Would Winogrand be shooting digital if he were alive today?

gns said:
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...?
Click to expand...

The question was, would ______ have shot digital? All 35mm shooters of note would have shot digital if it was available then, if they were alive now. Shooting LF is a different type of photography that requires filum - then and now. For "street photography" and documentation, digital is good enough, equal to film in IQ, and better suited in many important regards ("endless" shooting, no need to change rolls, variable iso, no processing, etc.)

Likely, however, the (pleasing imo) aesthetic of grainy b&w natural light photography would not have evolved, since digital does low light color so well. Back then they were pushing the hell out of black and white film, creating this aesthetic almost inadvertently.
 
He might. But he might just as easily have been one of those complaining how the M8 wasn't full frame, and how the M9 has such lousy high ISO performance, and how the MM is too expensive. And that the Canon 28 can't be coded properly. His website could be updated every six minutes, and he might be constantly bitching. That Winogrand, such a whiner.

NickTrop said:
..."endless" shooting, no need to change rolls...
Click to expand...

I've cleverly avoided this by using tiny SD cards. :)
 
he was a child of the time.

my guess is that, given a time warp event (he coming forward or technology going backward), he would shoot digital.
 
jordanstarr said:
When you have assistants and interns to run your film and others to print for you, why would you bother going digital?
Click to expand...

That's actually a good point. One big advantage of digital is convenience and speed of delivery, but well, I still like the look and feel of chemical processes better. Having the processing and printing done for you removes quite a lot of the time costy burden of doing it oneself and one can concentrate on shooting, given that you are more interested in shooting than in darkroom work. Good darkroom work is a craft by itself and a good photographer is not necessarily a good printer. Given that your definition of photographer does not encompass printing and darkroom work. I have the impression that printing is an art by itself which is curcial to the final appearance and impact of the image. Ideally a good photographer can do both.

As for the question if Winogrand would use digital or film I can say I am not really sure, because I can not imagine Winogrand in our times. Winogrand is Winogrand. He lived in a certain time and he used what was available in his times.
 
Well Bill Cunningham finally switched to digital so you never know :)

If I was a betting man I'd go HCB yes, GW no.
 
daveleo said:
he was a child of the time.
Click to expand...

I was just about to type exactly that. :)

Regarding the actual, 84-year-old Garry. Not the "Garry in his 35mm street prime dropped into here and now": I'm often confusing Garry with Lewis Black, who of course does nothing but bitch, but still I can almost hear Garry saying "Why would I need that??? What problem do I have that it would solve?"
 
gho said:
Good darkroom work is a craft by itself and a good photographer is not necessarily a good printer. I have the impression that printing is an art by itself which is curcial to the final appearance and impact of the image.
Click to expand...
I agree, but, I prefer photographers who process film and print by themself. It is like full circle of creation. As AA said; negative is like a partitur, whoever prints it is like a conductor. Photographer giving up printing is giving up something from his art. And this is happening in professional digital imaging on regular bases, one guy makes the set up and squeezes the trigger, second is making edit and sends file to the printer. Usually two guys from the same agency.
 
The greats always seem to have the best they could get their hands on at the time. But would Tiger Woods be as great with old wooden clubs and a golf course that was anything less than perfect?
Or could Booby Jones cut it today if he couldn't hit a golf ball 350 yards with a Titanium club. We will never know. I think Winogrand's biggest issue today would be the additude of the people on the streets. I love his work and would like to the he would be even greater now because he would have the freedom to endlessly shoot without worrying about film cost ect.
 
i could see him owning a m4/3 or something for snapshots but for his serious work, no. i think he would still be shooting a film leica.
 
I don't know the answer to the OPs question, but I recall an interview in which GW talked about solving the (visual) problem and also commented that once you've made the exposure (where you stand, where you point and when you press the shutter release) that it isn't very plastic. Digital technology has change that and that would make GW different if he was shooting now.

The contrast between hoping to come home with a great picture and making one from the bones of one or more captures in photoshop is one of philosophy really

Mike
 
If he was around Leica would be tripping over themselves to get an M9M into his hands I suspect.

But I think he'd tell them where to put it and he'd keep shooting film!
 
