Trying to understand Winogrand.

I like this page!
No Ned-AirFrogy+else America now talk, no "I don't understand GW pictures - I don't like it" talk!

Thanks and Cheers, Ko.
 
lukitas said:
Not sure. He does say his job as a teacher is to explain what he understands, and the students job is to ask what they don't understand...

I think Winogrand's philosophy is a version of Chauncey Gardiners tautological existentialism, or Gertrude Stein's 'A rose is rose is a rose...'
His quotes have a zen vibe. He said he liked photos where the photographer disappears, implying that only what happens between viewer to print count, not the photographer. He points out that the narrative content is in the eye of the beholder, photos just describe light on a surface. He says he only shoots what he finds interesting, and that the photograph has to be more interesting than what was there in front of the lens. He says the best photographs are fight between form and content, that is almost a failure. I dig that. Form alone makes for nice postcards, content alone can be very moving, but when content and form fight till you cannot see one for the other, the print becomes more interesting than what happened when you shot it. My father used to say a photograph has to touch the heart as well as the brain.
Shoot what grabs your eye, and later, when the emotions around the taking of the photograph have been forgotten, print what grabs your eye.
(Another saying of my father : you have to learn to kill your babies.)

This is what I understood from Winogrand. I may be entirely wrong, of course.

Cheers
Click to expand...

A very good explanation, IMO.
 
Ko.Fe. said:
I like this page!
No Ned-AirFrogy+else America now talk, no "I don't understand GW pictures - I don't like it" talk!

Thanks and Cheers, Ko.
Click to expand...

Ko don't know if I get it either and I think I've already said this but I think he was pushing the limits and taking the aesthetics that Frank had explored and was pushing them even farther. I think working in a post visual manner as did his good bud Meyerowitz they are going to shoot a lot. Working on total intuition and making sense of it all in post. I saw Meyerowtz speak many years ago and if I remember correctly that when Meyerowitz started moving in a different direction Winogrand didn't care for his new work. But this is just my take.

And yes I think lukitas has one of the best posts on the issue. I say just enjoy his work or not. I like some of his work. The backlit handicapped guy in the wheel chair (on Rodeo Drive) with the fashionistas walking past paying no attention. The kid on the bench turned back being the only one looking at him and the cow in the road photo are two of my favs.
 
I like most of Winogrand's work but not all of it. Some pictures leave me wondering what he saw in the moment but most of it is excellent.
 
Winogrand swung a lot and in the process hit more home runs than most... nothing more, nothing less.

Sometimes art doesn't need to be dug into more than what it is.
 
lukitas said:
....He says he only shoots what he finds interesting, and that the photograph has to be more interesting than what was there in front of the lens. He says the best photographs are fight between form and content, that is almost a failure. ..
Click to expand...

Yes... the famous "monkey problem".

"...well, let’s say that for me anyway when a photograph is interesting, it’s interesting because of the kind of photographic problem it states—which has to do with the . . . contest between content and form. And, you know, in terms of content, you can make a problem for yourself, I mean, make the contest difficult, let’s say, with certain subject matter that is inherently dramatic. An injury could be, a dwarf can be, a monkey—if you run into a monkey in some idiot context, automatically you’ve got a very real problem taking place in the photograph. I mean, how do you beat it?"

Garry Winogrand, Visual Studies Workshop, NY, October 9, 1970.
 
After looking again at his photographs, this time I went through close to nine hundreds in few days and another listening of videos with him and reading about trying wide angle Nikkor lens in pdf file provided in old thread I went on Toronto streets yesterday.

With Canon FTb and Vivitar 28 2.8 on it. The only wide and good lens I have...
Same happened as I have tried it with OM-10, OM.Zuiko 50 1.8 before.

You can't see what you are photographing. You have to nail the focus in manual SLR, but it is impossible if people are walking. And SLR mirror doesn't gives "the moment" anyway. External viewfinder is needed, but SLR lenses sucks for fast scale focusing as any other non-tabbed lenses. And the mirror flop. At one meter distance people look at me after picture is taken.

At least I understand why he was using Leicas :)

The rest wasn't even close in my pictures on quick check of developed negatives.
I have people close and ... nothing else. My best achievement was to get good light on them.
 
What people who looked at his negatives were saying.

Earlier HW - several good ones at one roll. With good frame in between completely different frames from different locations.
Late HW - they have to go through some amount of rolls to find good ones.

As the beginner, I'm after earlier HW :) I'll be happy to get something less complicated from his fifties.
 
Ko.Fe. said:
After looking again at his photographs, this time I went through close to nine hundreds in few days and another listening of videos with him and reading about trying wide angle Nikkor lens in pdf file provided in old thread I went on Toronto streets yesterday.

With Canon FTb and Vivitar 28 2.8 on it. The only wide and good lens I have...
Same happened as I have tried it with OM-10, OM.Zuiko 50 1.8 before.

You can't see what you are photographing. You have to nail the focus in manual SLR, but it is impossible if people are walking. And SLR mirror doesn't gives "the moment" anyway. External viewfinder is needed, but SLR lenses sucks for fast scale focusing as any other non-tabbed lenses. And the mirror flop. At one meter distance people look at me after picture is taken.

At least I understand why he was using Leicas :)

The rest wasn't even close in my pictures on quick check of developed negatives.
I have people close and ... nothing else. My best achievement was to get good light on them.
Click to expand...

It takes a a lot of time to get really good at. For Winogrand per his own words it was as much about the act of doing it as it was the finished result. Bresson talks about a developed instinct. Using DoF scales and timing are not easy. Meyerowitz talks about getting out everyday to get really good at it. Don't get discouraged with just one or two outings.

