Garry Winogrand Quote - "Why I Photograph"

[David Karp]

My thought on that thought by Winogrand is that I pretty much know what the photograph is going to look like when I take it. It's called "previsualization" and after some 50,000 images I tend to subscribe to the concept.

The only "trap" in that previsualization concept is that when you get to know almost exactly what the print will look like - why bother to print it.

Thus my larger joy now is simply getting out and finding the scene. Perhaps if it's extraordinary I'll end up printing it.

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

Nate,

Do you really mean that? Every photo you make matches up to your expectations when you made it? It is effective and achieves everything you wanted when you visualized it? You never make an error? You are never surprised? No mistakes?

Wouldn't you know it was extraordinary when you previsualized it? Why even make the rest of them? Or is going to the scene and going through the process of making a photo enjoyable even if the scene you find is not extraordinary.

I am not trying to provoke you. I am just trying to understand why you make all those other negatives, or if you are intentionally making an extreme statement, sort of the opposite of the Winogrand quote.

[cyrus]

Reminds me of the George Mallory statement about why he climb mountains - "Because it's there!"
The "reward is in the journey" type of stuff.

[bob carnie]

I had the pleasure of viewing Paul Paletti's collection, and I must say one of Winogrands prints is right up their with the best prints I have ever seen, the image is breathtaking.
I now have to see more of his work to see if it was just a fluke or not.

I hate that quote. Then again I've never liked his work.

--Darin

[Darin Boville]

I had the pleasure of viewing Paul Paletti's collection, and I must say one of Winogrands prints is right up their with the best prints I have ever seen, the image is breathtaking.
I now have to see more of his work to see if it was just a fluke or not.

Do you remember which photograph it was? Why did you like it so much?

--Darin

[bob carnie]

It was an image of 5 people sitting on a bench communicating with each other, and the print quality was every bit as good as any print I have seen.
I never equated Garry Winogrand with such print quality and maybe this is what caught me completely off gaurd.
I am back in Louisville next week and will visits the gallery again to see this image once again.

Do you remember which photograph it was? Why did you like it so much?

--Darin

[Nathan Potter]

Nate,

Do you really mean that? Every photo you make matches up to your expectations when you made it? It is effective and achieves everything you wanted when you visualized it? You never make an error? You are never surprised? No mistakes?

Wouldn't you know it was extraordinary when you previsualized it? Why even make the rest of them? Or is going to the scene and going through the process of making a photo enjoyable even if the scene you find is not extraordinary.

I am not trying to provoke you. I am just trying to understand why you make all those other negatives, or if you are intentionally making an extreme statement, sort of the opposite of the Winogrand quote.

Good points that get me thinking a bit deeper. You know, after finding something extraordinary and spending great care in obtaining an image, most of the other images are a letdown. I usually know that at the time but am always driven to try to make something unusual out of the mundane. My extraordinary might average 1 out of 100 images and these are where I'll recognize the opportunity and previsualize the hell out of what I need on paper. Everything else is the journey, the delectable visual conundrum that makes up this earth, just simply the fresh air and wondering what's around the next bend in the road.

David, maybe you are too logical; maybe I'm too illogical.

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

[David Karp]

Nate, maybe so.

I have been thinking about this a lot lately. Until recently, due to work, kids, life, etc., most of my photography had been with a digital point and shoot. With that camera, I just shot away, mostly making photos of my kids.

I take out one of the view cameras when I have the time, but I have become very selective when setting up the camera. Due to "previsualization" I just don't even set up the camera unless I think I really have something. Since taking up LF a bit over a decade ago, my "hit rate" has gone way up. My photos are more successful, and I still have a backlog of negatives that I really, really want to print. Even so, I still make my share of mistakes and sometimes wonder what I was thinking when I made that photo.

That was not the case when shooting 35mm or MF. With those cameras, I used to photograph things as an experiment, or to take a chance, or just for the heck of it. Sometimes, I got something that really surprised me, and was worth printing, and which I never had any idea of what I would get. That was fun too, even though the chance for a hit was much lower than when making an exposure that was well thought out.

Last winter, I purchased my first DSLR, and now I sometimes take that thing out and just bang away. My hit rate is down, and I do previsualize some of those photos, but I find it fun to photograph with abandon, even if I don't get anything that I really want to keep. Sometimes, just the act of photographing something is fun, without regard for the quality of the result. I always used to feel that I wanted to come home with something worthwhile, even before the view camera. Now, not so much. Don't get me wrong, I am happier if I have a keeper, but it is OK if not.

This is just a long-winded way of saying that I kind of understand Winogrand's quote on many levels. It is like the excitement we felt when we first started photographing, and we got the pics back in the Kodak mailer, or when the roll of negs first came out of the fixer. And he was doing something that is different than what most of us do, photographing people on the street. That happens more quickly and is less subject to previsualization.

Sometimes, you just don't know what you are going to get, and I am enjoying rediscovering this approach to photography while still doing the more intense LF thing.

[Brian Ellis]

With over 2,500 rolls of undeveloped film left at his death, I never understood how Winogrand could see what things looked like when they were photographed. Don't you have to develop the film to see the photographs?

[paulr]

With over 2,500 rolls of undeveloped film left at his death, I never understood how Winogrand could see what things looked like when they were photographed. Don't you have to develop the film to see the photographs?

Well, exactly. It's safe to say that by the end of his career (when he may have come a little unhinged) he cared less than most photographers about what things look like when photographed.

In general, I suspect there was a tiny seed of something in his remark, but it was mosly a clever and quotable way to dodge the question. Winogrand didn't seem to like talking about his art.

FWIW, I think Winogrand was a great photographer, and I don't believe that any of the great Modernists who claimed to "pre-visualize" their images really did so.

[Heroique]

Winogrand didn’t seem to like talking about his art.

Nor do I like listening to him talk about it – he might have appreciated that. ;^)