If he did have a digital M, he'd be shooting it, for sure. Just like with film, he'd have a few terabytes of images no one has ever seen! :D

Phil Forrest
 
He might shoot something like the Ricoh GRD ... but his philosophy, as with members of that generation, would be non-digital: One camera, one lens, bright image viewfinder, no reframing, minimal post processing. He taught briefly at the Institute of Design and it was a no-nonsense school. We talked once on Hollywood Blvd, where I worked at an all night newsstand, about the German Bauhaus about which he seemed to have very strong opinions. Mostly I remember that all during our conversation he was photographing people standing behind me leafing through magazines - their attractive rear sides. He'd smile and nod after he took a shot. After that I'd notice him mid-afternoon at Farmers Market on Third Street, at the cappuccino stand where screenwriters used to hang out and practice pitches. He'd sit at a round linoleum-topped table with only his coffee, a New York Times and his Leica in front of him. Anyway I think he'd want something you could shoot without any fuss ... (and without a myriad of tiny buttons and commands).
 
steveniphoto said:
i could see him owning a m4/3 or something for snapshots but for his serious work, no. i think he would still be shooting a film leica.
Click to expand...

I don't think he was one to make a distinction between "snapshots" and "serious work."


sojournerphoto said:
(where you stand, where you point and when you press the shutter release) that it isn't very plastic. Digital technology has change that and that would make GW different if he was shooting now.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure this still matters when shooting digital, especially when shooting moments...


summaron said:
He might shoot something like the Ricoh GRD ... but his philosophy, as with members of that generation, would be non-digital: One camera, one lens, bright image viewfinder, no reframing, minimal post processing ...
Click to expand...

I think he did quite a bit of "reframing" while shooting film. Take a look at some of his contact sheets.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sojournerphoto
(where you stand, where you point and when you press the shutter release) that it isn't very plastic. Digital technology has change that and that would make GW different if he was shooting now.

I'm pretty sure this still matters when shooting digital, especially when shooting moments...


Yes, the key point was that in GWs time it wasn't very plastic after the event. It's now become the norm, if internet chatter is to be believed, to clone away and move objects around to improve the composition. Just a different approach, but one that is very different in underlying philosophy.
 
I agree with what sojournerphoto is getting at in his posts - there's a good chance, I believe, that if Garry Winogrand was alive today he wouldn't be shooting anything because he would be utterly disgusted with the direction that photography has turned - that is, away from depiction of reality as it is, to the current (and probably forever changed) situation in which photographs can no longer be trusted as documents of "what the world looks like in photographs".

Here is another GW quotation (from Wikipedia):
"I like to think of photographing as a two-way act of respect. Respect for the medium, by letting it do what it does best, describe. And respect for the subject, by describing as it is. A photograph must be responsible to both."

Given this, I think Garry Winogrand - IF HE WAS SHOOTING AT ALL - would use whatever medium (film or digital) that he felt comfortable with and which fullfilled his aims.

But, if his aims were still to "describe the subject as it is", I feel he would be disappointed that no one except himself would trust his photographs as reliable descriptions.




sojournerphoto said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by sojournerphoto
(where you stand, where you point and when you press the shutter release) that it isn't very plastic. Digital technology has change that and that would make GW different if he was shooting now.

I'm pretty sure this still matters when shooting digital, especially when shooting moments...


Yes, the key point was that in GWs time it wasn't very plastic after the event. It's now become the norm, if internet chatter is to be believed, to clone away and move objects around to improve the composition. Just a different approach, but one that is very different in underlying philosophy.
Click to expand...
 
I've always seen Winogrand as the ultimate obsessive compulsive photographer. It seems like taking pictures was just something he had to do regardless of whether or not the picture would actually be seen eventually. It seems that for him it was more about the shooting than about the pictures.
I'm sure we all feel this compulsion from time to time and can relate to the soothingness of clicking the shutter. However, for me this is completely lost when working with digital. There is a feeling of having captured something when I work with film whereas with digital I'm merely recording something. It doesn't matter in regards to the picture but it does matter in regards to how the act of photography makes me feel.
For this reason I'm not so sure digital would have satisfied him very much. Walking home from a day's shoot with a bunch of rolls in your pocket feels very different from walking home with data on a memory card.
 
Jamie123 said:
I'm sure we all feel this compulsion from time to time and can relate to the soothingness of clicking the shutter. However, for me this is completely lost when working with digital. There is a feeling of having captured something when I work with film whereas with digital I'm merely recording something. It doesn't matter in regards to the picture but it does matter in regards to how the act of photography makes me feel. For this reason I'm not so sure digital would have satisfied him very much. Walking home from a day's shoot with a bunch of rolls in your pocket feels very different from walking home with data on a memory card.
Click to expand...

My god, I can't believe soul wasn't mentioned here... ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom