Joe Wigfall

gb hill said:
I read this article just yesterday about Mason Resnik's experience with Garry Winogrand.

I tried to mimic Winogrand's shooting technique. I went up to people, took their pictures, smiled, nodded, just like the master. Nobody complained; a few smiled back! I tried shooting without looking through the viewfinder, but when Winogrand saw this, he sternly told me never to shoot without looking. "You'll lose control over your framing," he warned. I couldn't believe he had time to look in his viewfinder, and watched him closely. Indeed, Winogrand always looked in the viewfinder at the moment he shot. It was only for a split second, but I could see him adjust his camera's position slightly and focus before he pressed the shutter release. He was precise, fast, in control.

Here is the link: http://www.photogs.com/bwworld/winogrand.html
Click to expand...

Exactly. I agree that the viewfinder is the key to staying precise, and in control. I have taken a few street pictures without looking through the viewfinder but I don't walk around for an hour taking 600 pictures from the hip and then keeping 4. Its a bad habit that digital has forced lots of people to have.
 
endustry said:
Just wait until high quality HD video becomes standard. All someone will have to do is film a scene for however long they can due to storage constraints and then pull out individual frames and call them "photographs."
Click to expand...

I guess that is what it's coming to. What a shame. The only thing Im scared about is that Wal-mart will stop developing my C-41 film, or that I'll have nowhere to buy film.

I know lots of people are trading film for digital. But I started out with digital (I'm only 17) and after I switched to film and fully manual control, its gonna take something big to take me back to digital.
 
Hey I like Winogrand as much as the next guy but the idea that if he didn't like doing something (ie. not using the viewfinder) then the rest of us should just follow along is overboard.

Wigfall frames with his eyes but keeps the camera low. Sometimes he even takes his eyes off the frame! Goodness! This is hardly spray n' pray. And even if it was who cares? Try it, just like Tuolumme says: it is harder than it looks.

Let's keep in mind that Winogrand was also very prolific but did not produce a whole lot. 'Figments from the Real World' was edited down from an awful lot of frames. Critcizing Wigfall for editing his own work is silly (he says he shoots between 100-150- not 600!!) as it is something most people do.

Open minds and all that.;)
 
Clearly he has a discerning eye - I wonder what he could do if he used a viewfinder... right now he is a very good editor... picking the fortuitous frame out of the rest - he is shortchanging his vision by not honing in on what he sees - occasionally the camera records what he sees, but my bet is if he actually had the balls to frame the image - level the camera at his subject - he would be getting a lot more on film (or disk or whatever) than what he is getting now. That said, he might have the balls, but just not used them yet.
 
Keith said:
The theory about it not being an acceptable way to come up with images based on the digital camera's ability to blaze away at X amount of frames per second ... then select in photoshop is always going to come up with people like Joe and the technique he chooses to use.

I like his pics and I don't really care how he achieved them. He still has to have the eye to know which is the correct image ... street photography 'purism' is tedious!
Click to expand...

I guess that's our difference. I don't really like his pictures.
 
You don't have to like his photos, it's a matter of taste anyway. His style is just one way to get a low eye-level view that you can't get if you bring the camera up to your eye. That's the great thing about photography, anyone with a camera can call themselves a photographer!
 
maelswarm said:
That's the great thing about photography, anyone with a camera can call themselves a photographer!
Click to expand...

Yes, until that someone tries to really take *really* good pictures, then he'll realize that as his standard goes up, it becomes harder and harder to measure up.

Then he'll stop calling himself a "photographer" and that... is when someone learns something about humility. :)
 
shadowfox said:
Yes, until that someone tries to really take *really* good pictures, then he'll realize that as his standard goes up, it becomes harder and harder to measure up.

Then he'll stop calling himself a "photographer" and that... is when someone learns something about humility. :)
Click to expand...

I was making that statement tongue-in-cheek :) I'm happy to let photos speak for themselves, but in the end it comes down to your own personal taste and if you don't like someone's photos then you don't like them. There's no reason to criticize his technique, or try to explain your decision rationally, because there's always an equally valid counter argument.
 
I've tried shooting that type of photo from the hip and it's harder than it looks. Anyway, I'm sure anyone could get good at framing that way with some practice. The real trick to what this guy is doing is looking and timing. Publishing 3% of your photos is actually a very good ratio for a street photographer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom