digitalmedia/blog/2007/03/rare_interview_with_gary_winog.html
“You don’t learn anything from repeating what you know, in affect, so I keep trying to make (the process) uncertain. The nature of the photographic process - it is about failure. Most everything I do doesn’t quite make it. The failures can be intelligent; nothing ventured nothing gained. Hopefully you’re risking failing every time you make a frame.”
As someone who'd rather get 1 terrific photo than 100 very good photos, I find this very encouraging - especially when I look at all the frames I stuff up on each roll
Taken from:
http://www.oreillynet.com/digitalmedia/blog/2007/03/rare_interview_with_gary_winog.html
“You don’t learn anything from repeating what you know, in affect, so I keep trying to make (the process) uncertain. The nature of the photographic process - it is about failure. Most everything I do doesn’t quite make it. The failures can be intelligent; nothing ventured nothing gained. Hopefully you’re risking failing every time you make a frame.”
As someone who'd rather get 1 terrific photo than 100 very good photos, I find this very encouraging - especially when I look at all the frames I stuff up on each roll
John Rountree
Nothing is what I want
Winogrand had a lot of good things to say about photography. Though I teach my students that film (silver or digital) is always the cheapest part of the photographic equation, but I also remind them it is not a reason to "spray and pray." You still have to think! Another excellent piece of Winogrand advice is not to develop (or look at) your prints for a long time after they have been shot. He could go for at least a year before he developed and looked at his film. I can barely hold out for about three months. It would be much, much harder to wait with digital. But still, it is excellent advice.
Al Kaplan
Veteran
He'd be proud of me! I've been on a develop and contact spree lately. I still have three rolls to soup, but probably close to fifty rolls of negatives to contact print. Some of it is two years old!
I've also been looking through some of my 1974 and 1975 contact sheets over the last couple of days, finding images for a client's project. It's amazing how I see things on those contacts that I just love now but I never noticed them three decades ago.
Can't you just tape over the screen on the back of a digicam and pretend like it's not there?
I've also been looking through some of my 1974 and 1975 contact sheets over the last couple of days, finding images for a client's project. It's amazing how I see things on those contacts that I just love now but I never noticed them three decades ago.
Can't you just tape over the screen on the back of a digicam and pretend like it's not there?
Taping over the LCD sounds reasonable, and would prevent nose grease on the glass. But for menu changes it might be handy for it to be a taped-on flap that you can lift to peek. Also nice to be able to just turn off the automatic picture review feature. I do that, and pretend I'm shooting film. If I think I might be able to improve upon the pic, I'll change parameters and make another shot or two. After all, film is cheap, eh, especially when its digital. Back home I do like seeing the shots appear on the monitor to examine my 'catch'... "well, that didn't work so well... nor that... but this one, hmmm..."
And a perspective from a later time can help see elements not at first evident.
And a perspective from a later time can help see elements not at first evident.
JoeV
Thin Air, Bright Sun
Manufacturing the New
Manufacturing the New
This is a crucial point, I think. I've been thinking about this in regards to my line of work, semiconductor manufacturing (I know -- a long way from shooting film, but follow my line of thinking on this one.)
The science of manufacturing circuits on silicon is getting more and more structured. Higher degrees of automation, removing the 'human factor' (i.e. error) from the process flow. Operationally such factories (Fabs) are essentially totally automated; the main human involvements are: 1) start-up (of a new process: much more difficult with the new processes, tighter tolerances, fewer defects allowed, faster production ramp rates, etc); 2) intervention when a process tool faults out (i.e. recovery or scrap of wafers); 3) Planned and unplanned maintenance on the process tools. Most unplanned failures of equipment are now analyzed and an attempt is made to find 'root cause' and eliminate future failures; 4) Process Engineering - rather than tweaking the process, once it's been started and ramped to full volume, a well-designed process should ramp to full volume with minimal tweaks by the local Fab level process engineers; their job is to ensure 'Copy Exactly'.
