Maciej Dakowicz PRO 11:27am, 30 April 2009
"I left New York in mid-June and returned late in October. The time was spent driving trough the country in a slow car photographing all the time." Garry Winogrand. November 27, 1964

Dr Karanka 9 years ago
That photograph of the pool with the red car is amazing. The landscapes are pretty cool too... sort of tame for Winogrand, but great colour harmonies here and there.
Maciej Dakowicz PRO 9 years ago
there are 193 photographs in the book, 29 are in colour
DaveSinclair PRO 9 years ago
it sort of makes me wish he shot more colour...
Great to see all that color.
tk-tekata (ndiginiz) 9 years ago
Interesting to see the color vs. b&w layout in the pages posted. I wonder what's the editorial thinking behind that?

I wish I could smell those pages
mort* 9 years ago
Nice, thanks for sharing Maciej!
Maciej Dakowicz PRO 9 years ago
from the essay at the end of the book: "Few know the extent of Winogrand's commitment to color photography - some 30.000 exposures in seventeen years (...). He photographed freely in color in 1964, exposing approximately 100 rolls an the trip alone. Black and white still dominated (at least four to one), but the color camera was often raised just seconds before or after a black and white shot was taken."
weakmassive PRO Posted 9 years ago. Edited by weakmassive (member) 9 years ago
Thanks Maciej. I like this color image from the book as well:

and this one.

Looks like his "color camera" was a Canon SLR?
LoFiKen 9 years ago
thanks for sharing the snaps from such a rare book.
pipeclayed (adam) Posted 9 years ago. Edited by pipeclayed (adam) (member) 9 years ago
I went to an exhibition in Vienna last week that had a slideshow of 5000 Winogrand shots in colour. He did a lot! His b&w are just better known for some reason...
Dr Karanka 9 years ago
5000? several shots per second in the slideshow or what?
pipeclayed (adam) Posted 9 years ago. Edited by pipeclayed (adam) (member) 9 years ago
No, my ass was numb by the time I got to the end. Took about an hour and a half or so.
Account inactive go to: [deleted] 9 years ago
still, thats pretty fricking quick for 5000 images?
there are only 3600 seconds in an hour.

I wish I could afford perty books!
Maciej Dakowicz PRO 9 years ago
this one was borrowed from the library of Newport University, I wish I had my own copy, but they are bloody expensive now
pipeclayed (adam) 9 years ago
Maybe I underestimated how long I was sat there, but it didn't feel that fast. There were obviously times when I wanted to stop it and look at one for longer, but it wasn't pointlessly quick by any stretch.

They had a copy of The Animals too which is pretty extraordinary.

But yeah, to buy some of these books you'd have to sell a kidney or two.
Account inactive go to: [deleted] 9 years ago
wish my college had any interesting photography books, period! think my collection is vaster than theirs!
Mark_H PRO Posted 9 years ago. Edited by Mark_H (member) 9 years ago
I have this at home right now, checked out from my local library. He's got a couple of color night shots that have softness and glow to them - I'm guessing it's the slow shutter speeds and old Leica glass, they are gorgeous.
Mark_H PRO 9 years ago
Yeah the Tally Ho Hotel is great isn't it? Anyone for slide shooting? Today you could probably fake it with Ektar 100.
Karl Gunnarsson PRO 9 years ago
it sort of makes me wish he shot more colour...

Exactly what I thought.

I think I'll have to get my library to chase down that book for me. I got goosebumps looking at some of the photos there.

Looks like his "color camera" was a Canon SLR?

I just read on Mike Johnston's blog that he used a Nikon with a 300mm lens for some commercial shooting.


I think the only decent photobook in my town's library is Gunnar Smoliansky's "Slussen" (which I'll heartily recommend, series of samples starting here) but at least they're very accommodating about borrowing books from other libraries for a nominal fee. Definitely the way to go. Then one can decide on which books one really wants to pay for to have.
EspressoBuzz PRO 9 years ago
I wish they'd re-issue that book.
Paul Russell99 PRO 9 years ago
@ pipeclayed

"They had a copy of The Animals too which is pretty extraordinary.

