Is straight photography dead?

[Alan Edward Klein]

And none of those grays are in any way a realistic rendering of the original scene - no colour, only two dimensions, the contrast and differentiation between elements of the subject which are affected by things like spectral sensitivity of the film, whether or not a filter was used, colour of the daylight, developer, time, temperature and agitation during the film development, etc., etc.
What would you say if the photographer told you that a "straight" print didn't look like the real life scene because of all the forgoing, so the print was adjusted to make things in the print look similar to how the scene actually appeared?

Due to limitation of the camera, film, and the processes to develop and print, it is not deceptive to adjust exposure, contrast, and even to eliminate spots due to dust on the film so that the film and print reasonably reflects the original conditions. But cloning in or out is deception. It changes what was there. That's a huge difference. Don't you think your judges would see the difference too?

 

[Don_ih]

is deception

Deception implies an attempt to trick someone. But your photography is yours - you get to choose what ends up in the final print (or image, whatever). So if you don't like some aspect of a photo but like the rest of it, it's not tricking anyone if you change the photo. A photo is a thing in itself. And you get to control it, whatever way you see fit.

A news photo is a different story. It purports to be a photo of something, so it should retain as close a link to the original scene as possible. Even then, doing something like removing a post from someone's head is not deception. Photos to be published by news outlets are probably the only ones that should be completely protected from manipulation. (And possibly photos taken specifically to record a crime scene.)

 

[VinceInMT]

Deception is all around us. Women wear makeup. Men wear toupes. Advertising abounds with imagery that can easily be shown as deceptive. One of the largest growth areas in the medical field is aesthetics. Perhaps life just needs a massive disclaimer that what you see is not what is real. Or are some calling for criminalizing image modification?

 

[MattKing]

Due to limitation of the camera, film, and the processes to develop and print, it is not deceptive to adjust exposure, contrast, and even to eliminate spots due to dust on the film so that the film and print reasonably reflects the original conditions. But cloning in or out is deception. It changes what was there. That's a huge difference. Don't you think your judges would see the difference too?

And due to the fact that photographs are inherently unreliable - particularly black and white photographs - that is why photographs can't be used in court unless there is a witness who can say that a photograph is an accurate representation of what the witness actually observed.
In the Kent State example, if it were in any way material, it would behoove the witness to actually point out to the court that the "undoctored" photograph tended to deceive, because it falsely gave the impression that the post and the person were connected in some way.

 

[VinceInMT]

The post in not political, just a historical reflection.

Fence post or not, that photo had an impact. It did on me. I was involved in anti-war/anti-draft protests back then and it was a wake up call when that event took place. I was living California and a month before the Kent State event, the governor of California, Ronald Reagan, reacted to campus protests saying “If it takes a bloodbath" to end it, "let's get it over with, no more appeasement."

That photo has been imbedded in my mind ever since. It was about a year later that the Pentagon Papers were released so we learned that “deception” had been going on for quite a while.

Several months later I was drafted into the army. I do not have fond memories of that era of my life.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

The post in not political, just a historical reflection.

Fence post or not, that photo had an impact. It did on me. I was involved in anti-war/anti-draft protests back then and it was a wake up call when that event took place. I was living California and a month before the Kent State event, the governor of California, Ronald Reagan, reacted to campus protests saying “If it takes a bloodbath" to end it, "let's get it over with, no more appeasement."

That photo has been imbedded in my mind ever since. It was about a year later that the Pentagon Papers were released so we learned that “deception” had been going on for quite a while.

Several months later I was drafted into the army. I do not have fond memories of that era of my life.

This might be the most relevant post in this entire thread—if it's "truth" we're talking about. Thanks for sharing, Vince.

 

[Hassasin]

MY example covers what you're referring to. If I ask my wife to stand in front of a statue to show others at home that we visited Paris and actually saw the statue, that's not deception. But if I cloned her into a picture of the statue and never visited Paris, that would be deception. Most people can figure out the difference between truth and deception. It's not very hard.