This is all well and good from the perspective of the science of manufacturing efficiency. But I am reminded of how flash memory was invented: it wasn't invented. It was discovered, through a mis-processing event in an older memory Fab. Due to the common occurance in those older Fabs of misprocessing (due to human handling of process material and little automated process flow) a lot box of wafers was ran through the gate loop of the process flow twice, resulting in a double gate structure being built on the transistors on those wafers. When the lot got to sort/etest at end of line, it was found that the transistors retained their charge even when the devices were powered off. The 'floating gate' was discovered, the basis of flash memory.
My point is that new discoveries require a certain atmosphere of randomness and disorder, the variability within which allows sufficient permutations to generate new behaviors, new observations. The process may be chip making, or photograph making, I believe the truth is the same: the unexpected is often the place where new, original thinking arises.
This, I feel, is the biggest change that instant, electronic-based, photography has brought to the art: the decline of the accidental. Not that you can't botch a shot with a digicam, but the unexpected can all too easily be dispensed with (deleted) without sufficient cogitation required to appreciate some new aspect of what otherwise would be a botched shot. Almost as if the new technology has brought about the concept of the science of art-making: structured, highly efficient, extremely consistent. And lacking soul.
We need those old negatives (or image files), floating around in an album or drawer (or storage media), to rediscover some new, ephemeral insight about the phenomenon of seeing the world. They're our heritage of visual discovery, the detritus of being both tool maker and image maker.
~Joe
Manufacturing the New
This is a crucial point, I think. I've been thinking about this in regards to my line of work, semiconductor manufacturing (I know -- a long way from shooting film, but follow my line of thinking on this one.)
The science of manufacturing circuits on silicon is getting more and more structured. Higher degrees of automation, removing the 'human factor' (i.e. error) from the process flow. Operationally such factories (Fabs) are essentially totally automated; the main human involvements are: 1) start-up (of a new process: much more difficult with the new processes, tighter tolerances, fewer defects allowed, faster production ramp rates, etc); 2) intervention when a process tool faults out (i.e. recovery or scrap of wafers); 3) Planned and unplanned maintenance on the process tools. Most unplanned failures of equipment are now analyzed and an attempt is made to find 'root cause' and eliminate future failures; 4) Process Engineering - rather than tweaking the process, once it's been started and ramped to full volume, a well-designed process should ramp to full volume with minimal tweaks by the local Fab level process engineers; their job is to ensure 'Copy Exactly'.
This is all well and good from the perspective of the science of manufacturing efficiency. But I am reminded of how flash memory was invented: it wasn't invented. It was discovered, through a mis-processing event in an older memory Fab. Due to the common occurance in those older Fabs of misprocessing (due to human handling of process material and little automated process flow) a lot box of wafers was ran through the gate loop of the process flow twice, resulting in a double gate structure being built on the transistors on those wafers. When the lot got to sort/etest at end of line, it was found that the transistors retained their charge even when the devices were powered off. The 'floating gate' was discovered, the basis of flash memory.
My point is that new discoveries require a certain atmosphere of randomness and disorder, the variability within which allows sufficient permutations to generate new behaviors, new observations. The process may be chip making, or photograph making, I believe the truth is the same: the unexpected is often the place where new, original thinking arises.
This, I feel, is the biggest change that instant, electronic-based, photography has brought to the art: the decline of the accidental. Not that you can't botch a shot with a digicam, but the unexpected can all too easily be dispensed with (deleted) without sufficient cogitation required to appreciate some new aspect of what otherwise would be a botched shot. Almost as if the new technology has brought about the concept of the science of art-making: structured, highly efficient, extremely consistent. And lacking soul.
We need those old negatives (or image files), floating around in an album or drawer (or storage media), to rediscover some new, ephemeral insight about the phenomenon of seeing the world. They're our heritage of visual discovery, the detritus of being both tool maker and image maker.
~Joe
imajypsee
no expiration date
unless you're making detailed notes
unless you're making detailed notes
regarding each and every frame you photograph, digital will help you learn faster in regards to what works or what doesn't work. You have the info right in the exif and you can reference it later. You can also embrace the "big failures" with digital.
RE Winogrand and photographing to see what a thing looks like photographed: I do that al the time. I'm so obsessed that I often photograph the same subject with a variety of film and digital cameras.