But yeah, to buy some of these books you'd have to sell a kidney or two."

Maybe I'm mis-understanding your comment, but you know you can get the 2004 version of The Animals quite easily for under a tenner?
Maciej Dakowicz PRO 9 years ago
some new copies left of "Figments" in Strand:
cost $51 with shipping to the UK

and Public Relations for $9.95
Paul Russell99 PRO Posted 9 years ago. Edited by Paul Russell99 (member) 9 years ago
@ pipeclayed

And assuming that you're in London from your photostream, Koenig Books on Charing Cross Road often has piles of Public Relations and the Animals for about £8. (This seems to be my catchphrase. I don't actually work for them...) I got Figments there too for £15 but that was a while ago...

Edit: hope it keeps going. Most of the small bookshops on Charing Cross Road seem to be going under. Shame.
rHythm123 9 years ago
I would like to chime in here.

Winogrand is an amazing street photographer. Been looking, studying, and reading about him for a little while now. I have a small collection of his books. I have figments, The animals, and public relations. I have been trying to get 1964 and Women are beautiful for sometime now. I want women are beautiful more from what I have seen.

His books are extremely collectible and rare. I think part of the reason they are rare is because it wasn't widely published nor was it very popular. The animal tanked and was a huge failure when it was first released.

If anyone has either 1964 or women are beautiful and looking to sell for a low price (assuming its a beat up copy) I'd be more than happy to buy as I'm more interested in studying it. But would gladly look at low quality scans online as well.

Side note, I was recently able to acquire a very collectible photo book the decisive moment by bresson for a few hundred bucks. Amazing and historical photo book. =)
krameroneill 9 years ago
Jason: Semi off-topic, if you're ever in western Mass, the Smith College art museum has a bunch of original prints from Women Are Beautiful. (Apologies if you already knew that.)
thechrisproject 9 years ago
I can't find copies of the 2004 print of The Animals on Amazon for less than about $40USD. Though that's not that bad. But I'd really like a copy of Women are Beautiful.
pipeclayed (adam) 9 years ago
@ Paul Russell: sorry, wasn't clear - I know some of them are good value... but others are pretty expensive.

I have been in Koenig... but they didn't have any Winogrand books. Had an interesting one by Meyerowitz, but it was in German and not THAT cheap. I don't really get that shop... sells some very odd stuff. Agree though, would be a shame to see the bookshops on Charing Cross decimated - in the long run, probably only Borders will survive.

@ Maciej - that's not bad for PR.

Just picked up The Americans the other day... still loving that.
Andrei Amodia 9 years ago
amazing thank you for posting
Paul Russell99 PRO 9 years ago
@ pipeclayed

Ahh, I see. Still maybe worth trying downstairs in Koenig's every now and then.

In retrospect I wish I'd bought a couple of copies of all of them, but then I might get in trouble with 5B4!
Roger_Krueger 9 years ago
I got a copy while they were less expensive ($175ish) but relied on the San Diego library's copy for serious perusal. Too expensive to risk wear needlessly.

Sadly, they failed to heed my warnings that someone could get a $350 book from them for $60 by pretending to lose it, now it's gone. At least they learned enough to make "Women are Beautiful" reference only.

But now we've also got some dickhead razoring pages out of photobooks. Hasn't hit Women are Beautiful yet; I figure it's only a matter of time. If you ever read about me going postal it'll be because I found this asshole.
Brian Reitz 9 years ago
truly amazing to see these pages. I'd love to get my hands on this one day.
with_regards 9 years ago
MezzDavies 9 years ago
Like everyone else, I'd love a copy of this book - cheers for posting this Maciej.

