Doesn't seem like a relevant question to ask without age coming into play.
Would Winogrand be shooting digital if he were alive today?
- Thread starter kingqueenknave
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 69
- Views 10K
Doesn't seem like a relevant question to ask without age coming into play.
kingqueenknave
Well-known
Well sometimes people will posit things like, "If Shakespeare were alive today, would he be writing plays, or directing movies in Hollywood?" Most would probably think about the idea without stating, "If Shakespeare were alive today he would be something like 450 years old, and dead."
kingqueenknave
Well-known
This post wasn't intended to become a "film is for sonneteers, digital is for sloths debate" folks.
umcelinho
Marcelo
of course he wouldnt be shooting digital, after all he only shot 120 in the era of 135, right? 😉
DominikDUK
Well-known
Didn't Winograd believe in not developing his films right away because he felt he needed to get some distance to the subject/shoot. So following this premise Winograd would very likely not have used a digital camera as it goes against something Winograd believed in.
Dominik
Dominik
I understand the other side of the coin, but everything that comes with being associated with a timeframe and / or movement makes it very hard to pluck them out their era and just plop them into another one... since art is generally based on life experience and that experience would no doubt change.
There is a major difference between Winogrand and Shakespeare. Winogrand could be alive today since humans have lived past 84 years... but rembrandt couldn't be.
I let time go by before I process my digital files too. There is nothing saying that you have to view them the second after you make them. There are plenty of film users who develope right after making the photos too.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
That's very true!
Quite often when I shoot a gallery opening with the D700 I don't look at the files for up to a week. That space gives me a chance to detach myself from the event before editing.
Jamie123
Veteran
Oh, I think you've completely misunderstood. I wasn't trying to say that film has 'more soul' or that there's something magical about film per se. What I was trying to say is that there's something about the materiality of film that satisfies a certain fetish for collecting things, for 'capturing' things in the world with a camera, in a way that digital doesn't (at least not for me). It's something phenomenological if you will. And of course it's completely silly and I would love it if it didn't matter at all to me (would save me a fortune) but it does.
In any case, I'm not too interested in making hypothetical statements about what Winogrand would or wouldn't do. All I wanted to say is that it's not all clear that just because someone is a great photographer doesn't mean they're all about the picture and not about the process.
I can agree with that.
kdemas
Enjoy Life.
PKR said:
They actually have a Winogrand exhibition going on right now. Free if any locals want to go.
gb hill
Veteran
& give up Tri-X 😱 No, I don't think Garry would change. I watched the interview again just the other nite with Mrs. Diamonstein & Winogrand reminds me of myself. He's not very tech savvy. A real diehard film shooter.😉
Jamie Pillers
Skeptic
If he'd been born into the digital age, then yes I think he'd be out there with his GR Digital and Fuji X100 blasting away. And he wouldn't even bother with Silver Efex... just use JPEGs straight out of the camera.
But if he came to digital late in like, like so many of us here, he'd likely keep dipping his toe into digital (via the RFF classifieds no doubt), and he'd keep complaining that digital can't do B&W (even though there's no real visual evidence of that here). 🙂
But if he came to digital late in like, like so many of us here, he'd likely keep dipping his toe into digital (via the RFF classifieds no doubt), and he'd keep complaining that digital can't do B&W (even though there's no real visual evidence of that here). 🙂
paulfish4570
Veteran
i have enjoyed this thread. it inspired to me to look at as many winogrand photos as i could over the past hour.
something struck me hard: winogrand liked people. and as he apparently never had run-ins with his subjects because of his own engaging personality, this sets him apart.
i know other people made his prints from his choices on contact sheets. did his liking of people start with the shot, or with his contact sheet choices? we will ever know, i suppose. but what will the people in charge of his archives turn up? i have a feeling his enjoyment of people always will be evident.
winogrand was no gilpin. he was winogrand, and we should be thankful for it ...
something struck me hard: winogrand liked people. and as he apparently never had run-ins with his subjects because of his own engaging personality, this sets him apart.
i know other people made his prints from his choices on contact sheets. did his liking of people start with the shot, or with his contact sheet choices? we will ever know, i suppose. but what will the people in charge of his archives turn up? i have a feeling his enjoyment of people always will be evident.
winogrand was no gilpin. he was winogrand, and we should be thankful for it ...
Dirk
Privatier
I think he'd be using an iPhone.
johannielscom
Snorting silver salts
Counter question: would I have started photography at all if I had died in 1953?
Same answer! 😀
Same answer! 😀
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
World Winogrand be doing 3D animation or performance art? Would he be jobbing as a sewage worker, waiter, ballet dancer or rodeo rider? Would be he female, a dog or extraterrestrial? We don't know - but it is extremely unlikely that everybody with his DNA is genetically forced to be a Leica film photographer regardless whether born 3000 B.C. or in the 23rd century...
_goodtimez
Well-known
Roots would have grown from his M4 up inside his arm, so I would not be able to remove them.
Seriously I think he would have tried but then realize after a few hickups and loss of data that digital was not his thing. We would have gone back to film and stick to it.
Seriously I think he would have tried but then realize after a few hickups and loss of data that digital was not his thing. We would have gone back to film and stick to it.
twopointeight
Well-known
I have not read the whole thread. It might be interesting to note that the great Lee Friedlander, a contemporary of Gary Winogrand, recently had an exhibit in SF of new work, shot with a Leica M, fast b&w film, of windows and reflections taken in NYC. It all sounds very retro, but the work was stunning and transcends the debate and the notion that totally new ideas in art are required. Sometimes you just keep mining without regard for trends. He also purchased a very large supply of darkroom printing paper several years ago, (like $40,000 worth), when he thought supplies might become scarce. Winogrand might have, or not, gone the same route? This is all second hand information from other photographers closer to the source, but I had no first hand knowledge.
F
fstops
Guest
Winogrand shot at least 20 rolls every time he went out, which was everyday. With prices of film today he could only do that if he was a rich amateur.
Similar threads
