Paul Howell
Allowing Ads
So we need to judge photography by the narrow parameters as set by Winogrand?
No he said that if he sees a photograph that looks exactly like the reality is useless to him. He had a very specfic criteria of transformation.
He did not hold his color photography of great value. He called his color camera his Schmulz toy camera. I also don't think of his color photographs as particularly good
So we need to judge photography by the narrow parameters as set by Winogrand?
So TrueStill a huge "if".
Be careful not always taking photographers' statements at face value. Especially Winogrand's. He was an expert at irony and self-depreciation, not to forget that some of his statements — "There is nothing as mysterious as a fact clearly described" — have that typical Yogi-Berra-ish ring that he obviously enjoyed using, half seriously, half to confound people. He seemed to have had quite a mischievous sense of humour.
What's interesting with Winogrand's colour experiments is, as the editors of the recent book Winogrand: Color point out, that it forced him to work differently, that is, much slower due to the lower ISO that he got from black and white film. The results still bear Winogrand's curiosity about American people and American culture, but with something a bit more deliberate in them.
I like his colour photographs. They show possibilities, what could have been. And they are much better than a lot of his later, California photographs. He obviously had a sense of the role of colour in the American psyche, but expressed in a very different way than a William Eggleston or a Saul Leiter, to name two other great colour photographers.
Thanks for the ref; that's lovely indeed. I wasn't aware of that series.I enjoy the color work of Cape Light by Joel Meyerowitz.
There are many black and white photos that could have been done in colour, and many colour photos that could have been done in black in white.
The difference is in the intent. In the sense that in some cases, the colour photograph is not only about the subject it depicts, but also in part about colour itself—to a point where sometimes you wonder if the photograph isn't solely about colour.
There are contemporary photographers for whom this holds true, i.e., who use colour as an integral and essential part of composition itself. Top of my mind, I can think of:
Alex Webb and his wife Rebecca Norris Webb
Slant Rhymes • Alex Webb & Rebecca Norris Webb • Magnum Photos Magnum Photos
Alex Webb and Rebecca Norris Webb discuss their deeply interwoven joint photography and poetry book projectwww.magnumphotos.com
Harry Gruyaert
Harry Gruyaert Returns to Morocco | Magnum Photos Magnum Photos
For his new book, Gruyaert selected images from his archive of more than a half-century photographing Morocco. The work, unpublished until now, shows the country's people and landscapes from the perspective of a passionate outsider.www.magnumphotos.com
In my mind when a photograph is solely about color is usually a weak one, more like a design game of marching colors
I see what you mean. In my mind when a photograph is solely about color is usually a weak one, more like a design game of marching colors
I’m not sure I know what that means. Can you give an example of a photo that is “solely about color”?
I see what you mean. In my mind when a photograph is solely about color is usually a weak one, more like a design game of marching colors
when a photograph is solely about color is usually a weak one
A successful photograph that is solely about color (or solely about anything) is a challenge to make without leaning heavily on form, texture, reason, etc.
I’m not sure I know what that means. Can you give an example of a photo that is “solely about color”?
Why not try to understand things on their terms rather than on your own?
It is just a game of form I understand it. But for me photography needs to at least incorporate the time and space aspect of it
William Eggleston, Untitled (Greenwood, Mississippi), 1973.
Hello, perhaps this is a question that many of you had asked themselves or answered but I want to hear your opinion on it.
Personally, I believe a good photograph is mainly about the form and composition and will be good in both black and white and color.
However, I think that color is an extra element or problem to solve. For example black and white usually tends to "blend" and "fuse" things together under the umbrella of monochromatic tones. The color on the other hand might be too distracting or out of context. Also black and white "wants" and "screams" for editing in the darkroom/lightroom, color on the other hand resists exaggerated editing.
Then I noticed that many people shoot black and white because they think that their photos look more "artistic". I agree they tend to have an "artistic" look that takes benefit from the black and white properties and the historical legacy of the medium but in reality their photos could very well be weak.
In the end I have uttermost respect to people who try to do good photography nevertheless the medium (analog, digital, bw or color film). But perhaps I have some more secret admiration to the ones that do good color photography.
The world is colorful, and a black and white picture is one step removed from the world. In that sense B&W is an "abstraction", which IMHO makes it more "intellectual,"
The world is colorful, and a black and white picture is one step removed from the world. In that sense B&W is an "abstraction", which IMHO makes it more "intellectual," more engaging of thought and consideration than a simple rendering of the real, colorful world. And that is more or less why I find B&W much more interesting. I do tone many of my prints, which in a way seems to add an element of color.
The other reason is that I'm a darkroom printer with no digital component. I don't scan, use Photoshop or Lightroom. My post processing is all chemical and manual. At one time I did shoot and print color, but that was when color processors and Cibachrome were available. To shoot color today I would have to invest in a digital "darkroom" with all that entails, which I am unwilling to do.
I'm not sure I buy that. I think it makes the outcomes more "interpretive".
For example, compare the work of Joel Meyerowitz to that of Vivian Maier. There is a retrospective of his in the current issue of LFI and, frankly, they pretty much mostly look like tourist snapshots to me. Maier seems to capture the essence of the times in which she worked. The starkness of monochrome propels her images.
William Eggleston, Untitled (Greenwood, Mississippi), 1973.
Is this about a lamp? About the ceiling? About a lamp on the ceiling? About a red ceiling? About a lamp on a red ceiling? About the colour red? About a photograph of the colour red? About bad taste? About nothing other than the fact that it existed? Is the blood-like red a metaphor? What's interesting about it, the fact that there is (was) a lamp and wires on a ceiling that someone decided to paint a bloody red, that it's a photograph of a lamp and wires on a ceiling that is painted a bloody red, or that William Eggleston thought it interesting to take a photograph of a lamp and wires on a ceiling that is painted a bloody red?
The difficulty is always figuring out what it's about, if, indeed, it's about anything.
William Eggleston, Untitled (Greenwood, Mississippi), 1973.
Is this about a lamp? About the ceiling? About a lamp on the ceiling? About a red ceiling? About a lamp on a red ceiling? About the colour red? About a photograph of the colour red? About bad taste? About nothing other than the fact that it existed? Is the blood-like red a metaphor? What's interesting about it, the fact that there is (was) a lamp and wires on a ceiling that someone decided to paint a bloody red, that it's a photograph of a lamp and wires on a ceiling that is painted a bloody red, or that William Eggleston thought it interesting to take a photograph of a lamp and wires on a ceiling that is painted a bloody red?
The difficulty is always figuring out what it's about, if, indeed, it's about anything.
The world is colorful, and a black and white picture is one step removed from the world. In that sense B&W is an "abstraction"
Yes with BW you gain automatically the abstraction
But for me photography needs to at least incorporate the time and space aspect of it
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?