Personally black and white photos and colour photos often don't sit too well together, but here it seems that they do. Going back and forth from mono to colour, colour to mono seems to heighten the merits (better word needed) of the previous photo to me. I really like it.
Maciej Dakowicz PRO 9 years ago
some more colour photos

Dr Karanka 9 years ago
the top right b&w is really cool, hum
tk-tekata (ndiginiz) Posted 9 years ago. Edited by tk-tekata (ndiginiz) (member) 9 years ago
@ maciej
Are the pages you've posted succinct or random?

row 11 - 2 I wish I could see that big. I think I'm love with that photograph? mwah mwah mwah

@ empdee
notice how the b&w photographs are bigger....
pipeclayed (adam) 9 years ago
Weirdly enough, I was over at a friend's place last night and her dad has a copy of this... let's say I wasn't all that sociable for a few hours - it's a great book. The only other one of his I've had a proper look at is The Animals, which is good... but a pretty slim volume. This has a lot more going on.
MezzDavies Posted 9 years ago. Edited by MezzDavies (member) 9 years ago
@ ndiginiz I hadn't noticed actually! I guess it helps prevent the colour from overpowering the mono? Cunning.
tk-tekata (ndiginiz) 9 years ago
I tend to think it's not about overpowering. I think I see some common themes in some of the color vs black and white combinations. Makes me wonder if the layout was designed to show a thematic relationship between certain pairs of photographs.... which I think is what's going on. Whether, even remotely right or wrong, I like what I see and they way it seems to be consciously presented.

Color vs black and white when presented in opposing pages, don't always have a synergy like these pages do. I think this is really exciting editing, a lot different from the editing decisions and styles of today. Now I find my self pondering how much input the photographer had in the layout of the book?
pipeclayed (adam) 9 years ago
Having read about Winogrand's temperament and allegedly short concentration span when not actually shooting, I wouldn't have thought he'd have much schtick with editing and preparing a book. I might be wrong. But then, there were some pretty imaginative and impressive curators / editors around (eg. Szarkowski).

I wonder whether the different sizes are for technical reasons... print (b&w) and slides (colour)? That could be an incredibly stupid comment... !
Roger_Krueger 9 years ago
Can't imagine he had much input on the book unless Wilner-Stack used a Ouija board; he was what, 18 years dead?

Which gets us back to the hunter vs. cook thing.
e.g.gatsby 9 years ago
hey thanks for sharing, maciej...
the cover photograph is amazing.. it's nice to see some colour pictures from winogrand, I just saw the one or two which are included in bystander, yet.
Maciej Dakowicz PRO 8 years ago
some more photos from the book

mort* 8 years ago
Strange vignetting in some of the shots. Hadn't noticed that before.
Nick_Turpin PRO 8 years ago
This is a great book, I will be giving a new copy of it away to the best submission to PUBLICATION made through the website when it launches soon.

I think a lot of photographers in the sixties were carrying a color and a b/w camera, for PUBLICATION I interview Joel Meyerowitz about his trip around Europe in '66 and '67...he told me he was making both color and b/w photographs as he went....a full ten years before Egglestones first color exhibition at Moma in 1976. 8 years ago
the baby in the car and the bear getting into the car straight under each other make me feel kind of uneasy....
love those shots though. and the guy in front of the box office (vignet or not).
(deaf mute) 8 years ago
`© Maciej Dakowicz` Thanks for uploading these. My local library has quite a good selection of photography books (including a couple of Egglestons and half a dozen Parrs) because of the art college in town. I'll have to see if any Winogrand books are lurking on the dusty shelves.
John Armstrong aka John Legweak Posted 8 years ago. Edited by John Armstrong aka John Legweak (member) 8 years ago
Are these images in 1964? These are the ones I'm really interested in - these and others like them - color street photography. They are labeled in Mora's book as "New York, c. 1961". As far as I can tell he doesn't say who developed and printed them and when.


weakmassive PRO Posted 8 years ago. Edited by weakmassive (member) 8 years ago
Wow John, those are great. I'm pretty certain neither of those are in 1964. I've been digging up some unpublished Winogrand shots in the Winogrand group, but 1964 is the only place I've seen his color shots (aside from the ones you just posted).

