Could you "Winogrand"?

[jsrockit]

Sounds odd to me. I've never had anyone ask me how many rolls of film I shoot, so they wouldn't have a clue whether I shoot one or a thousand rolls of film a year, or how often I print. But then I don't volunteer a lot of information. I just go about making images. How many rolls one shoots and how often one prints really doesn't tell you much about the ability of a photographer. The proof is in the print.

Ok, as one of the people who urged Cal to print during this period, you have to understand one thing... we photographed together every single weekend for years and we talked about photography a lot over these days (and specifically about his photos that I did not see). I think it was only natural for me to have wanted to see his photos at the time... after years of going out together. Just a little back story from one of the people that gave him a hard time. Please note that Cal did start printing eventually... and went all in. 😀 Our friendship did suffer for awhile, but we survived it. 😉

By the way, I think there is some wisdom to GW's philosophy. The longer you take to look at your images, the less likely you are to be attached to the crap. I find editing after not looking at the photos for awhile a lot easier. No emotional attachment to the physical act of making the photos... just attachment to what works. IMO.

 

[ptpdprinter]

By the way, I think there is some wisdom to GW's philosophy. The longer you take to look at your images, the less likely you are to be attached to the crap. I find editing after not looking at the photos for awhile a lot easier. No emotional attachment to the physical act of making the photos... just attachment to what works. IMO.

There may be a bit of wisdom in it, but I demur. I know I am now more critical now of prints that I made in the past, and have done some winnowing of my archive, but I think that comes from living with them, not living without them, and improving my craft over time. The more ruthless you are in editing at the outset, the less often that occurs. I've definitely gotten better at editing (letting go?) over the years.

 

[Pfreddee]

It takes me forever to shoot a 36-exposure roll of B&W. By the time I've gotten to the end, and put the film in for processing, and picked it up 2-3 weeks later, I've forgotten what was on the roll. Being 76 years old helps, too. I find that I forget some stuff very easily nowadays.:roll eyes:

With best regards,

Pfreddee(Stephen)

 

[PRJ]

A.D. Coleman used to compare Winogrand to a monkey with a camera strapped to his head that would randomly shoot pictures of whatever the monkey happened to be facing at the moment the camera randomly fired its shutter.

I remember pissing off my photo professor in art school, who was a huge Winogrand fan, by reading one of Coleman's articles about G.W. in class 😛

That cracked me up Chris. One of the things I edited out of my original post was that of all well known photographers, Winogrand was the closest to a monkey with a camera! Funny to see Coleman thought the same. I'll have to see if I can find that.

Thanks for the chuckle.

 

[coogee]

I develop once i finish the roll, i like the lifestyle and the security to see what i got and that i did indeed get it. But I’m happy to wait for emotions to settle before printing it to try to be a little more subjective. That’s primarily 120 film though, which maybe lends itself a bit more naturally to a more selective way of exposing film.

I don’t know GW’s MO but many of these celebrated photographers didn’t have to trouble themselves with actually developing, let alone printing their work, outsourcing it to others and becoming a client to the end product which I’m sure would make a big difference to the experience.

I couldn’t imagine shooting so much film, i don’t think my thumb could take it!

 

[danielsterno]

my patience is 12-15 rolls max., GW as said above was born in the perfect time for what he was doing though he did have his style/eye which was his signature.

 

[jsrockit]

There may be a bit of wisdom in it, but I demur. I know I am now more critical now of prints that I made in the past, and have done some winnowing of my archive, but I think that comes from living with them, not living without them, and improving my craft over time. The more ruthless you are in editing at the outset, the less often that occurs. I've definitely gotten better at editing (letting go?) over the years.

I think we are saying the same thing... kind of... your last sentence sums it up.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

That cracked me up Chris. One of the things I edited out of my original post was that of all well known photographers, Winogrand was the closest to a monkey with a camera! Funny to see Coleman thought the same. I'll have to see if I can find that.

Thanks for the chuckle.

The article is in Coleman's book, Critical Focus: Photography in The International Image Community. P17.

"Gerry Winogrand was nothing more nor less than still photography's version of "Monkey Cam": A restless, anxious primate with camera attached, constantly scanning - unaware of, unresponsible for and uninterested in the results."