Just look how hard it is to capture someone in stride. If you have to think about it you miss it.Through some practice you can get good at it. Not saying you have to do it just saying with practice it becomes a kind of second nature. You can apply that to whatever you are trying to do in the moment.

Then seeing and capturing in the moment other elements in the frame that support the image takes a lot of time to become good at and achieve that developed instinct that Bresson talks about. Then add the way you see and want to capture the world. It's not easy to do well but stay with it and yes some tools do make it easier. Easy to read DoF scales and a rangefinder for many are just that tool.
 
Thank you, Allen, this is how I understood my "problems" exactly.

I'm not looking at DoF scale or on RF patch if lens construction is suitable for me. With tab and long enough focus run, I'm capable of taking it in focus with tab positions. If it is too short run, like on 35 Skopar or lens I tried yesterday it is difficult, long run like on old goggled Summaron and Summicron V1 - it is not so difficult once I'm keeping my regular "exercise" on it.

My main struggle is how to get not just people in the frame...
 
With a 35mm Lens at f/11 if you set the lens properly using the DoF scales you can have everything relatively sharp from about 5 ft to almost infinity in focus.

And yes the really hard part is not only finding interesting moments but then putting it together in some way that reflects your vision. With as many two dimensional images made in the last 5 years as probably all the 2 dimensional images made in history to that point I would argue it's all been done at one time or another. Everything or anything could be considered a cliche. Don't be afraid to be influenced. It's good but don't let it drive your vision. I think just follow how you see the world and it will shake out. Just try and be honest with your work. Just like with Winogrand there are going to be people that like it and there are going to be those that don't. If you are making everyone happy then you are playing it safe.

"No man has the right to dictate what other men should perceive, create or produce, but all should be encouraged to reveal themselves, their perceptions and emotions, and to build confidence in the creative spirit"-Ansel Adams
 
Ned Bojic said:
As we age we tend to shoot much more complex stuff. A big face, a one dinensional subject loud and clear is not good anymore.
We tend to go wider and much more complex.

My negs from when I was young show some very fine shots. I think this has something to do with naiveté as well as a fresh virgin eye that gets lost over time.
Click to expand...

One cannot make blanket statements Ned. If you listen to many different photographers, for example interviews with Mark Cohen, even Winogrand, they tended to narrow their vision as they aged going from primarily using wide angles, 28mm, to 35mm and even 50mm. But this is them. To each and us, our own.
 
Someone said this earlier, but the "American Dream" died with Kennedy. Americans had to face reality that something bigger then themselves were pulling all the strings.
 
Ned Bojic said:
Yes yes, sorry! I was writing about myself about going wide and i was general in my idea that we all shift from one spectrum to another as we age...
Click to expand...

Absolutely true Ned. When I was younger, I tended to use 28mm and sometimes 21. I still do. I hated 35mm and 50mm perspectives. Now, sadly older, I appreciate them a lot more. Though I'll never get rid of my 28 and 21!
 
35 on 35 is my comfort zone for street photography. I have time to observe and could get it close.
But I can't get it very close and wide.
I'm periodically trying 28mm and wider with most of the images coming out not as close as it has to be. And with something happening close to the middle of the photo and nothing around.
I'm framing it at 2, 1.5 meters. But in the images I like it seems to be taken at closer distances. And here is my major problem, I think. At one, two feet distance the street scene is changing too quickly for me.

How to deal with it? Frame it quick and trust instincts based on experience (practice) what it will be not just in the middle?

Earlier here it was suggested to me to watch GW's corners. I need some clarification on it. To me the corners at his pictures are with the content. I'm I right?
 
Yes just practice. THe more you work the easier it all becomes. If you do prefocus and pre set exposure then you can watch for all the elements that are important to you to happen and just be ready.
 
Stop down for depth of field, up speed for stopping motion.
Yes, a rangefinder is the better tool for this kind of work, but it isn't impossible with an slr.

Looking at Winogrand shoot : he keeps the camera close to his face (on a surprisingly short strap), and he's always adjusting focus, camera at his chin, and he only lifts the camera to his eye for the shot, for a fraction of a second. I think he had a few focus settings memorised : 3m, 2m, etc. At f8, focus can be pretty rough and still deliver.

About subject matter and originality. It can only be new for the first guy to do it. But what matters is how good it is, not how new it is. Phidias was new, Michelangelo was only an imitator; Caravaggio was new, Rembrandt was just a clone : these are absurd remarks. Phidias is mostly forgotten, and Rembrandt was really something else, even if he did get the mustard from Caravaggio. Originality is over-rated.

The hard part is also the easiest : it's training myself to see.
the great thing about the human brain is that it is very good at automating repetitive tasks : we routinely do things without barely thinking about them : changing gears, putting a key in a lock, stirring a cup of coffee. In photography, this is very good for the mechanics of taking a picture, but seeing requires your entire attention. Paying attention, in stead of only having your eyes open, is hard work.

I used to try and train myself at looking, without having a camera on me. Hunt for interesting frames, and then I would try to figure out what settings would work, guesstimate distances and exposures. And I still have to work at looking and seeing and paying attention, even as I am carrying my camera all the time now.

Having a collectors mindset helps, I guess. Instead of hunting for stamps, you hunt pictures.

The only true guide you have is your own 'Aha!' moments, the times you think : 'yes, this.' What I like about photography is that it is a two step process : first outside, and then on the contact sheet. The first step is volatile and uncertain, you depend on what is in front of you, and you can never fully control what happens there. Sometimes you're lucky, sometimes it feels as if you had two left feet at the end of your arms.
But in the dark-lightroom, you have full control.

Sorry for the long preachy stuff.

cheers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top