Really ? You are stretching my point. I keep asking openly: is staged straight or is it not? Pure definition appears simple, whatever was in front of camera. Below is a proven fake event. There are lots of famous others. Hardly anyone had a clue.

i

 

[Hassasin]

Why pictorialism was displaced by … straight photography? Didn’t they shoot what was in front of camera? Was post treatment killing that principle? We know straight was coming after pictorialists because they were accused of emulating paintings thus ”faking” real view as it appeared before the camera and the resolving capability of tools and materials was not used to show and tell how it actually looked.

How faking what was in front of camera is straight purity? Faking as in … staging.

Ultimately, is straight only applicable to whatever was before lens, or does straight implicates a true event as well ? Then how far do we go defining that truth ? Making a scene up to tell a lie then just snapping a shot of it?

Defining straight appears simple when static objects are only involved, scapes of all kinds, macro shots etc. but I see a problem when a dynamic scene is shown, where it appears real, but in fact tells a lie, thus manipulated viewer into believing.

I am not talking about adding or removing anything in post, strictly staging to imply a never-happened.

 

[Arthurwg]

Below is a proven fake event. There are lots of famous others. Hardly anyone had a clue.

View attachment 334513
i

I know this has been debated, but I didn't know it was "a proven fake." Where can I find that proof?

 

[Alex Benjamin]

I know this has been debated, but I didn't know it was "a proven fake." Where can I find that proof?

Not at all "proven". Plenty of info on the debate on the Wiki page:

The Falling Soldier - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Hassasin]

Not at all "proven". Plenty of info on the debate on the Wiki page:

The Falling Soldier - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

We all believe what we choose to believe. If this was one and only questioned famous photo, then perhaps I'd be looking at it differently. And really does not matter much whether there will be an ultimate proof what this one was.

Problem is that once something becomes an icon, there is lots of vested interests to discredit any attempts to question it. And surely there are lots of faked up scenes that were presented as an actual depiction of an event, later admitted openly it was staged.

I put this one on display as, at the very least, it is heavily questioned and yet such a known image, most will know right away what kind of controversy surrounds it.

To go further into what I asked in my follow up post, while definition of straight photography can be fairly easily agreed upon, fake scene or not, the question remains if it is a "fair" use for telling a lie. Straight indicates a capture of the moment before the lens, so it automatically enshrines that capture into a true meaning. Looks real, it must be real. And often enough the truth is elsewhere, if not completely opposite.

 

[BMbikerider]

I have a number of glossy well printed books going back to 1986/7 through I think to 1992. Called in the series 'Photographer of the Year'. They were all submissions from all over the world, mainly in B&W and over the years you could see gradual styles changing year on year. Then they stopped printing them around 1989.These were followed later on in the same format but called 'Landscape Photographer of the Year.' They are excellent books but with a jump of over 10 years between the two series of publications the styles and presentation are worlds apart.

They are now mostly in colour. Some are dreadfully over saturated, all are fantastically sharp, more so than before and all the images in the last publication bar 2 are digital. These are two pictures taken with a Hasselblad on colour negative film.

I am not making any sweeping statements, only thinking aloud, but cannot help feeling that the changes in style of photography are as a result of most going digital? That has opened up the world of photography to many more than those who used film and a whole new gene pool of talent.(?) They may not have the expertise of those who used film and may have relied upon the 'machine gun' approach to get the exact frame(s) they needed/wanted.

 

[Hassasin]

may have relied upon the 'machine gun' approach to get the exact frame(s) they needed/wanted.

That was done in film as well, even if on a much smaller scale (naturally). Magnum's Contact Sheets show clearly how some of the most iconic moments were actually shot. Typical fashion session meant lots of frames of same general idea, then light table, editors and ... this one it is. Jeanlopue Sieff in his Fashion album shows this off without reservations. Contact sheet on one side, final pic on parent page.

Styles change, evolve, get adjusted to expectations, especially where money or so-called "public interest" is at stake. I don't appreciate a lot of changes since digital become mainstream capture and presentation. But dwindling visual quality has more to do with massive increase of available images, making it harder to se through it all and appreciate what is still a high grade of vision, ideas, technique and delivery.

The meaning of having a "good eye" and "feel for the moment" has been diminished by capture technology. It is one thing to shoot a scene on few frames, then decide which one was best, yet another to keep the button pressed until card gets filled, then evaluate and pick one. First is still largely preconceived, latter largely a chance shooting.

But is this in direct relation to "straight photography" ? Looks like some (few, many, most ???) have settled on the simple rule and nothing else can undermine it. I'm not sold on that idea, especially today.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Deception is all around us. Women wear makeup. Men wear toupes. Advertising abounds with imagery that can easily be shown as deceptive. One of the largest growth areas in the medical field is aesthetics. Perhaps life just needs a massive disclaimer that what you see is not what is real. Or are some calling for criminalizing image modification?

Sure, life is full of deception. But honesty to each other is better for us as humans.

Specifically, if a newspaper prints a doctored photo, how could you trust anything they say? The magazines that apologized for publishing the doctored Kent State photo we've been discussing did the right thing when they found out about the pole being removed. It doesn't matter whether the edit changed the meaning or not.

 

[Don_ih]

The meaning of having a "good eye" and "feel for the moment" has been diminished by capture technology. It is one thing to shoot a scene on few frames, then decide which one was best, yet another to keep the button pressed until card gets filled, then evaluate and pick one. First is still largely preconceived, latter largely a chance shooting.

"Machine-gunning" still requires the camera holder to decide where to point the camera. Maybe it's not as venerable as using a single sheet of 8x10 film and taking one shot, but the end result is generally the same: one photo.

Winogrand blew through rolls of film so fast, he couldn't keep up with developing them - and he would only decide if he had a good photo after making a print. That's not far from someone who spends hours at a computer sifting through machine-gunned digital photos.

cannot help feeling that the changes in style of photography are as a result of most going digital?

Digital photography has certainly made photo manipulation much easier - and much more convincing. Whenever anything is more easily accomplished, it sparks the imagination of those willing to try it out.

Why pictorialism was displaced by … straight photography? Didn’t they shoot what was in front of camera?

Pictorialists would sometimes put something over the lens to make it hazy but otherwise just used it normally. They didn't go for optimal sharpness, didn't mind motion blur, liked to print dark and maybe too low contrast. Those can all be straight prints from whatever the negative provided - but they often liked to damage the negative or glue tissue paper onto it and draw on that (which would be manipulations).

The f64 people didn't like the results and didn't like the methods. Was that because of some purity of spirit on their part or was it due to a lack of imagination? At any rate, the f64 people came after and in part as a reaction to the pictorialists and did their part in establishing photography as a capable art form not needing painterly airs.

is staged straight or is it not?

I'd say staged is staged and a photo of it can be straight or manipulated.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

And due to the fact that photographs are inherently unreliable - particularly black and white photographs - that is why photographs can't be used in court unless there is a witness who can say that a photograph is an accurate representation of what the witness actually observed.
In the Kent State example, if it were in any way material, it would behoove the witness to actually point out to the court that the "undoctored" photograph tended to deceive, because it falsely gave the impression that the post and the person were connected in some way.

Having a witness testifying to the efficacy of the photo is normal for most evidence. For example an accounting statement could not be submitted as evidence without the accounting firm testifying that they were the ones who prepared it and that it accurately reflects the condition of the business. Same with the policeman submitting that he was the one who found the gun and removed it from the defendant. The prosecutor just couldn't submit the gun by itself.

Raising the issue that the pole was removed from the picture submitted to the court could raise doubts in the juror's minds as to the whole truth of the photo. What else could have been changed that we don't know about? After all trials come down to what a jury believes or doesn't believe.

 

[Hassasin]

"Machine-gunning" still requires the camera holder to decide where to point the camera. Maybe it's not as venerable as using a single sheet of 8x10 film and taking one shot, but the end result is generally the same: one photo.

Winogrand blew through rolls of film so fast, he couldn't keep up with developing them - and he would only decide if he had a good photo after making a print. That's not far from someone who spends hours at a computer sifting through machine-gunned digital photos.

How is it no different between taking say 10 shots of same scene and 2,000 ? I can't see them as equal. Pointing a camera at the world is not necessarily a skill. It's a skill tp pick later anything good, but that is not same as shooting what you see with full conscience.

Winogrand may have shot endless rolls, I don't think he kept shooting same scene at that pace though.

HCB had thousands of frames never seen by anyone, but he was one of the prime examples of the fake "decisive moment" movement anyways.

 

[Don_ih]

How is it no different between taking say 10 shots of same scene and 2,000 ?

