Would Winogrand be shooting digital if he were alive today?

[kingqueenknave]

Just curious to read what people think? I'll go out on a limb and say maybe.

[rxmd]

Originally Posted by kingqueenknave

Just curious to read what people think? I'll go out on a limb and say maybe.

Wow, putting your head way above the parapet there... Risky statement, that "maybe"

Anyway, I'm sure he would. No better way of shooting lots and lots of shots. He would have probably left his estate a few hundred hard drives full of unopened RAW files.

[kingqueenknave]

Haha, and yeah, I think you're right about those unopened RAW files.

[doolittle]

Stacks of sd cards more likely!

[muser53]

Originally Posted by kingqueenknave

Just curious to read what people think? I'll go out on a limb and say maybe.

If he was able to express himself to his satisfaction sure. The camera in the end is just a tool. R Crumb's Mr Natural put it this way...Use the right tool for the job.

[anjoca76]

My first thought was, yes, of course he would, given how prolific he was and how much film he went through. But the more I think about it, I'm not so sure. Digital has a lot of good things going for it (from what I hear), but one of them is not the way it renders b&w, and while GW did shoot in color at different points in his career, he mostly shot b&w. If he were still around today, I'm going to say he'd still be shoot Tri-X 400 with an M.

[timor]

Originally Posted by kingqueenknave

Just curious to read what people think? I'll go out on a limb and say maybe.

Of course, no doubts. Cartier to. They were not quite full craftsmen, they were leaving the processing of their materials to others. Not, that they didn't know, how, just they sucked at it so badly. Thus digi would be for them a gift from the heaven.

[gns]

Digital certainly would fit with his approach and it's easy to see him being all over it.
Possible reasons he might have stuck with film...
1. Not wanting to learn a new process after decades of tr-x.
2. He was said to have been somewhat superstitious, so I could see him possibly having some distrust of things digital.

[jsrockit]

If he was alive today... he'd be 84 years old. Since he appeared to use the same camera for the bulk of his known work, I doubt he'd bother going digital. He would've been in his 70s when everyone else was going digital.

I have to say no.

[venchka]

Yes. Along with Ansel Adams and Eliot Porter. Gary would have several terabytes of memory cards waiting to be "developed".

Wayne

[Aristophanes]

Prolific = digital.

[jordanstarr]

When you have assistants and interns to run your film and others to print for you, why would you bother going digital?

[timor]

Originally Posted by PKR

Both Winogrand and HCB were often not very close to being on the money when it came to good exposure. B+W film is much more forgiving of improper exposure. I can't imagine them chimping.

Is not the task of the computer inside the digital camera to remove the problem of exposure ?
I maybe skewed a bit the question for myself, I imagined them having digi technology in their days. They both shoot with Leicas and TriX, the best technology of the time. Today's digital Leica would suits them perfectly. They were not romantic lovers of film, they were professionals bent on fame and money. They were shooting about 2-3 thousand frames per week to pick 3-4 meaningful images. Digital technology would free them from a lot of hassle.

[Ronchnam]

Could you imagine than Guy Le Guerrec went to digital ?

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?f...type=3&theater

Regards

[Dave Jenkins]

Would Winogrand shoot digital? Like an automatic shotgun!

[cosmonaut]

I read Winogrand's work suffered once he got a winder. He probably wouldn't be famous if he had been born in a different time. I also think he would have a problem shooting in today's world. The world is a lot less innocent. Paranoid.

[jippiejee]

Would Rembrandt have run a digital photography portrait studio had it been around back then? It's all so uncomparable. I guess the answer is yes. And van Gogh would have shot Fuji I think.

[NickTrop]

Yes, this is true of every famous photographer of note who shot 35mm. This is unquestionable. The only film shooters would be large format shooters like Ansel Adams.

[gns]

Originally Posted by NickTrop

Yes, this is true of every famous photographer of note who shot 35mm. This is unquestionable. The only film shooters would be large format shooters like Ansel Adams.

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...?

[JHP]

Originally Posted by PKR

Both Winogrand and HCB were often not very close to being on the money when it came to good exposure. B+W film is much more forgiving of improper exposure. I can't imagine them chimping. They both worked with B+W negative film and digital exposure is closely related to positive film exposure.

On a completely off topic note, would this mean the M monochrom would have a larger exposure latitude than a normal M9?

[NickTrop]

Originally Posted by gns

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...?

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.

[sepiareverb]

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.

Originally Posted by NickTrop

..."endless" shooting, no need to change rolls...

I've cleverly avoided this by using tiny SD cards.

[daveleo]

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.

[gho]

Originally Posted by jordanstarr

When you have assistants and interns to run your film and others to print for you, why would you bother going digital?

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.

[kdemas]

Well Bill Cunningham finally switched to digital so you never know

If I was a betting man I'd go HCB yes, GW no.