Confusion of Necessary and Sufficient Conditions Seems Rampant

[DarkShadow]

One of my favorite football shots of all time is a sideline wide-angle view, showing ALL 22 players in ONE single frame!!! Garry Winogrand shot it.

10aa33acf2bcf380f4b69dc82fc9eeba.jpg

umm. that sucks. tilted, someones shoulder in it. Refs azz. looks like a snap shot. LMAO

But dude, it was shot by a famous Leica shooter...a man so famous that after his death, one of his Leicas later sold for over $200,000 at auction (not kidding...seriously, it did!)

I found this, wow what a awesome blog.Man what a read.
10 Things Garry Winogrand Can Teach You About Street Photography

 

[Torus34]

For the individual photographer willing to put in the effort, the talent/gear controversy really doesn't apply.

Huh? What did you say? Effort? What effort?

Carefully and dispassionately critiquing one's own work. That effort.

See, it goes like this. When you critique a print the 'negatives' [Sorry!] fall into two categories: those which are due to equipment [lens too 'soft', insufficient exposure latitude, etc.] and those which are not [badly cropped/composed, tilted horizon, poor manual focus, etc.]

The results of the critique then determine whether the photographer should consider changing gear, try to improve his/her ability along specific lines -- or perhaps both.

One way or another, the gear/talent question is resolved.

 

[The_Traveler]

I found this, wow what a awesome blog.Man what a read.
10 Things Garry Winogrand Can Teach You About Street Photography

Man, Eric Kim's blog post so totally crazed.

It's like writing 'things to learn from Vincent Van Gogh' and including 1) lose an ear 2), start working when you are 29, 3) suffer from epilepsy and 4) arrange to be committed to an asylum.
Much of the ways that Winogrand worked can be attributed to his time, the availability of equipment, the public's attitude and awareness of photography and his own particular likes/dislikes/quirks - and don't necessarily apply to anyone else.
A good many of his pictures are so incredibly context specific that their 'point' only is apparent if there is an explanatory text.

Yes, he was terrific at seeing things but his attitude towards the image trapped in the camera was fairly laissez-fair, otherwise he would have looked at the thousands of shots that were unseen.

He is a model for two things as far as I'm concerned: shoot a lot and have a point in mind that the images are making.

 

[jake337]

 

[syaudi]

imo it's the photographer, not the gear...until the photographer's new potential outgrows the bounds of the gear, and the gear becomes a limitation rather than a tool.

 

[photoguy99]

Winogrand was actually kind of a terrible shooter. Yes, he made some pretty good images, but so would you or anyone else if you shot more than 5 million frames.

Toward the end it was pretty much 100% junk. Even a devoted crew of curators couldn't find much worth printing in the mass of undeveloped stuff. It seems like the more he shot the fewer keepers he made, until it was worse the random.

Eric Kim is an Internet Famous Street Photographer, about which group of people I think the less said the better.

 

[DarkShadow]

Yes the picture where crazy some badly tilted and so forth.On top of that all the shooting and so many unprocessed.Sounded like he just took pictures just to take pictures and had no organization of his work. Seems like he just had chit all over the place.

 

[Gary A.]

I found this, wow what a awesome blog.Man what a read.
10 Things Garry Winogrand Can Teach You About Street Photography

Man, Eric Kim's blog post so totally crazed.

It's like writing 'things to learn from Vincent Van Gogh' and including 1) lose an ear 2), start working when you are 29, 3) suffer from epilepsy and 4) arrange to be committed to an asylum.
Much of the ways that Winogrand worked can be attributed to his time, the availability of equipment, the public's attitude and awareness of photography and his own particular likes/dislikes/quirks - and don't necessarily apply to anyone else.
A good many of his pictures are so incredibly context specific that their 'point' only is apparent if there is an explanatory text.

Yes, he was terrific at seeing things but his attitude towards the image trapped in the camera was fairly laissez-fair, otherwise he would have looked at the thousands of shots that were unseen.

He is a model for two things as far as I'm concerned: shoot a lot and have a point in mind that the images are making.

What?

Again I disagree with you Lew. Kim's/Winogrand's 10 key points are ... to the point and most Street Shooters can learn, reflect and/or appreciate each one.

1) Shoot A Lot;
2) Don’t Hesitate and Follow Your Gut;
3) Smile When Shooting on the Streets;
4) Don’t Shoot from the Hip;
5) Don’t Crop;
6) Emotionally Detach Yourself from Your Photographs;
7) Look at Great Photographs;
8) Focus on Form and Content;
9) Become Inspired by Things Outside of Photography; and
10) Love Life.

 

[The_Traveler]

I don't think I want to get caught up in a yet another pointless discussion.

I'm bored with these kinds of threads where people talk abstractly and at length about what they've done in the past and yet seem not to be doing, or at least not showing, anything they have done recently.

If I want history lessons or vague abstractions I'll get it from trustworthy sources.