angelopartemi
SnakeFace
A mad genius! Great stuff
gns
Well-known
He spoke very generously about work that he liked, but he didn't mince words over work that he didn't. Hard to say about Davidson. My guess is that he found it more in the vein of illustration or journalism which he didn't seem interested in at all.
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
rivercityrocker
Well-known
I watched the whole one hour and forty-six minute "lecture" today. He rails against SLRs at one point and it's really funny. I really wish he was around today. I'd love to hear what he thought about AF and DSLR's and digital RF cameras.
35photo
Well-known
I could listen to him for hours.. I certainly wish he was still alive today..
airfrogusmc
Veteran
Well he might like the MM. Gibson hated digital until he tried one.
Bob Michaels
nobody special
I listened to the unedited Winogrand video today and then a lengthy one with Cindy Sherman. I just started them playing, then opened another tab in my browser and went back to work. When I heard something that I thought would be enhanced by the video, I just tabbed over and rewound to the part with something I wanted to see.
And the part of Winogrand's where he dissed SLRs made sense after hearing him give his reasons. Nothing to do with focusing but the subconscious mindset about "building" an image with different focus layers as shown on the screen of an SLR vs. the more direct looking through the finder of an RF camera where the image simply is or is not interesting without regard to what is in focus or is not.
rivercityrocker
Well-known
The funny part is that since many of the current crop of rangefinder photographers were raised using SLRs or even DSLRs, there is still that tendency to try to build the image using focus layers even though you can't see it visually. I think this is why a lot of photographers obsess over fast lenses and "bokeh". The want to build that image even though they can't see it.
The thing about Garry is that you have to dissect and think about what he is saying because he speaks "visually" so to some it's hard to grasp what his real point is. I like the fact that he keeps going back to the split prism and saying, they put a rangefinder mechanism in the SLR to help you focus, who needs the flapping mirror?.
The reason why he is so entertaining is that he tries so hard to articulate into words what he is visualizing in his head, and he often makes it hilariously convoluted. I think a lot of people don't get Garry because they think too literally.
rivercityrocker
Well-known
I don't think he'd use a digital camera at all. He was more about making the image than looking at the image. I don't think instant feedback mattered to him or he could have easily had someone processing his film all along and he wouldn't have amassed such a huge volume of unprocessed film.
But debating this kind of stuff is a nowhere discussion. He's dead and we'll never know.:angel:
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
But if the image (the final one, the print) has selective focus, Winogrand's idea is not valid: an SLR gives a much better idea on the real look of the image and on how interesting it can be or not because of that selective focus...
And considering an SLR doesn't let us see if an image is interesting is a gross exageration... It would happen only in 0.1% of the cases, with a fast lens focused close while the image is about to be shot with a small aperture; totally unusual, and maybe just a mind game of his, a theory or a concept and nothing else... Millions of great shots are made with SLR's, in all fields...
I admire Winogrand a lot, but some of his comments can/should be taken with caution... Saying he was not a street photographer was another interesting comment discussed here on RFF not long ago...
Or considering him someone who didn't care about exposure... Mmmm... How do we call in English someone who never cared about exposure but exposed well a million shots? Lucky?
He no doubt cared, just as much as film requires, and just like all of us do... Just my opinion, and anyone's opinion can be different and it's OK with me...Cheers,
Juan
rivercityrocker
Well-known
If you didn't see the whole video then you probably missed the part where he says he can only tell you about his experience. He says this more than once or twice. Winogrand never claimed that his opinions were the be all, end all words of wisdom in photography. He was simply calling it as he sees it.
When you start putting absolutes into the mouth of someone who wasn't speaking in absolutes is where the problem comes in.
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
Hi, we all know his opinions were his...
Sorry if you see a problem coming in: I don't.
As I said, my opinion... No problem with others' opinions...
Cheers,
Juan
rivercityrocker
Well-known
You said his idea regarding SLRs wasn't valid because it didn't take into consideration selective focus. But it IS valid to Garry Winogrand. He wasn't very concerned about selective focus. He was talking about his pictures and his experiences.
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
I don't care... Obviously it wouldn't matter to me if he came back to life to shoot differently... I don't want that... That would mean nothing to me: It wouldn't affect my shooting in any way.
And if I see contradiction in some of his opinions, or if I just don't buy some of his self promoting attitudes, it shouldn't matter to anyone either. Both if he's a God to anyone, or not, no one should care about what I think.
Cheers,
Juan
And if I see contradiction in some of his opinions, or if I just don't buy some of his self promoting attitudes, it shouldn't matter to anyone either. Both if he's a God to anyone, or not, no one should care about what I think.
Cheers,
Juan
Michael Markey
Veteran
This has been one of the most interesting threads for a while.
Thank you for posting , Bob.
Thank you for posting , Bob.
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
Yes Bob, thanks for posting! I've seen dozens of original prints of Winogrand photographs, and I respect his work, and basically I like the same photographers he likes... I enjoyed the long interview... It's been interesting in several ways...
Cheers,
Juan
Cheers,
Juan
zvos1
Well-known
Great video, thanks for posting!!
Sejanus.Aelianus
Veteran
Agreed. Most importantly, no-one is a god, to anyone but a fool.
JoeV
Thin Air, Bright Sun
This has been a very interesting thread.
I'm old enough to have been enthused about photography in the late 1970s, and to have been an avid reader of photo magazines at the time. I can state unequivocally that the relationship between selective focus and the photographer has changed in the intervening years. To many working professionals at that time, capturing the subject was of prime interest, rather than deploying some kind of visual gimmick to appear artsy or clever, like selective focus, which if it did occur was because the available light and film speeds of the day required a wide-open aperture. Again, it was about whatever it took to capture the subject.
All this has changed in the intervening years, to the point that artifice and affectation seem at times more important than the subject being depicted.
I'll go out on a limb here and speculate that, if he were alive and working today, Winogrand would be using a small-sensor camera like a Fujifilm X10, rather than a 135-sized sensor camera. He didn't care about selective focus, and the smaller sensor would give him intrinsically wider DOF to the point that, in bright light, focusing would be irrelevant to the success of the image. Of course, such speculation is pointless, really.
Thanks again to all who contributed to this great thread.
~Joe
I'm old enough to have been enthused about photography in the late 1970s, and to have been an avid reader of photo magazines at the time. I can state unequivocally that the relationship between selective focus and the photographer has changed in the intervening years. To many working professionals at that time, capturing the subject was of prime interest, rather than deploying some kind of visual gimmick to appear artsy or clever, like selective focus, which if it did occur was because the available light and film speeds of the day required a wide-open aperture. Again, it was about whatever it took to capture the subject.
All this has changed in the intervening years, to the point that artifice and affectation seem at times more important than the subject being depicted.
I'll go out on a limb here and speculate that, if he were alive and working today, Winogrand would be using a small-sensor camera like a Fujifilm X10, rather than a 135-sized sensor camera. He didn't care about selective focus, and the smaller sensor would give him intrinsically wider DOF to the point that, in bright light, focusing would be irrelevant to the success of the image. Of course, such speculation is pointless, really.
Thanks again to all who contributed to this great thread.
~Joe
Rodchenko
Olympian
Interesting discussion and links. I've seen many of Garry's photos, but never heard (or read) his words.