To Nick's point, here's a comment from Tod Papageorge at The Online Photographer.

"....the fact is that, when he made his living doing commercial work, Garry Winogrand carried around a Nikon with a 300mm lens in his car to take pictures of those sunsets he considered possible (LP) record covers. There's a Beethoven's Ninth somewhere so illustrated."
Dr Karanka 8 years ago
love that last winogrand
Yes, I think the last is one of his all-time best. I don'tt know why it is not more famous.
Two Winogrand color street photographs reproduced in ColinWesterbeck & Joel Meyerowitz, Bystander: A History of Street Photography (Bullfinch Press, 1994), pp. 393, 396 (in brief color section t end of book).


weakmassive PRO 8 years ago
Thanks John - those are great. A Winogrand in Color book would be amazing. But it'll probably never happen, just like the ill-fated Eggleston in B&W book.
Zioluc 8 years ago
thank you Maciej and John!
That book is from 200 to 500 $ on Amazon
John Armstrong aka John Legweak Posted 8 years ago. Edited by John Armstrong aka John Legweak (member) 8 years ago
I got an answer today from the Fraenkel gallery on the status of Garry Winogrand's color photographs. It's from Peter Colon, Registrar (not sure what that title means). Here it is:

"I wish that I had more fruitful information to share with you about the color work of Garry Winogrand, however almost all of Garry Winogrand's color work was not printed but only made in slide format. At present, here at Fraenkel Gallery we have not focused on an exhibition dedicated to his color work and we have not published any catalogues highlighting this particular body of Winogrand's photographs."

I guess the positive view of it is there is an open opportunity to do something with the material.

I will ask him as a follow-on how many slides there are. If I get an answer I will pass it on to you all.

If anyone here is interested in Winogrand's color work and they're in SF, they might want to drop in in the Fraenkel Gallery and ask about it. If the gallery hears enough interest they may do something with their holdings.
thechrisproject 8 years ago
Oooh, I'll be in SF... staying about a block from there... in a few weeks.
pipeclayed (adam) 8 years ago
John - see my earlier post in this topic. There are a LOT of Winogrand colour slides (although I may have been mistaken to say 5000 - I was reading about how many rolls of undeveloped film he left behind when he died and may have confused the figures).

Either way, there was an exhibition in Vienna earlier this year with a slideshow of them - while I obviously didn't memorise all of them, all the colour photos in this thread (that aren't from 1964) seem very familiar to me after having seen those slides. If you're interested, you could contact the museum and ask where they got them all. This is a promo from the Magnum site about the exhibition:
just tiff shaw 8 years ago
His color work is amazing. I'd love to see more.
I learned an interesting tidbit about Winogrand’s color work in the introductory essay in Kevin Moore, Starburst: Color Photography in America 197-1980 (Hatje Cantz, 2010) p. 20 and nn. 68 and 69. It seems that Szarkowski’s famous 1967 MoMA New Documents exhibition of the work of Arbus, Friedlandler and Winogrand included an ongoing slide projection of color slides by Winogrand but that the projector broke in a few days and wasn’t repaired/replaced. The essay doesn’t say what the slides were. They could have been the pictures published much later in the 1964 collection, they could have been street photos like the ones I posted in this thread last year, or they could have been something else.

Another, related, bit of info I gleaned from the book is that the 1974 MoMA exhibition Projects: Helen Levitt in Color 1971-74 consisted of 40 images presented as a slide show. Here’s a blurb about it on the MoMA site:

