Could you "Winogrand"?

[Timmyjoe]

Not talking about his talent, which I alway found impressive. More thinking about his "output" and the thought that when he died, he left 2500 rolls of exposed film, undeveloped.

I find myself processing film as soon as I have a couple/three exposed rolls. But I find a certain fascination in the idea of shooting ten, twenty, thirty, maybe 100 rolls before processing them and seeing what I had. Maybe shooting for a year or more before developing the work.

Anyone ever tried this?

For me, the longest I ever let a roll of film sit after shooting it was a couple of years, and that was when I was in grad school and lost a roll during one of my moves, only finding it years later when unpacking boxes in storage. It was exciting to see what was on the film, and it brought back great memories.

So I was wondering, does anyone leave their exposed film for months or years before processing it?

Best,
-Tim

 

[Ko.Fe.]

I don't think it was only Winograd. They have to develop plenty of VM's films.
And it was very clearly explained why by GW and it is not really just an excuse why he was not developing, printing, but shooting. It is good technique for separation of fresh emotions and distanced objective look.

Here is the story. Our friends gave us media set. Furniture. In one of the cabinets I found exposed, not developed film. I took care of it and it was amazing. Did the photo book and framed picture. They have it at home now.
So, this way or another, it works.

 

[Timmyjoe]

It is good technique for separation of fresh emotions and distanced objective look.

I've read GW's take on this and I tend to agree with him. The emotion in the moment of making the image in camera, if the time frame before viewing is too short, can seriously color our evaluation of the image and whether we think it's "good" or not.

I find this comes in to play with shooting digital assignments on deadline where the editor expects me to send him only "selects". I have little objectivity about my work, when evaluating it within an hour of shooting it.

I think that is one of the things I find fascinating about how GW worked. How does it effect your process when you aren't checking or seeing your results until long after you've capture the images in camera.

Best,
-Tim

 

[x-ray]

The problem with doing this is the latent image on the film fades with time. Ive run rolls that I've stuck in a drawer for a year or two and you can tell the shadows have lost densit. Different films deteriorate faster than others but the all fade and eventually build up fog. One year you may or may not see a change depending on what film and how critical your eye is. I'd say VM's negs after many years are not optimum and have tested the skill of the person printing them.

 

[Huss]

I couldn't do it. I'm always excited to get my film back and would hate waiting too long.

 

[michaelwj]

When I shoot colour I wait until I have 8-10 rolls and process it all at once so I don't leave the chemicals too long.
Black and white, no way! Unless I'm travelling I process every roll (or two) as it happens. I try to develop something every week.

 

[ptpdprinter]

Here is the story. Our friends gave us media set. Furniture. In one of the cabinets I found exposed, not developed film. I took care of it and it was amazing. Did the photo book and framed picture. They have it at home now.
So, this way or another, it works.

Only if the images, which sat latent on the film in the drawer, were worthwhile from the outset. Images are not like wine; they do not improve with age in the canister. Of course, you can chose to look at them whenever you want, for whatever reason, rational or irrational.

 

[sreed2006]

Expressly because of what Garry Winogrand said, I have slowed down between finishing a roll of film and processing it. Although my record roll count was 16, not 2500, he was such a film burner it might have represented close the same amount of time (about 13 months for my longest unprocessed roll).

To be honest, I do not think it makes my pictures any better, nor my judgement of them. So, having done the experiment, I am now on the path back to processing the film much closer in time to when I used it. The biggest benefit to the "closer in time" method is to remember more about how I took the shot. I still see film photography as a learning experience. Winogrand was way beyond that stage, no doubt.

 

[B-9]

Winogrand and I have this is common,

I have about equal parts exposed and new film sitting...

I know I have atleast 1200ft unexposed...

Maybe I need to get on this!

 

[PRJ]

The fact that he left so many rolls of film undeveloped means most of what he said in his life was complete bullsh!t. Photographing to see what things look like? Apparently not. 2500 rolls is way beyond waiting to see fresh images. Most of it was garbage too.

I've never understood the appeal of Winogrand. I think he was just "annointed" and no one ever questions it. Lots of photographers better than him. I think he appeals to a certain "type" of person, but that person is not me. I never really cared much either way about him but I heard a recording once of him bashing Ralph Gibson who in my opinion has more talent in his little pinky. Hell of a lot more intelligent too. I thought it was hilarious.