Later in the article, Coleman writes:

"How seriously can we take the droppings of a gluttonous voyeur who spent the last seven years of his life producing a third of a million negatives without bothering to look at any of them, much less analyze them critically?"

Coleman is one of my favorite writers on photography. I had the pleasure of meeting him the year I graduated from art school, and he signed my copy of "Critical Focus."

 

[jsrockit]

The article is in Coleman's book, Critical Focus: Photography in The International Image Community. P17.

"Gerry Winogrand was nothing more nor less than still photography's version of "Monkey Cam": A restless, anxious primate with camera attached, constantly scanning - unaware of, unresponsible for and uninterested in the results."

I think Gerry might have been that way, but I'm not so sure Garry was as clueless as AD thinks he was. 😉

 

[Michael Markey]

It seems that generosity of spirit is rather hard to find among some photographers.

I understand peoples likes and dislikes but that`s all it is.

Never heard of this Coleman chap .

 

[Calzone]

Sounds odd to me. I've never had anyone ask me how many rolls of film I shoot, so they wouldn't have a clue whether I shoot one or a thousand rolls of film a year, or how often I print. But then I don't volunteer a lot of information. I just go about making images. How many rolls one shoots and how often one prints really doesn't tell you much about the ability of a photographer. The proof is in the print.

PTP,

"I was just minding my own business," but because I stand out in a crowd people engage with me and inquire. Your idea that I was putting myself out there is all wrong. People inquired by virtue of their curiosity, and partly because of their wondering of about my images.

I was just going about making images and then intrusions just happened. After a while I ran with the ball out of spite. I don't like when people try to control me and tell me what to do. They are not my farther.

I would expect anyone with any self esteem to respond in the same manner when people cross bounderies. You have to understand that the behavior of others I interpret as being intrusive and inappropriate.

Why do I have to explain myself to anyone?

The proof in the print I somewhat agree with, but then again many people shoot digitally and never print. Most people here on this forum do not own or maintain printers. How many have darkrooms? A degraded overly contrasty image transmitted over the internet with a resolution of 75 DPI to me is not a way to judge photography.

Anyways it seems I disrupted a process that others can't get their head around. To many it seems making negatives is not photography. It insults people and causes harsh criticism, hostility and attacks.

And I find myself defending myself and offering explainations when all I was doing was "minding my own business" and best interests. I can tell you this: if you stand out, expect to be a target of oppression.

My being an individual seems to be anti-social behavior behavior at this point.

Cal

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

It seems that generosity of spirit is rather hard to find among some photographers.

I understand peoples likes and dislikes but that`s all it is.

Never heard of this Coleman chap .

He has long been one of the leading critics of photography, going back to the 1970s. I don't always agree with his writings, but he is someone I respect because he has a great love of phootgraphy and has a deep knowledge of its history, its current practice, and its relationship to both the art world and to popular culture.

 

[willie_901]

The Monkey Irony

The Monkey Irony

What an interesting coincidence.

GW consistently said what makes a photograph interesting was the "contest" between content and composition.

In an article titled "Monkeys Make The Problem More Difficult" Winogrand is quoted as saying:

“Basically, I mean, ah—well, let’s say that for me anyway when a photograph is interesting, it’s interesting because of the kind of photographic problem it states—which has to do with the . . . contest between content and form. And, you know, in terms of content, you can make a problem for yourself, I mean, make the contest difficult, let’s say, with certain subject matter that is inherently dramatic. An injury could be, a dwarf can be, a monkey—if you run into a monkey in some idiot context, automatically you’ve got a very real problem taking place in the photograph. I mean, how do you beat it?”

Image Magazine, George Eastman House – Vol. 15, No. 2, July, 1972

Then a photography critic calls Winogrand a monkey.

Winograd was awarded a Guggenheim Fellowship three times as well as a fellowship from the National Endowment for the Arts. I guess his selection was rigged?

MOMA curator John Szarkowski had the opposite view from Coleman.

The number of photographers who know about Winogrand's work vastly exceeds those who could tell you who A.D. Colman's. However, obscurity and excellence are not mutually exclusive. Neither are fame and mediocrity.

That's the great thing about art. Subjectivity enables diversity. Otherwise, art would be uninteresting.

 

[Calzone]

Interesting Cal. I thought of you when I saw this thread... your marathon developing sessions.

John,

It is all about process and developing skill and craft.

Kinda funny how the act of simply being a photographer, perhaps an odd one, leads to a big discussion about sociology. This never was my intent. LOL.

Clearly what I have done has disrupted the universe and deeply disturbed the masses. LOL.

Call me a terrorist because I created a high level of uncertainty that provoked people to become hostile and aggressive. LOL.

I find all this very powerful because while I still shoot film and only a few of these negatives have been printed, the power of this body of work to provoke and disturb society is really amusing. In a way it has become art. Basically and evidently I'm still a very good performance artist.

For those that do not know me like John, in my past I performed at The Joseph Papp Public Theater, Second Stage Theater on Broadway, The Puffin Room in SoHo, and at numerous colleges and universities throughout the northeast.

Anyways this is a funny thread. Ha-Ha...

Cal

 

[Calzone]

How many of you have shot and processed as much film as possible without an outside lab?

How many of you maximized number of image capture using film when it was less costly and relatively inexpensive as an opportunity?

How many have maximized their photography by going extreme to actually see how serious or how good you really are? How many can quantify their results by evidence and proof.

For clarity I differ from Garry in that I more or less processed my film in a timely manner to avoid degrading my images.

I also tend to roam all of NYC and did not stake out an area like Garry who concentrated and restricted much of his shooting to blow 59th Street till about 34th Street near Macy's.

Also for editing and evaluation over this decade of analog shooting I also have been shooting digitally for about 5 years as overlap. For the first two years of Leica Monochrom ownership I only again concentrated on image capture with a total disregard to printing, but today I maintain and a 3880 and a 7800 and now seem to annoy people with my printing. LOL.

Cal

 

[ptpdprinter]

I think we are saying the same thing... kind of... your last sentence sums it up.

I have gotten better at doing it (editing), because I do it regularly, not because I store up unprocessed film to do it sometime in the future, if at all.

 

[cz23]

....It is all about process and developing skill and craft....

Fortunately for me, this is not true. Otherwise, I'd find another hobby—one that puts a premium on feeling and expression.

John

 

[Calzone]

Fortunately for me, this is not true. Otherwise, I'd find another hobby—one that puts a premium on feeling and expression.

John

John,

Feeling and expression surely are part of my process.

Thanks for bringing it up. Also fun and challenge.

To a certain extent developing and making great negatives is not so different than printing. Another missed point. The same skills and technics are use.

Critical thinking in making great negatives surely is exercised in making great prints.

The most important thing about your post is that a lot has gotten unsaid.

Cal

 

[Calzone]

In this year's Photoville I was lucky to secure one of the 600 tickets to attend a live interview featuring Peter Souza who was President Obama's Photographer for his two terms.

Peter estimates he took about 2 million photo's over eight years. He also mentioned that during those eight years he only took one sick day and only used three weeks vacation.

Peter used Canon 5D's and carried two rigged cameras with different lenses as not to have to change lenses. I am sure at this rate of shooting that he wore out a few bodies. The reason he choose Canon DSLR's was due to the fact that they offered the quietest shutters.

At the time of the interview it pre-dates the release of a book, a very-very thick big book that comprizes of images he took over those eight years. In the interview about a dozen images were shown and discussed, and the back stories were all interesting facets of history being recorded. I'm sure that this big body of work was a bear to edit and the amount of time it took was vast and extensive.

Also note that physically Peter expressed that he was exhausted. Pretty much he needs downtime to refresh. To me Peter Souza is a modern day Winogrand because of his exhaustive shooting.

Cal

 

[jsrockit]

I have gotten better at doing it (editing), because I do it regularly, not because I store up unprocessed film to do it sometime in the future, if at all.

Me too...I do a rough edit quickly (within days), then revisit it during a few months and edit more, than revisit again after years and edit more. I am always editing then... until something is just done. I'm all digital though these days.