And, I have a whole gallery devoted to "flawed moments."
It's all good
unless you're making detailed notes
regarding each and every frame you photograph, digital will help you learn faster in regards to what works or what doesn't work. You have the info right in the exif and you can reference it later. You can also embrace the "big failures" with digital.
RE Winogrand and photographing to see what a thing looks like photographed: I do that al the time. I'm so obsessed that I often photograph the same subject with a variety of film and digital cameras.
And, I have a whole gallery devoted to "flawed moments."
It's all good
Sisyphus
Sisyphus
Here is an interesting link to a video about him talkig about his work:
http://www.jimarnold.org/downloads/winogrand/flash/
http://www.jimarnold.org/downloads/winogrand/flash/
MickH
Well-known
Is that Jerry Hall?
PMCC
Late adopter.
Contact Sheets
Contact Sheets
It's all good -- digital as well as film -- but there are differences. We all scrutinize the differences in the nature of the output, but there are interesting differences in the process too. I'm not talking about "workflow," I'm talking about "mindflow."
With film, contact sheets are the most useful notes. Unlike, say, chimping (just sayin'), they give you distance from the moment of shooting. With digital, it's hard to resist both indiscriminate shooting as well as the instant review and deletion afforded by the technology. The risk is that a lot of chaff is generated, and some wheat is discarded. Digital encourages editing on the fly, contact sheets provide a broader context. Exif info tells you more about use of tools than about how one was seeing. With contacts, I get to look back on how my seeing and picture taking strategy evolved, or didn't, in the course of the shoot. I can mark them up and write on them. I have a tangible record to look at again in case my idea of success and failure changes over time (hopefully). It's a different kind of learning, geared more toward the vision than the technique. Winogrand and Koudelka often didn't edit or review their work until enough time had elapsed to allow some distance.
Digital is faster and more convenient learning process -- perhaps to the point of hastiness. Shooting film is more deliberate, and reviewing contacts can take longer, but it can be a much more thorough and contemplative process. So whatever works is good.
PMCC.
SF, CA
Contact Sheets
unless you're making detail notes regarding each and every frame you photograph, digital will help you learn faster in regards to what works or what doesn't work. You have the info right in the exif and you can reference it later. You can also embrace the "big failures" with digital.
RE Winogrand and photographing to see what a thing looks like photographed: I do that al the time. I'm so obsessed that I often photograph the same subject with a variety of film and digital cameras.
And, I have a whole gallery devoted to "flawed moments."
It's all good
It's all good -- digital as well as film -- but there are differences. We all scrutinize the differences in the nature of the output, but there are interesting differences in the process too. I'm not talking about "workflow," I'm talking about "mindflow."
With film, contact sheets are the most useful notes. Unlike, say, chimping (just sayin'), they give you distance from the moment of shooting. With digital, it's hard to resist both indiscriminate shooting as well as the instant review and deletion afforded by the technology. The risk is that a lot of chaff is generated, and some wheat is discarded. Digital encourages editing on the fly, contact sheets provide a broader context. Exif info tells you more about use of tools than about how one was seeing. With contacts, I get to look back on how my seeing and picture taking strategy evolved, or didn't, in the course of the shoot. I can mark them up and write on them. I have a tangible record to look at again in case my idea of success and failure changes over time (hopefully). It's a different kind of learning, geared more toward the vision than the technique. Winogrand and Koudelka often didn't edit or review their work until enough time had elapsed to allow some distance.
Digital is faster and more convenient learning process -- perhaps to the point of hastiness. Shooting film is more deliberate, and reviewing contacts can take longer, but it can be a much more thorough and contemplative process. So whatever works is good.
PMCC.
SF, CA
Jamie Pillers
Skeptic
Well said. Thanks, Peter.
Papercut
Well-known
yep, i think peter's post puts it very well. for me (others may be different and may not have the same weakness of character that i do), the twin temptations of chimping and hasty deletion make digital harder to experiment / learn from, not easier. but as with almost everything in life one's mileage may vary. i like how peter expressed it very well.