It says that the rationale for the slide show format was that making prints of all the images “would have been prohibitively expensive.” It also mentions (a fact noted as well in her Wikipedia article) that all of her early color work was lost in a burglary of her home in 1970. This would have included the color work she did on a Guggenheim fellowship in 1959 (!), except for possibly a few images published in her 1965 book A Way of Seeing.
P.S. Does anyone know of other 60's and 70's vintage exhibitions of color photography as slide shows? The is Nan Goldin's Ballad of Sexual Dependency which started showing in the late 1970's (though in clubs rather than galleries or museums) and ended up including 700 (!) images. Any others? It's clearly a forerunner of the modern Internet slide shows, and even a legitimizer. And andexteresting early example of the "dematerialization" of photographic images. (Though I guess it is dwarfed when put next to TV.)
(deaf mute) 7 years ago
John Legweak One obvious example (not street photography) would be Warhol's "Exploding Plastic Inevitable" happening(s).
I think the Tate in Liverpool tried to recreate the ambience with showings of some of the old slides in its "Summer of Love" exhibition in 2005.
BrentCarr 7 years ago
@ John Legweak - there is a good vintage slideshow of Saul Leiter - late 50's early 60's - amazing shots given the limitations of colour film at that time.
Arty and Geordie, thanks for the references and the links.

I don't know why Saul Leiter doesn't have more visibililty in the history of photography, but I suspect that it's because the definers of the history are just don;t know what to do with color before "color came of age". I think Leiter's work is great and am kicking myself for not buying Early Color when it was still in print.

As to the Summer of Love, I was actually in love in that Summer and and am still married to the one I was in love with all these many years later. :) 7 years ago
This book 1964 looks great. I have thumbed through the book where all the shots were taken at an airport but wasn't impressed with it enough to part with $70.
Since this is where information about garry Winogrand's color work is gathered together ...

The Bruce Silverstein gallery (535 W. 24th Street location) has an exhibition running through Oct 23 2010 called "Beyond Color: Color in American Photography, 1950-1970". In addition to something like 80 prints from a range of well-known and maybe not so well known photographers, namely:

Harry Callahan
Marie Cosindas
Ernst Haas
Saul Leiter
Inge Morath
Marvin E. Newman
Ruth Orkin
Eliot Porter
Arthur Siegel
Pete Turner

the exhibition includes a slideshow of 20 transparencies by Garry Winogrand. The slides date from the 60's and, the gallery tells me, are different from the ones reproduced in the 1964 book.

If you're in the NYC area and are intersted in Winogrand's color work (and/or 1960's-70's color work in general) you should check out the show. As of now you have a month, but time passes quickly.

The last is a checklist, and does not include images of Winogrand's work (which is not for sale).
Hans Palmboom 7 years ago
Some mental notes i just made:

- a mix of BW and color photo's does work fine to the eye.
- a mix of singeshots is a pleasant thing to look at.
- i should stop trying to have everything levelled (horizon). Not caring anymore is the new composition.
- some photo's are in the same range as my many deleted ones
- one page with a slightly bigger photo opposing a smaller one is working well.

..I've just concluded that i should delete less, or this isn't Winogrand's best. Either way i really liked my brainwave i experienced, and got a new motive to finish my photobook. Thank you for showing.
Bryan.Formhals 7 years ago
The book is 46 years old. The context for photography has changed, so basing how you approach photography in relation to the reception and standing of Winogrand's work seems a bit foolish.
Hans Palmboom 7 years ago
Well, lately i've been really demotivated to take photo's. I've been thinking a lot about the purpose of taking pictures the way i take them. For some reason i didn't see any use for it, and it came to my mind that i should stop at all.

You can call this silly, but for me it is good to see a nice selection randomly putted in a book. I like it, it fits my way of working. I was always looking to fit my photography in some sort of concept or series. I really don't have to, to keep myself satisfied. My context of photography hasn't changed that much comparing to Winogrand.

I'm sorry i was thinking out loud, but foolish? No. 7 years ago
it;s good to have brainwaves...

...but delete less? how many shots did mr. w. make in his life he chose not to show?
Bryan.Formhals 7 years ago
@Hans: Nothing wrong with thinking out loud.