I've never left too many rolls undeveloped because of the reasons Don brought up. If you want to wait, just file the negs and look at them later. Usually the week or two that sometimes elapses is all the time you need.

 

[michaelwj]

The fact that he left so many rolls of film undeveloped means most of what he said in his life was complete bullsh!t. Photographing to see what things look like? Apparently not. 2500 rolls is way beyond waiting to see fresh images. Most of it was garbage too.

I've never understood the appeal of Winogrand. I think he was just "annointed" and no one ever questions it. Lots of photographers better than him. I think he appeals to a certain "type" of person, but that person is not me. I never really cared much either way about him but I heard a recording once of him bashing Ralph Gibson who in my opinion has more talent in his little pinky. Hell of a lot more intelligent too. I thought it was hilarious.

I've never left too many rolls undeveloped because of the reasons Don brought up. If you want to wait, just file the negs and look at them later. Usually the week or two that sometimes elapses is all the time you need.

As with all artists who are "anointed" as great, he was in the right place at the right time doing the right thing with the right friends. It's not a matter of who was (or is) better, better is subjective anyway. Name any "great photographer" and I can name someone who is "better" and should be more highly regarded but isn't.

I'm not defending him or the system - it just is what it is.

 

[kiemchacsu]

I have 3-rolls tank and 8-rolls tank, all are Paterson. Normally I will wait until I have 2-3 rolls to develop. The 8-tank is used when I have load of films after a photo trip. So, no way that I can have similar situation of GW.
BTW, anyone knows the current situation of his 2500 undeveloped films?

Not talking about his talent, which I alway found impressive. More thinking about his "output" and the thought that when he died, he left 2500 rolls of exposed film, undeveloped.
...
-Tim

 

[jbharrill1]

I've always wanted to be more like this and wait until I have at least 15-20 rolls to really see if the amount of time elapsed actually helps me find what I do and don't like but I still can't seem to get past 2 rolls. Mostly I'd say because I've had such bad experience in the past with bum cameras developing light leaks, shutter capping, etc that I really just don't want to end up with 15 rolls that I know are all going to be more or less ruined (or at least not how I originally intended) due to a camera malfunction.

The longest I've gone was about a year after I found a few one time use cameras that were lost in a move, but I would hardly say that this example counts.

 

[Phil_F_NM]

I have about 250 rolls of film to develop, some date back to 2005 I think.

Phil Forrest

 

[PRJ]

As with all artists who are "anointed" as great, he was in the right place at the right time doing the right thing with the right friends. It's not a matter of who was (or is) better, better is subjective anyway. Name any "great photographer" and I can name someone who is "better" and should be more highly regarded but isn't.

I'm not defending him or the system - it just is what it is.

You are correct Michael. it is like an ecosystem thing if you are lucky enough to be in it.

 

[nobbylon]

I’ve probably got atleast 4 SD cards full of images I haven’t looked at!
Makes me wonder what’s on them now.

 

[Doug]

While not in GW's league, my procedure involves a delay too... though digital. I shoot in batches like rolls of film, usually around 100 shots +/- that may be done over several weeks, more like daily when traveling. At the close of each day's shooting I review the "take" briefly for the purpose of making notes about locations and subjects and anything notable.

But it is usually some months later that the raw files are brought into the software for post. Then there's a delay following that before anything is printed or uploaded. I may get 6 months or more behind on this. Just now uploading some shots from August. So there is some time perspective, fresh looks at the work. Mostly banal anyway, but I think it is more enjoyable.

 

[webOSUser]

I only have one undeveloped roll of film, I have over a hundred folders of digital images that I need to import into Light Room and process. Does that count?

 

[Tompas]

(...) So I was wondering, does anyone leave their exposed film for months or years before processing it?

Yes, I do. I believe forgetting the emotions I had when making an image lets me judge it more 'objectively'. I learned that from Winogrand.

Still, the true reason I develop later is very practical. I haven't got the time-time.

 

[Tompas]

The fact that he left so many rolls of film undeveloped means most of what he said in his life was complete bullsh!t. (...)

With all due respect, that's bullsh!t.