Because the end result is the one picture the photographer wants.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Really ? You are stretching my point. I keep asking openly: is staged straight or is it not? Pure definition appears simple, whatever was in front of camera. Below is a proven fake event. There are lots of famous others. Hardly anyone had a clue.

View attachment 334513
i

A picture is deceptive if it deceives. Arguing about the meaning of straight is a distraction.

 

[Don_ih]

Arguing about the meaning of straight is a distraction.

The topic of this thread is "Is straight photography dead?" so it makes sense that people should come to some kind of understanding of the terms. Straight means you get in the print what was in the negative, however you choose to print it. Staged is setting up a scene. Anything can be deceptive if it's used to deceive.

 

[VinceInMT]

….Specifically, if a newspaper prints a doctored photo, how could you trust anything they say? …

I never got the memo that I should. Ever. I am a born skeptic and my “baloney meter” (thank you Carl Sagan) hits the red line when any source says it is to be trusted, the most trusted, or has a lock on the truth.

In the print media, just go back to the battles between Pulitzer and Hearst and the Yellow Journalism that abounded to see this is just the way that business operates.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

Below is a proven fake event.

We all believe what we choose to believe.

A bit like saying the Earth is proven flat because a bunch of flat-earthers choose to believe it is, wouldn't you say?

And really does not matter much whether there will be an ultimate proof what this one was.

Well, yes, it does matter. The "it doesn't matter whether there is proof or not, the controversy is enough to put it into doubt" is the same argument used to justify every conspiracy theory, from the Moon landing to other more recent ones (which I won't mention because it would take us dangerously close to political matters ).

In the case of the Capa photo, I understand you were using it as a rebuttal to Alan's "Most people can figure out the difference between truth and deception" assertion, but it you can't have it both ways.

HCB had thousands of frames never seen by anyone, but he was one of the prime examples of the fake "decisive moment" movement anyways.

I'll say it straight: I have no idea what this means. Please elaborate.

the question remains if it is a "fair" use for telling a lie.

Question of intent and purpose. "Fair use for telling a lie" is forbidden in photojournalism, becomes murky when dealing with documentary photography, adds impact to portrait photography, and is the very definition of fashion photography.

These are both "straight" yet lies:

 

[Sergey Ko]

I am the "photo dinosaur" too. But I'll meet the linked photos with pleasure in Vilnius galleries. Because the the "conceptual" reality of today's Lithuanian photography is much scarier

 

[Chuck_P]

Arguing about the meaning of straight is a distraction.

I agree with this.

I don't know why the concept of "straight photography" should be made any more complicated than the meaning that was put forth back in the day, 1932. I'm not saying the below qotes are authoritative, only, it just seems a pretty simple concept to adhere to. So, AA, in his autobiography, writes:

"Group f/64 became synonymous with the renewed interest in the philosophy of straight photography: that is, photographs that look like photographs, not imitations of other art forms."

He later states from the Group f/64's written manifesto: "The Group will show no work at any time that does not conform to its standards of pure photography. Pure photography is defined as no qualities of technique, composition or idea, derivative of any other art form." I believe I have also read the statement (elsewhere, not part of the manifesto), I paraphrase here: the photograph must adhere to the optical quality of the lens, or something like that. Is a print that is comprised of a concoction of other photographs one that contains a quality of technique, composition or idea that is derivative of another art form.............Idk the answer to that question, I just know that images of that sort do absolutely nothing for me.

I realize the Group itself was short-lived, but this idea of "straight photography" seems to persist.

To some, there seems to be the notion that straight photography now means that dodging and burning renders a photograph as not straight.......why pigeon-hole or restrict such a simple concept? Dodging an element out of existence or burning it down to hide it........is poetic licensing, imo, but still straight photography. Those creative tools can create unreal subject values, perhaps, that define the photographer's expressive intent, but also contain very real qualities that confirm a straight photograph.

The issue of "news" photography, to me, must maintain itself with the utmost professionalism and integrity. I agree with Matt King, if I understand him correctly, that removing it to improve upon basic compositional photographic technique is ok as long as that is disclosed appropriately.

I personally prefer one subject matter on one negative presented on one print.

 

[Vaughn]

The printing process I use (single transfer carbon printing) reverses the image -- is that still straight?