Was the book really random though? Seems like there was intent.
John Armstrong aka John Legweak Posted 7 years ago. Edited by John Armstrong aka John Legweak (member) 7 years ago
I think someone mentioned back in the original thread that 1964 is a posthumous production. I did some googling and confirmed this. Turns out it was published in conjunction with an exhibition put on at the International Center of Photography in NYC in late 2002. Here are two reviews that date from the time of the exhibition and book publication:

(1) Frank Van Riper, “Garry Winogrand: Huge Influence, Early Exit”, Camera Works column, Washington Post, Jan 31, 2010 (date inferred from the url):

(2) Bob Nickas, “Garry Winogrand: 1964”, ArtForum, Jan 2003L

I kind of scanned over them and maybe missed some crucial details, but the impression I get is that, while Winogrand did take all the pictures (and presumably a lot more) during his 1964 Guggenheim-funded cross-country trip, it is the curator, Trudy Wilner Stack, who put the set together. That would mean that not only the photo selection but also the facing color-b&w format (at least in the book) is her doing .

I haven’t actually seen the book - it’s a collector’s item now and too expensive for me at the moment. I know some people here do have it, or at least have gotten it out from their local library. It probably contains an explanation of what exactly it is. If it does, and there’s more to it than Stack making her own selection out of the archives in the University of Arizona, it would be interesting to hear.

Just looking at the color images that Maciej put up, my sense is that the more of an empty space you put Winogrand into, the less he can exercise his trademark style. IMO he really needs the verticality and clutter and hubbub of the city to really work his magic. I know he has made great photos that don’t fit this generalization, but I still think it’s generally valid. I’m almost tempted to say that he does his best work when he’s doing real street photography, but I think that maybe begs too big of a question.
Nigel Fairburn PRO 7 years ago
I was in New York at the time and remember going to that exhibition excellent it certainly was. I'm kicking myself for not getting a copy of the book. I'd stopped doing street photography for some reason at the time but I was walking around New York with a 16mm clockwork Bolex shooting street scenes, still got the cut and graded version somewhere on tape.
Bryan.Formhals Posted 7 years ago. Edited by Bryan.Formhals (member) 7 years ago
IMO he really needs the verticality and clutter and hubbub of the city to really work his magic. I know he has made great photos that don’t fit this generalization, but I still think it’s generally valid.

I don't agree. His airport photographs are fantastic, probably my favorite work of his.

And his zoo photographs might be his most celebrated work, not to mention Public Relations which has lots of photos that's not necessarily from the sidewalk.

He could photograph everywhere.

Legweak, it seems like you just want to paint Winogrand as a thoughtless photographer who just enjoyed pressing the button.
John Armstrong aka John Legweak Posted 7 years ago. Edited by John Armstrong aka John Legweak (member) 7 years ago
Bryan, I said it was a generalization but I'll stick with it. You don't get all of them in every shot, but verticality (i.e. walls or equivalent forming a basic "backdrop" to the picture), clutter (distractors from neatness or formality) and hubbub (esp. dynamic foreground figures) are to be found in the great majority of his pictures - or at least the ones I have seen. His did produce some very elegant shots, for example this very famous one:

New Mexico, 1957

but I think they are the exception. And I don't think the "empty space" shots in 1964 are as good.

Edit: I would also call the 1964 cover shot extremely elegant, though also atypical.
Hans Palmboom 7 years ago
Winogrand is a little idiot savant to me. A man that just does extraordinary things the way he does, but might not be able to explain himself clearly why he does it.

The way Winogrand was shooting thrue rolls of film... he just saw a lot worth photographing. He got in his mental-zone really easy. I've been there, that little zone where everything falls together and almost every shot is a hit. I've lost that mental-zone so many times too. It happens when you get distracted by daily stuff not related to photography. For some time i believed that once lost, it would never return. It turns out that that is not true.

So yeah, Winogrand might as wel have been a thoughtless photographer who just enjoyed to press the button. And there is nothing wrong putting at random photo's in a book. Intended or not.

For the record: i don't consider myself an idiot savant.

james.morris [deleted] 7 years ago
His explanations of his photography are the most clear I've heard from any photographer.

Thoughtless? Who else waits a year to look at their shots so they can evaluate them objectively?

