kingqueenknave
Well-known
Just curious to read what people think? I'll go out on a limb and say maybe.
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
Just curious to read what people think? I'll go out on a limb and say maybe.
Wow, putting your head way above the parapet there... Risky statement, that "maybe"
Anyway, I'm sure he would. No better way of shooting lots and lots of shots. He would have probably left his estate a few hundred hard drives full of unopened RAW files.
kingqueenknave
Well-known
Haha, and yeah, I think you're right about those unopened RAW files.
doolittle
Well-known
Stacks of sd cards more likely!
muser53
MUSER53
Just curious to read what people think? I'll go out on a limb and say maybe.
If he was able to express himself to his satisfaction sure. The camera in the end is just a tool. R Crumb's Mr Natural put it this way...Use the right tool for the job.
anjoca76
Well-known
My first thought was, yes, of course he would, given how prolific he was and how much film he went through. But the more I think about it, I'm not so sure. Digital has a lot of good things going for it (from what I hear), but one of them is not the way it renders b&w, and while GW did shoot in color at different points in his career, he mostly shot b&w. If he were still around today, I'm going to say he'd still be shoot Tri-X 400 with an M.
timor
Well-known
Of course, no doubts. Cartier to. They were not quite full craftsmen, they were leaving the processing of their materials to others. Not, that they didn't know, how, just they sucked at it so badly. Thus digi would be for them a gift from the heaven.Just curious to read what people think? I'll go out on a limb and say maybe.
gns
Well-known
Digital certainly would fit with his approach and it's easy to see him being all over it.
Possible reasons he might have stuck with film...
1. Not wanting to learn a new process after decades of tr-x.
2. He was said to have been somewhat superstitious, so I could see him possibly having some distrust of things digital.
Possible reasons he might have stuck with film...
1. Not wanting to learn a new process after decades of tr-x.
2. He was said to have been somewhat superstitious, so I could see him possibly having some distrust of things digital.
If he was alive today... he'd be 84 years old. Since he appeared to use the same camera for the bulk of his known work, I doubt he'd bother going digital. He would've been in his 70s when everyone else was going digital.
I have to say no.
I have to say no.
venchka
Veteran
Yes. Along with Ansel Adams and Eliot Porter. Gary would have several terabytes of memory cards waiting to be "developed".
Wayne
Wayne
Aristophanes
Well-known
Prolific = digital.
jordanstarr
J.R.Starr
When you have assistants and interns to run your film and others to print for you, why would you bother going digital?
timor
Well-known
Is not the task of the computer inside the digital camera to remove the problem of exposure ?Both Winogrand and HCB were often not very close to being on the money when it came to good exposure. B+W film is much more forgiving of improper exposure. I can't imagine them chimping.
I maybe skewed a bit the question for myself, I imagined them having digi technology in their days. They both shoot with Leicas and TriX, the best technology of the time. Today's digital Leica would suits them perfectly. They were not romantic lovers of film, they were professionals bent on fame and money. They were shooting about 2-3 thousand frames per week to pick 3-4 meaningful images. Digital technology would free them from a lot of hassle.
Ronchnam
Established
Could you imagine than Guy Le Guerrec went to digital ?
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?...75241287735.401142.75684997734&type=3&theater
Regards
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?...75241287735.401142.75684997734&type=3&theater
Regards
Dave Jenkins
Loose Canon
Would Winogrand shoot digital? Like an automatic shotgun!
cosmonaut
Well-known
I read Winogrand's work suffered once he got a winder. He probably wouldn't be famous if he had been born in a different time. I also think he would have a problem shooting in today's world. The world is a lot less innocent. Paranoid.
jippiejee
Well-known
Would Rembrandt have run a digital photography portrait studio had it been around back then? It's all so uncomparable. I guess the answer is yes. And van Gogh would have shot Fuji I think.
Last edited:
NickTrop
Veteran
Yes, this is true of every famous photographer of note who shot 35mm. This is unquestionable. The only film shooters would be large format shooters like Ansel Adams.
gns
Well-known
Yes, this is true of every famous photographer of note who shot 35mm. This is unquestionable. The only film shooters would be large format shooters like Ansel Adams.
Before his death, Winogrand had bought an 8 x 10 camera and was planning to start using it when he finished his time in Los Angeles and moved back to New York. So...?
JHP
Well-known
Both Winogrand and HCB were often not very close to being on the money when it came to good exposure. B+W film is much more forgiving of improper exposure. I can't imagine them chimping. They both worked with B+W negative film and digital exposure is closely related to positive film exposure.
On a completely off topic note, would this mean the M monochrom would have a larger exposure latitude than a normal M9?
Share:
-
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.