Could you "Winogrand"?

[ptpdprinter]

Crazy, isn't it? The accounts I've read say his daughter drove him around L.A. while Winogrand, with two 10-roll packs of Tri-X, shot out the window with a motor-driver SLR. He then threw the exposed film into plastic bags and forgot about it. That's not normal.

And yet some people emulate the process as a virtue.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

... It’s annoying...

Exactly this....

Annoying to read this load of "at the end he...".
We have RFF member who was at classes run by Winogrand. And not just for one year. But why bother to read what exactly the truth about what Winogrand was saying why film needs to chill for half-a-year or so. Why read and understand something which is clear and makes sense.
No, it just comes to beating of same old horse again, again and again - how "bad" he was then he became not well.

Master was doing what he wanted most. As long as he could. Just shot and explore. This is what he always told, what he liked most. But for some here it is not normal.

 

[cz23]

Exactly this....

Annoying to read this load of "at the end he...".
We have RFF member who was at classes run by Winogrand. And not just for one year. But why bother to read what exactly the truth about what Winogrand was saying why film needs to chill for half-a-year or so. Why read and understand something which is clear and makes sense.
No, it just comes to beating of same old horse again, again and again - how "bad" he was then he became not well.

Master was doing what he wanted most. As long as he could. Just shot and explore. This is what he always told, what he liked most. But for some here it is not normal.

Ko.Fe., I think you're dismissive because some of us are interested in different aspects of his life than you are.

It's a fascinating biography of one of the greats of the contemporary art world. Personally, I find the arc of people's lives at least as interesting as the work they leave behind or whatever working methods they used.

Read accounts of his last year by his friends, like Papageorge, and you'll see something happened inside the man. To me that psychology is intriguing, much in the same was as HCB or Frank giving up photography. You can't expect everyone to see in people's lives only what you see.

John

 

[jsrockit]

Crazy, isn't it? The accounts I've read say his daughter drove him around L.A. while Winogrand, with two 10-roll packs of Tri-X, shot out the window with a motor-driver SLR. He then threw the exposed film into plastic bags and forgot about it.

That's not normal.

Yeah, it's not normal... but it is very hard to maintain making great photos for a long period of time and perhaps he was searching for a new way to work (and he knew it wasn't working). He started in 1954... and we are talking about what he was doing in the 80s. In between, there were some very good photos IMO. Most photographers shoot a lot to get a very little when using a small format camera... especially in the street.

 

[JoeV]

Winogrand never was normal. He was borderline genius. Genius is never normal.

Yes, many of us would like to better understand his methods and motivations. But you can only understand so much, the rest is the inscrutable workings of a genius, and both the good and bad that comes with genius. I'm just glad we have as much of his work to enjoy as we do. But that doesn't mean I'm going to go out and try to emulate him, any more than we should emulate HCB or St. Ansel. Each to their own. Find your own genius.

 

[Calzone]

Yeah, it's not normal... but it is very hard to maintain making great photos for a long period of time and perhaps he was searching for a new way to work (and he knew it wasn't working). He started in 1954... and we are talking about what he was doing in the 80s. In between, there were some very good photos IMO. Most photographers shoot a lot to get a very little when using a small format camera... especially in the street.

John,

I have been shooting with intent for only a decade and NYC is not really that big. It really and truely is hard to have the momentium that carried Garry through 25 plus years. Not easy to sustain, and we all get stale.

We do things like shoot with other cameras, formats, and mediums. We test new gear. I for one shoot film and digital, and use various cameras to try and keep me challenged and fresh.

In my own work, while not spray and pray, it takes lots of shooting to get to those truely outstanding shots. Perhaps if I am lucky 1 in a thousand is special. Then again sometimes it is just a lucky shot because I'm out there doing it. Then out of them how many would be iconic? When I mean iconic I think of an image that I remember because it persists in my memory, and I can't forget it. To get these iconic shots you just got to shoot and keep on shooting.

I think what I learned from Garry is that it is a bit of a numbers game. It does amount to shooting a lot, and some people utilize shooting a lot as part of their process.

Cal

 

[willie_901]

Exactly this....

Annoying to read this load of "at the end...".
...

Which is how come I wrote:

...
However, for about twenty years GW was clearly more interested in using his camera than developing, editing and sequencing his work.

However, GW's behavior at the end was very different than it was in during the earlier stages of his career.

 

[airfrogusmc]

John,

I have been shooting with intent for only a decade and NYC is not really that big. It really and truely is hard to have the momentium that carried Garry through 25 plus years. Not easy to sustain, and we all get stale.

We do things like shoot with other cameras, formats, and mediums. We test new gear. I for one shoot film and digital, and use various cameras to try and keep me challenged and fresh.

In my own work, while not spray and pray, it takes lots of shooting to get to those truely outstanding shots. Perhaps if I am lucky 1 in a thousand is special. Then again sometimes it is just a lucky shot because I'm out there doing it. Then out of them how many would be iconic? When I mean iconic I think of an image that I remember because it persists in my memory, and I can't forget it. To get these iconic shots you just got to shoot and keep on shooting.