If you haven't read this yet, check out "Class Time with Garry Winogrand" linked here:
John Armstrong aka John Legweak Posted 7 years ago. Edited by John Armstrong aka John Legweak (member) 7 years ago
I went down to NYC last weekend and saw the Beyond COLOR exhibition at the Bruce Silverstein Gallery. What a great show! Though the subtitle is Color in American Photography 1950-1970, most of the photographs were actually from the 50’s. It was all interesting, but Saul Leiter’s really stood out. IMO he belongs up with Eggleston and Shore (or above them) as a pioneer of American Color.

As to the Winogrand slide show, I wasn’t allowed to photograph the projected images, so I’ll just have to describe them. (BTW if you’re in NYC you still have a chance to them for yourselves at the gallery through Oct 23 - next Sat.) There were twenty images, all of women – one or several –, all but one “street” (a picture I didn’t like that much of five or six women lying in the grass in a park, butt I mean back view.) They were all comparable to the four I posted from the Gilles Mora and Bystander books last year in this thread, but different, and generally fall into Winogrand’s Women are Beautiful category.

None of them struck me as masterpieces, but they were good. I especially liked how they transmitted the strong, bright colors of the women’s dresses, way past what you see in the city today.

Silverstein got the slides on loan from the Center for Creative Photography at the University of Arizona, which holds the Winogrand archive. A gallery staff person said the Center didn’t provide very much info about the set, but did indicate that the selection was Winogrand’s own. He also said that he didn’t know whether it overlapped with the work in the color slide show in the 1967 New Documents MoMA exhibition, but added the interesting tidbit that when the projector in the MoMA show broke it was Winogrand that said not to fix it because he was insecure his color work and had gotten cold feet about showing it. (Me: Because of the critics? Staff person: Yes.)

From a historical POV the most interesting picture has to be one of two well-dressed young people, a black man and a white woman , with two chimps in tow – the exact same as you see in the famous Winogrand shot and also Tod Papageorge’s shot of Winogrand and the couple/foursome, both reproduced in Michael David Murphy’s Jan 2010 blog post:

The suggestion is that it was a planned photoshoot and that Winogrand showed up packing both BW and color film.
Bryan.Formhals 7 years ago
Where is the suggestion that it was planned? For what purpose would he plan this type of shoot? Considering he was pretty much against planning photographs his entire career and there's not evidence that he ever did at any other time.

At certain times he would carry two cameras, one loaded with color, the other BW. I believe that's either in the Bystander or Figments from the Real World.
What do you make of the Papageorge shot? What's going on? Why is everybody smiling?
Bryan.Formhals 7 years ago
Because Winogrand just made the photograph, and they saw him. He was smiling, they smiled, probably saw a couple guys with cameras and knew it was a 'moment' because they were carrying the chimps.

Have you seen any of the footage of Winogrand shooting? He was always smiling and would chat with people while photographing.

In Figments, it's also discussed how he preferred to shoot with other people which is why Papageorge and Meyerowitz were with him often during those years.
I can buy that, but even so, the three pictures together (and I think also contact sheets of the BW part of the shoot that are in circulation) show that Winogrand could engage and interact with his subjects - I mean interact in a friendly, human way - and do much more with them than grab a quick street shot.

Did you see the slides? I traveled 200 miles to see them, you're only, what, 5 miles away.
Bryan.Formhals Posted 7 years ago. Edited by Bryan.Formhals (member) 7 years ago
No, I haven't seen them.

He would also often just grab a quick street shot, you can see that in the videos as well.

But he'd never stop people, and ask them for permission to take the photograph if that's what you're implying.

Take a look Mark Cohen. Walking right up to people in broad daylight with a flash.
I don;t want to lose track of my main point - which is that the Arizona/Silversteing slide contains direct evidence, in images, that Garry shot BW and color at the same time - i.e. evidently had two cameras, one loaded with BW and one loaded with color (I assume kodachrome).
Bryan.Formhals 7 years ago
Didn't realize that was in question. Maciej did pull a quote from the book that states as much, and it was discussed in Figments of the Real World as well.
Groups Beta