Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
I'm looking at forum and here is gear talk. While been busy by myself with trying of new things for candid photography I'm trying to understand what I want to get from street pictures. Wide lensing to get close to people on mobile phones or while they are eating... no. Play of shadows and light ... may be.
I'm watching videos with Winogrand and trying to get what he was saying about it. Something about observing the life...
I'm watching videos with Winogrand and trying to get what he was saying about it. Something about observing the life...
bonatto
looking out
If you have not yet, watch this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wP6lP3UaP24&spfreload=10&noredirect=1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wP6lP3UaP24&spfreload=10&noredirect=1
RMPoole
Established
This is an interesting article on Winogrand. http://erickimphotography.com/blog/2012/08/20/10-things-garry-winogrand-can-teach-you-about-street-photography/
airfrogusmc
Mentor
Yeah the 1960s were a joyous time in the US. LoL.
Race riots. The assassinations of John and Robert Kennedy. The assassination of Dr Martin Luther King. The street were alive with violence.
Race riots. The assassinations of John and Robert Kennedy. The assassination of Dr Martin Luther King. The street were alive with violence.
airfrogusmc
Mentor
I would suggest looking at what has been suggested and spending a lot of time studying his work. He did like to play with the edges of the frame a lot.
Dan Daniel
Well-known
Street shooting is a problem of geometry and dance. You need to determine the point in space and polar coordinate aim of the lens to put the people and street in the place you want, all while the people and you are moving. Then you need to dance until you get to that spot so your camera and your shutter-trip all put everything where you want. And as with a golf swing or tennis stroke, you need to dance *through* that moment, not just up to it.
Look at Winogrand's images and reverse-engineer how he get the camera where it was, and what was flowing along to make him take that particular shot.
Look at Winogrand's images and reverse-engineer how he get the camera where it was, and what was flowing along to make him take that particular shot.
Gregoris
Established
It is impossible to be doing street photography today in the same style as Winogrand did 50 years ago. It is not the same type of game any more. Ned Bojic' answer is to the point (however, I would not say that the US were a happy place back then, there was still optimism /the American Dream, but that illusion had started to get shattered by the end of the decade).
Also, our streets have been cluttered by visual noise and awful, cheap, computer typeface shop signs or street signs of any kind with garish colours. Plus, the clothes people wear now keep them apart and not integrated with their environments. All these and also the way that everyone is so conscious about the representation of their own "image" that makes authenticity disappear, nothing looks spontaneous, genuine and interesting.
I really believe that photographers like Meyerowitz have had an easy ride, living in times where it would be enough to just point the camera at something and you would get an interesting enough picture, most of the time, because there was some coherence and even narrative in the visual perception of reality (that sounds too pretentious, but here it is).
Another interesting example for me is R.Depardon's "Manhattan Out" book - which I really like - where he is walking around Manhattan in the winter of 1979 (I think) and he shoots from the hip (he did this as a means to cure himself of his depression) but he never wanted to publish the pictures because he didn't think they were that good. I don't know why he now changed his mind (money?) and he agreed on publishing these "rejects" but they really look interesting, compared to what you would get today if you went around shooting from the hip.
Just my opinion, like the Dude would say.
Also, our streets have been cluttered by visual noise and awful, cheap, computer typeface shop signs or street signs of any kind with garish colours. Plus, the clothes people wear now keep them apart and not integrated with their environments. All these and also the way that everyone is so conscious about the representation of their own "image" that makes authenticity disappear, nothing looks spontaneous, genuine and interesting.
I really believe that photographers like Meyerowitz have had an easy ride, living in times where it would be enough to just point the camera at something and you would get an interesting enough picture, most of the time, because there was some coherence and even narrative in the visual perception of reality (that sounds too pretentious, but here it is).
Another interesting example for me is R.Depardon's "Manhattan Out" book - which I really like - where he is walking around Manhattan in the winter of 1979 (I think) and he shoots from the hip (he did this as a means to cure himself of his depression) but he never wanted to publish the pictures because he didn't think they were that good. I don't know why he now changed his mind (money?) and he agreed on publishing these "rejects" but they really look interesting, compared to what you would get today if you went around shooting from the hip.
Just my opinion, like the Dude would say.
Last edited:
Rick Waldroup
Well-known
Viewing Winogrand's photos is a beautiful experience. They are full of humor, hope, geometrical insanity, and most of all, they contain an intrinsic human element that everyone recognizes instantly.
Ned is right. He photographed in a different time, almost it seems, as though in a different universe.
I have several of his books. I have seen his prints in person numerous times which is always an enjoyable experience.
Ned is right. He photographed in a different time, almost it seems, as though in a different universe.