Jamie Pillers
Skeptic
I liked Moyers' video about Winogrand. In it, Winogrand says "I don't have a picture in my head" a couple of times. By that, I think he means he doesn't go out looking for an image he's already conjured up in his head. Instead, he lets the world inform his instantaneous decisions of what to photograph.
I'm weighing in my mind Winogrand's ideas with something I read in a book about Bill Jay. Jay said, if I remember correctly, that you can't really be a successful photographer unless you already have a "project" in mind before you head out with your camera. Hmmm... I'd like to hear him and Winogrand talk over a couple of beers.
I'm weighing in my mind Winogrand's ideas with something I read in a book about Bill Jay. Jay said, if I remember correctly, that you can't really be a successful photographer unless you already have a "project" in mind before you head out with your camera. Hmmm... I'd like to hear him and Winogrand talk over a couple of beers.
robbert
photography student
Yesterday I dangled my camera on my strap with the self timer on all the time, 36 fun exposures, going to develop them tomorrow morning because tonight I've got a date!
Life is good
Life is good
imajypsee
no expiration date
There's NOTHING wrong with "chimping"
There's NOTHING wrong with "chimping"
why is the fact that digital offers a look at the histogram such an issue? if you want to see if the exposure works, you can see it and change it. if you want to see how you've framed your photo you can see it... what's the problem? I use both digital and film. Film I use because I can't achieve the same "look" (or "feel"/grain) with digital. Digital I use FOR the ability to "chimp." If it matters to you, the only frames I delete are the really OOF ones. And every digital frame I make has the possibility to become lots of different pictures, depending on what I do with the information.
As for a contact sheet being useful, it's not, unless you've made notes that correspond to your exposure settings for each frame.
You can go back to patting yourselves on the back that you never look at your stuff til you've let it lay around long enough to ... whatever.
There's NOTHING wrong with "chimping"
why is the fact that digital offers a look at the histogram such an issue? if you want to see if the exposure works, you can see it and change it. if you want to see how you've framed your photo you can see it... what's the problem? I use both digital and film. Film I use because I can't achieve the same "look" (or "feel"/grain) with digital. Digital I use FOR the ability to "chimp." If it matters to you, the only frames I delete are the really OOF ones. And every digital frame I make has the possibility to become lots of different pictures, depending on what I do with the information.
As for a contact sheet being useful, it's not, unless you've made notes that correspond to your exposure settings for each frame.
You can go back to patting yourselves on the back that you never look at your stuff til you've let it lay around long enough to ... whatever.
imajypsee
no expiration date
Mick, you mean this one?
Mick, you mean this one?
if so, then, no... she's someone who was a bike night in Fort Myers last spring; I sure wish that photo wasn't OOF
Mick, you mean this one?
if so, then, no... she's someone who was a bike night in Fort Myers last spring; I sure wish that photo wasn't OOF
Jamie Pillers
Skeptic
I LIKE your idea! Maybe we can start a trend... "goofy photo day". I'm sure the lomography crowd will go for it. I like setting my lens on its closest focusing distance and then going out to take pictures of the city.
Jamie Pillers
Skeptic
For me, the problem with the immediate digital feedback is a simple one. I edit too soon.
I think all the digital information that modern digital cameras can give back to us instantly is really amazing. But I just don't want it around when I'm out photographing. After I download it into my computer, fine, but not when I out looking at light. Its just too tempting for me to second-guess images on the LCD screen and delete them, or worse... let them convince me that my long-developed intuition about the light & composition is wrong. Many photographers say to me that I can just turn off the LCD screen. But it doesn't work out that way... its just too tempting to keep "chimping". And I guess I have to say that the limitation of 24 or 36 exposures makes me think about why I'm taking a picture of yet another sunset or another flower. So I've dumped all the digital gear and am back to film.
And think of poor Garry Winogrand in the digital age. The poor guy was having trouble finding an image amongst his thousands and thousands of contact sheets. Imagine what it would have been like for him to find something amoung the terabytes of data representing MILLIONS of exposures made with his M-8!!
I think all the digital information that modern digital cameras can give back to us instantly is really amazing. But I just don't want it around when I'm out photographing. After I download it into my computer, fine, but not when I out looking at light. Its just too tempting for me to second-guess images on the LCD screen and delete them, or worse... let them convince me that my long-developed intuition about the light & composition is wrong. Many photographers say to me that I can just turn off the LCD screen. But it doesn't work out that way... its just too tempting to keep "chimping". And I guess I have to say that the limitation of 24 or 36 exposures makes me think about why I'm taking a picture of yet another sunset or another flower. So I've dumped all the digital gear and am back to film.
And think of poor Garry Winogrand in the digital age. The poor guy was having trouble finding an image amongst his thousands and thousands of contact sheets. Imagine what it would have been like for him to find something amoung the terabytes of data representing MILLIONS of exposures made with his M-8!!
Papercut
Well-known
Feeling defensive much?
I think that Peter (PMCC), Jamie and myself were all quite clear that whatever works FOR ANY INDIVIDUAL is fine. I am not strong enough to avoid chimping being a negative thing -- this is *my* "failing" and relevant for my style of shooting (on the street in particular). I've tried digital and it doesn't work for me: I waste time reviewing shots when I should be looking for the next opportunity and I hastily delete shots that I shouldn't because it doesn't fit with what I expected it to be when I shot it -- but there are times when my expectations are off and an "accident" frame works on it's own merits. The two processes, as you note, are different, with different strengths and weaknesses -- what works for some, doesn't for others -- or what works for some people in some situations and might not work for them in others.
If digital doesn't pose those problems for you, no one is going (or even trying) to force you to give it up ... as far as I understood, people in this thread were just exchanging ideas about what works (and why) for them. No one is imposing any "orthodoxy" here. Ironically, you're the one who is getting defensive and sarcastic because people won't acknowledge that digital works for them the same as it does for you. Strange.
Best,
Kevin
PS For the record, I develop my film quite promptly (usually within a day or two of shooting it), but I still find that delay important for me (it gives time for my expectations and preconceptions for each frame to dissipate and allows me to approach each one on its own merits.)
I think that Peter (PMCC), Jamie and myself were all quite clear that whatever works FOR ANY INDIVIDUAL is fine. I am not strong enough to avoid chimping being a negative thing -- this is *my* "failing" and relevant for my style of shooting (on the street in particular). I've tried digital and it doesn't work for me: I waste time reviewing shots when I should be looking for the next opportunity and I hastily delete shots that I shouldn't because it doesn't fit with what I expected it to be when I shot it -- but there are times when my expectations are off and an "accident" frame works on it's own merits. The two processes, as you note, are different, with different strengths and weaknesses -- what works for some, doesn't for others -- or what works for some people in some situations and might not work for them in others.
If digital doesn't pose those problems for you, no one is going (or even trying) to force you to give it up ... as far as I understood, people in this thread were just exchanging ideas about what works (and why) for them. No one is imposing any "orthodoxy" here. Ironically, you're the one who is getting defensive and sarcastic because people won't acknowledge that digital works for them the same as it does for you. Strange.
Best,
Kevin
PS For the record, I develop my film quite promptly (usually within a day or two of shooting it), but I still find that delay important for me (it gives time for my expectations and preconceptions for each frame to dissipate and allows me to approach each one on its own merits.)
why is the fact that digital offers a look at the histogram such an issue? if you want to see if the exposure works, you can see it and change it. if you want to see how you've framed your photo you can see it... what's the problem? I use both digital and film. Film I use because I can't achieve the same "look" (or "feel"/grain) with digital. Digital I use FOR the ability to "chimp." If it matters to you, the only frames I delete are the really OOF ones. And every digital frame I make has the possibility to become lots of different pictures, depending on what I do with the information.
As for a contact sheet being useful, it's not, unless you've made notes that correspond to your exposure settings for each frame.
You can go back to patting yourselves on the back that you never look at your stuff til you've let it lay around long enough to ... whatever.
Last edited:
PMCC
Late adopter.
Every day is goofy photo day!
John Rountree
Nothing is what I want
Bill Jay and David Hurn talk extensively about the problems encountered when going out without any kind of idea of what you want to photograph in his book: On Being A Photographer.