Bob Michaels
nobody special
Counter question: would I have started photography at all if I had died in 1953?
Same answer!
I frequently dwell on what photography would be like today if George Eastman had died of some disease in his childhood.
Turtle
Veteran
I'm not so sure, because there are photographers today who still choose to shoot B&W film, despite having the option of digital. I'm talking Magnum shooters and the like.
B&W film is still very different to digital, not least due to staggering dynamic range.
It depends on preferences and priorities. Most would shoot digital, for sure, but not all. Not all do, so that is quite clear.
Winogrand was a product of the time and there is absolutely no point in trying to place him in another one. Zero. its a bit like saying, 'what would Winston Churchill be doing now if he had been born in a small Indian village in 1968?'
B&W film is still very different to digital, not least due to staggering dynamic range.
It depends on preferences and priorities. Most would shoot digital, for sure, but not all. Not all do, so that is quite clear.
Winogrand was a product of the time and there is absolutely no point in trying to place him in another one. Zero. its a bit like saying, 'what would Winston Churchill be doing now if he had been born in a small Indian village in 1968?'
Mario Alessi
Newbie
I wonder if the cave wall painter (using stone as a medium and blood as paint) felt oil on canvas was easy and not lasting.
I wonder if the oil painter (using canvas as a medium and oil as paint) felt photographs were easy and inferior.
...
I wonder if the digital photographer (using screens as medium and pixels as grain) will fell that 4D memory recorders that program than human brain directly is easy and inferior to the look of digital.
After all that which is most real fades. Our memories.
And that which is least real is most permanent. Carvings in stone.
Everything else is in the middle. We add relevance and self importance by the nostalgia of was before is better because somehow what we have now is fleeting. Perhaps our need to recapture our youth and a time of wonder and everything was new and we had no concept of the end.
I wonder if the oil painter (using canvas as a medium and oil as paint) felt photographs were easy and inferior.
...
I wonder if the digital photographer (using screens as medium and pixels as grain) will fell that 4D memory recorders that program than human brain directly is easy and inferior to the look of digital.
After all that which is most real fades. Our memories.
And that which is least real is most permanent. Carvings in stone.
Everything else is in the middle. We add relevance and self importance by the nostalgia of was before is better because somehow what we have now is fleeting. Perhaps our need to recapture our youth and a time of wonder and everything was new and we had no concept of the end.
Turtle
Veteran
Was it any cheaper to shoot film then? I doubt it.
Was he sponsored by Kodak? Some photographers were sponsored and some still are...
Was he sponsored by Kodak? Some photographers were sponsored and some still are...
SausalitoDog
Well-known
Great point. Bill was the last holdout on the street !!!
V-12
Well-known
When he died Winogrand left 4000 rolls of exposed film, unprocessed and clearly with no urgency to have it processed.
Towards the end of his life he found what he wanted from photography by simply pressing the shutter. Knowing by experience that the image captured was either good or bad was enough before moving on. He didn't want or need to see the image on a strip of negatives or as a print. So using film wasn't his main concern. He didn't care about film, he never did, he cared about a photographic way to capture life and film was all that was available then. I think it is a delusion to re-inforce your own preferences if anybody thinks he would still be using film if alive now. Film was just a means to an end, and the amount he used should be a clue that it wasn't the perfect medium, vast amounts used like ammunition in a machine gun in the hope that one image would emerge.
Winogrand would be using digital if alive now, he had no reason to think kindly of film, no reason to love it, he would ultimately have thought it was just something that got in the way, and would be happy to be liberated from it for his style of work.
Towards the end of his life he found what he wanted from photography by simply pressing the shutter. Knowing by experience that the image captured was either good or bad was enough before moving on. He didn't want or need to see the image on a strip of negatives or as a print. So using film wasn't his main concern. He didn't care about film, he never did, he cared about a photographic way to capture life and film was all that was available then. I think it is a delusion to re-inforce your own preferences if anybody thinks he would still be using film if alive now. Film was just a means to an end, and the amount he used should be a clue that it wasn't the perfect medium, vast amounts used like ammunition in a machine gun in the hope that one image would emerge.
Winogrand would be using digital if alive now, he had no reason to think kindly of film, no reason to love it, he would ultimately have thought it was just something that got in the way, and would be happy to be liberated from it for his style of work.
Turtle
Veteran
This isn't logical, Captain. Shooting vast amounts had nothing to do with deficiencies in the medium. It was how he shot (due to deficiencies in getting from an act of photography to something he thought worth looking at in print).
There are plenty of people who still shoot film, not because of love, or romance, but because it gives them the results they like best.
Winogrand produced prints and books and sold them. Ultimately his decision would have taken account of many factors and we just don't know where he would have ended up. This is after willfully ignoring the fact that he was a product of the times and could not exists, as he did, now, no matter how much we try to convince ourselves otherwise.
There are plenty of people who still shoot film, not because of love, or romance, but because it gives them the results they like best.
Winogrand produced prints and books and sold them. Ultimately his decision would have taken account of many factors and we just don't know where he would have ended up. This is after willfully ignoring the fact that he was a product of the times and could not exists, as he did, now, no matter how much we try to convince ourselves otherwise.
V-12
Well-known
Winogrand 'worked the subject' to end up with a choice of images, of which there is bound to be a higher failure rate than success rate. Its easy to see by looking at the contact sheets. Part of the failure rate is not being able to chimp film, so extra shots are the insurance policy. He shot lots of film because he needed to. But if he had a digital camera he would have known exactly what he was getting. Winogrand would have happily done away with guesswork for knowledge about what he was achieving, contentedness with the limitations of film in this respect is an amateur photographers luxury, not for somebody who is trying to earn a living.
Turtle
Veteran
Yes, but the chimping is done after the shutter is actuated. There is a cost associated with shooting film, but he would have needed to shoot no fewer frames. Digital does not remotely alter the shooting technique (for this sort of high speed street work), only what you do afterwards: discard the file, or be forced to develop the roll and then ignore the neg. Its also worth noting that Winogrand repeatedly stated that he deliberately chose not to develop film quickly to ensure that he was able to look at the frames, and edit them, with fresh eyes, not ones tainted by memory of what it felt like to shoot it.
You keep referring to the amateur-pro distinction and think you are creating a very sharp and artificial divide. Photographers who are most definitely professional and who shoot film almost or completely exclusively show that your assertion is untrue, or at least not absolute. There are amateurs who decline to shoot film due to the limitations you mention and pros that do despite them.
You keep referring to the amateur-pro distinction and think you are creating a very sharp and artificial divide. Photographers who are most definitely professional and who shoot film almost or completely exclusively show that your assertion is untrue, or at least not absolute. There are amateurs who decline to shoot film due to the limitations you mention and pros that do despite them.
gb hill
Veteran
Winogrand would wait months before processing the negs. He said in interviews he didn't like seeing his images immediately after he shot them. I doubt he would have changed his philosophy on this. As for the money to purchase film, he received fellowships & grants to support his photography.