I have several of his books. I have seen his prints in person numerous times which is always an enjoyable experience.
johannielscom
Snorting silver salts
What a bogus article that Eric Kim thing is.
Eric Kim is as shallow as a soup plate, IMHO.
If you cannot get this, you cannot ever 'get' what Winogrand was about, because those things are the essence of him as a photographer!
The poor Eric even gets the math out to get a point across (which point, for Pete's sake?) about Winogrand. And that was just after he shared his doubts of shooting too little or too much for a photographer:
Really, Eric?
Photography Winogrand-style:
* Follow your gut and shoot as much as you need to scratch the itch
* Put your photos aside for years because it will detach you from the memory and allow you to evaluate the true content of the image
* The scene is not the same thing as the picture you took from it. In Winogrands words: "I photograph to see what things look like when photographed."
* Rule out emotion when assessing your images. Comes to mind, a shot I saw online of a three year old in a diaper, asleep on a bed. No doubt a very valuable picture for the guy who took it but a totally useless shot for the rest of the planet.
Eric Kim is as shallow as a soup plate, IMHO.
If you cannot get this, you cannot ever 'get' what Winogrand was about, because those things are the essence of him as a photographer!
The poor Eric even gets the math out to get a point across (which point, for Pete's sake?) about Winogrand. And that was just after he shared his doubts of shooting too little or too much for a photographer:
Really, Eric?
Photography Winogrand-style:
* Follow your gut and shoot as much as you need to scratch the itch
* Put your photos aside for years because it will detach you from the memory and allow you to evaluate the true content of the image
* The scene is not the same thing as the picture you took from it. In Winogrands words: "I photograph to see what things look like when photographed."
* Rule out emotion when assessing your images. Comes to mind, a shot I saw online of a three year old in a diaper, asleep on a bed. No doubt a very valuable picture for the guy who took it but a totally useless shot for the rest of the planet.
MikeL
Go Fish
What I see in Garry Winogrand's photos is how he took things that interested him- women, humor, situations like public events, animals at the zoo, people on the street- and tried to capture them in an interesting photograph. If I had his passion for working on those puzzles I'd take a lot of photographs too.
johannielscom
Snorting silver salts
When it comes to Winogrands approach on the streets, this is the most telling clip to watch (also because it is dubbed in German and when you cannot understand that, it's easier to just watch): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJgJtmnt_HI&feature=related
I'm always amazed by how he instantly acts like a total goof between or after shots. Is it a play he put on or was he slightly embarrassed by taking the shot just before, I cannot tell. But it is very effective since many people think that that funny man with the camera is harmless.
To me it shows he put the pictures before anything, including what people would think of him. That's dedication to what you're doing.
I'm always amazed by how he instantly acts like a total goof between or after shots. Is it a play he put on or was he slightly embarrassed by taking the shot just before, I cannot tell. But it is very effective since many people think that that funny man with the camera is harmless.
To me it shows he put the pictures before anything, including what people would think of him. That's dedication to what you're doing.
Gregoris
Established
Also, one more point, photography as an art form is in the process of constantly re-inventing itself and this process is a dialectic one, where new ideas come to challenge old ideas about what it is to be "street" and what it is to be indeed "photography".
There was a movement back in the 70s spearheaded by W.Eggleston and his famous Red Ceiling picture (1973), when there was talk of the "democratisation of the image" or some bull like that, where every photograph was just as valid and important as any other because it was framing the reality around us, and framing fragments of reality alone was a valid reason to grant any photograph its merit.
I think Winogrand did the same, he often said the reason he photographed was to see what the world looks like in a photograph, or something like that. Also, he shot at least three rolls of film per day, with the picture tally resembling that of the digital age.
These are all now old ideas and nobody really thinks like that, because mobile phones with cameras have totally devalued the currency of photography. So, photography is a bit of an empty word today.
There was a movement back in the 70s spearheaded by W.Eggleston and his famous Red Ceiling picture (1973), when there was talk of the "democratisation of the image" or some bull like that, where every photograph was just as valid and important as any other because it was framing the reality around us, and framing fragments of reality alone was a valid reason to grant any photograph its merit.
I think Winogrand did the same, he often said the reason he photographed was to see what the world looks like in a photograph, or something like that. Also, he shot at least three rolls of film per day, with the picture tally resembling that of the digital age.
These are all now old ideas and nobody really thinks like that, because mobile phones with cameras have totally devalued the currency of photography. So, photography is a bit of an empty word today.
johannielscom
Snorting silver salts
Don't put too much stock in his known or shown collections and books.
