part 2 - how do you know if you have vision?

[crawdiddy]

This reminds me of Harvey Keitel in "Smoke".

He looked through the VF to set up the shot, but was looking at his wrist watch while pressing the shutter 08:00 every morning.

The "vision" he had is how it would all look together after a certain amount of time.

Wow. Obscure film reference. And a fairly interesting one at that. Jim Jarmusch? I remember that when I saw it, I really wanted a cigarette, even though I had quit several years earlier.



Richard-- When do you sleep? It's got to be either 5 or 6 am in Le Pays Basque.

 

[andersju]

Winogrand was simply a consumer of film, he usually didn't even bother looking toward the thing he was photographing, it was completely random.

Definitely not so. Quoth Coffee and Workprints: A Workshop With Garry Winogrand by Mason Resnick:

"He was constantly looking around, and often would see a situation on the other side of a busy intersection. Ignoring traffic, he would run across the street to get the picture."
...
"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."

See him in action:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Tl4f-QFCUek (part 1)
http://youtube.com/watch?v=-Zk1nkZ3-kE (part 2)

You will notice that indeed, he always looks in the finder.

 

[f/stopblues]

My objection to Winogrand was that he had no clue what he was photographing till he processed his film, if he even bothered to do that. The man left 9000 (yes NINE THOUSAND) rolls of 36 exposure film that he had never looked at when he died in 1984. Those represented the last 3 yrs shooting for him. Most of the rolls had not even been developed, and the ones that had been processed had never been contact printed or edited.

He deliberately delayed processing and looking at his film for many months or longer. He did that so that he could look at the picture objectively, without the influence of his memory and subsequent emotional attachment to the picture. I think most of us have gotten excited about a photo we've taken, only to look at it after some time and realize it wasn't any good to begin with.

In any case, that entire premise is based on the fact that he could be emotionally attached to the memory of the scene. If he "had no idea what he was photographing" then there would be no threat, and thus, no reason to make a fuss about delaying his processing.

 

[35mmdelux]

In a simple way, vision can be envisioning how an image will appear before you take the photo. Galen Rowel used to emphasize this ability.

Long live Galen!

"vision can be envisioning how an image will appear before you take the photo" is more about craft.

The vision I speak of is knowing where you are going, more gestault. A mismash of photos is not vision, even if they are good, unless there is some common thread running thru them (para: Ralph Gibson).

Piccaso had vision as did Van Gogh as did HCB.

 

[M. Valdemar]

You should try to see Jim Jarmusch's movie "Mystery Train".

 

[williams473]

This is a good thread --

I think apart from the literal definitions of vision, which are valid, my two cents is that in the artistic sense, "vision" refers to the idea one has in their head for the way they want their images to look on paper. Then you go out and try and "shoot your vision."