I think what I learned from Garry is that it is a bit of a numbers game. It does amount to shooting a lot, and some people utilize shooting a lot as part of their process.

Cal

I think Winogrand said when asked about why he shot so much he said that "art is not a product of industrial efficiency"

 

[airfrogusmc]

Then there is Arbus who would cover her walls of her apartment with prints and she would pull down the ones that she tired of. The ones that remained over time would be the ones that she thought were relevant. There are as many ways to evaluate your work as there are photographers.

 

[Calzone]

Then there is Arbus who would cover her walls of her apartment with prints and she would pull down the ones that she tired of. The ones that remained over time would be the ones that she thought were relevant. There are as many ways to evaluate your work as there are photographers.

Allen,

Lately I have been utilizing printing to review my images. It seems scale comes into play. I have printed images 20x30 on 24x36 paper, and more recently have printed and created 2"x3" business cards of the same images.

Pretty much it has become content that persists in the images that transcends formats, even though every image kinda has its ideal image size.

What is useful with the business cards is that one can see 30-40 images at once. The 20x30's kinda almost present themselves as sculpture to the viewer.

Another Winogrand project is shooting baby Linhof's with 70mm CINE backs that utilize 15 feet of film for almost 70 6x7's without having to reload. Diane Arbus carried three Rollie's in a knapsack to avoid missing shots due to empty cameras or reloading.

I just bought a JOBO 3013 that can hold the three fifteen foot reels currently in my possession.

Cal

 

[jarski]

My theory is that Winograd increased his chances of getting something by increasing volume. But he knew through age and experience when roll had higher chances of containing good shot or two, and developed only those. Perhaps he marked them right when they came out of camera.

 

[cz23]

It surprising to me that there's no biography of GW, at least not that I've been able to find. Anyone know of one?

John

 

[DrMcCoy]

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

I currently have a bag of 45 (possibly more) unprocessed rolls - it's not what I want but I completely hate darkroom work and put it off forever. I personally think it's a terrible idea for a starting photographer but for someone established and sure of their craft it's probably useful. This is maybe even better for us now, where so much is instant turnaround, than it was for Winogrand. That being said, if you're working on a project (as I am) uh, develop your ****in rolls ya lunatic.

 

[Calzone]

In 70mm on 15 feet of film I get about 60 6x7's plus some bonus frames. One reel is more than 6 rolls of 120. I have three stainless steel fifteen foot reels and with a JOBO 3013 tank I just bought where I can process 180-210 6x7's in one tank. The three stainless steel reels fit in the JOBO 3013 like they were engineered. The base centers the reels and likewise the tapered top does also. With the lid secured the stack of three reels also are secured enough that I can either invert or roll the canister for aggitation.

Also know that I own three Linhof CINE's. Two are 6x7's, but the third is an odd rarity that can do 645, and that translates into over 120 exposures without having to reload. This 645 CINE I can remove the mask and convert to 6x7. I can fill my three reels without having to reload.

I have been building up to exploit Rollie 400S that I can secure from MacroDirect in Gemany. This is fresh film and not dated film. Early tests using 120 rolls for testing indicate the 400 ISO is greatly exaggerated and that my film speed is more like 125-160 ISO.

Looks like I might be able to do rotational aggitation, if I can simulate the continuious JOBO RPM of a processor. I also secure non daylight loaders for loading 70mm cassettes that also serve for loading Nikor and Kindermann stainless steel reels.

I am building a very serious medium format capability that gets my film cost back down to about $3.00 per 120 equiv. Nice thing is that I can develop the equiv of 18-21 rolls of 120 in one tank at a time. If I use the 645 CINE I get an additional 60-70 images. The Baby Linhof Tech V has a Zeiss 53/4.5 Biogon: in 6x7 it is like a 28mm; in 645 it becomes a 35mm FOV.

Will use a Kodak 3 1/2 gallon hard rubber tank as a film safe for loaded reels, and pre-fill the JOBO with developer. In the dark drop the loaded reels to avoid the long pour time, and then daylight process from there.

I maximize shooting and minimize not only costs, but also required time of processing mucho images. For me film is still cheap. I continue to Winogrand.

Cal

 

[Tijmendal]

I haven't developed my B/W for well over a year now I think. I gotta admit, I'm curious. Working on a darkroom now, so I'll be able to soon! 🙂

 

[Big Ursus]

"Then there is Arbus who would cover her walls of her apartment with prints and she would pull down the ones that she tired of."

Yes, when I had a studio, that's what I'd do. It also helped tremendously to show me when I needed to make better prints, and it was especially useful with the sequencing of the pictures.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

Then there is Arbus who would cover her walls of her apartment with prints and she would pull down the ones that she tired of. The ones that remained over time would be the ones that she thought were relevant. There are as many ways to evaluate your work as there are photographers.

I've done that for years when planning an exhibit, especially if its a big one that I need more than 3 or 4 photos for. Its a technique I was taught in art school over 20 years ago!