The clip I love most is this one https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wP6lP3UaP24 where he talks for an hour and 45 minutes and really gives up a lot of his m.o. and motivations and views.
From 42 minutes onwards he tells how his books and shows at the time came about: he wouldn't pick the same twenty shots two days in a row and most of his editing and cropping was done by others.
The clip I love most is this one https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wP6lP3UaP24 where he talks for an hour and 45 minutes and really gives up a lot of his m.o. and motivations and views.
From 42 minutes onwards he tells how his books and shows at the time came about: he wouldn't pick the same twenty shots two days in a row and most of his editing and cropping was done by others.
airfrogusmc
Mentor
Here's the realty. 30 years ago if you were out on the streets with a camera even a small one you stuck out. Everyone noticed. I could shoot all day and rarely run into anyone and if I were in a touristy area maybe on or two. The reality today is I can't go two blocks with out seeing someone with a camera. And if you are working with a small camera I rarely get noticed. Everyone is so used to seeing camera's and people taking pictures unlike it was 30 years ago. Not everyone loved to be photographed back then. In fact kinda the opposite. Why are you taking my picture? What are you going to do with it? I had a lot more issues with people then than I ever have today. This is the reality in a major US city today.
So to try an marginalize Winogrand's work by saying it was easier is an uniformed statement.
So to try an marginalize Winogrand's work by saying it was easier is an uniformed statement.
daveleo
what?
I'll get fried for saying this, but ..... going back to the title of this thread .... I don't think there is too much to understand in Winogrand's work.
He shot endless rolls of film, spent endless hours out on the streets, and came home some memorable photos after shooting for decades.
I personally don't see much art (there's an argument right there) in what he produced. And given the number of pictures he made, I can't say that I see a lot of deliberate talent either.
So . . . IMO what's to "understand" is to get out there for hours every day and shoot for 30 years. You're bound to end up with a pile of great shots.
I am not being combative here, or trolling, that's is honsetly how I see his work.
He shot endless rolls of film, spent endless hours out on the streets, and came home some memorable photos after shooting for decades.
I personally don't see much art (there's an argument right there) in what he produced. And given the number of pictures he made, I can't say that I see a lot of deliberate talent either.
So . . . IMO what's to "understand" is to get out there for hours every day and shoot for 30 years. You're bound to end up with a pile of great shots.
I am not being combative here, or trolling, that's is honsetly how I see his work.
Kwesi
Well-known
Ko.Fe, Just as in this thread, there were many photographers in Winogrand's time who simply didn't understand what motivated him.
Winogrand once flippantly mentioned that he photographed just to see what things looked like photographed. He was very aware of and curious about the uniqueness of the time he lived in and needed to share that with himself through his photography.
Today we are on the cusp of an equally unique set of circumstances in the developed world. Your images of Toronto that you make in between work show that you share the same curiosity with him.
Dektol Dan
Well-known
Just a Generational Thing
Just a Generational Thing
I'm old. Winogrand is okay. Cartier-Bresson was better. Times were different then too.
Both photographers predicted the digital era of shoot like a skeet shooter on meth for one or two good shots.
Go figure, my dad was a great photographer. His name? Why, Frank Jackson.
Just a Generational Thing
I'm old. Winogrand is okay. Cartier-Bresson was better. Times were different then too.
Both photographers predicted the digital era of shoot like a skeet shooter on meth for one or two good shots.
Go figure, my dad was a great photographer. His name? Why, Frank Jackson.
Shadows and light is popular. Just find a good shadow prospect and wait for people to walk in and out of it. Some wait 30 or 40 min. It is not for me. I do wait sometimes, but very seldom. I am more of a pouncer.
I waited for this for 5 min. That is my limit.
https://danielteolijr.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/titty-beads-copyright-2014-dnaiel-d-teoli-jr.jpg
Winogrand was not a great photog. He shots lots of crap. He only had a few great pix.
Google image search for Women are Beautiful and look at his Rodeo book... Garbage. I liked Winogrand for his sayings more so than his pix. He only had a handful of great pix. The gossip on the bench, the elephant trunk at the zoo and a few more. when he was ill he had a guy drive him around L.A. near the Farmers Market while he machine gunned anything on the street...yea a real winner he was.
Once the museums 'make' the artists anything they sign their name too is valuable. I blame the curators.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Garry-WINOG...703?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item3397f08a17
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Garry-WINOG...816?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item4adf16abb0
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Garry-WINOG...023?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item3397f0970f
Hjortsberg
Well-known
There was comment about this in the big Winogrand SF show about 2 years ago. Upon returning to NY after being gone for a long while, Winogrand noticed the anger and distrust in people's eyes/faces. He noticed things had changed.
