Is straight photography dead?

[logan2z]

I've been pondering this question for a while, and it came to mind again today when I saw the winning photographs in the recently held Members Juried Exhibition at the Center for Photographic Art in Carmel, CA.

Only a small fraction of the winning photographs are what I would consider straight photography - and by that I mean an un-manipulated photograph taken of a real scene. I know that the 'un-manipulated' part of that definition could be controversial (I don't include things like contrast adjustment, burning/dodging here), but I think you'll know what I mean when you see the winning photographs - in some cases it's difficult to tell if the image actually started out as a photograph taken with a camera:

Juried Exhibition Winners

I've noticed a similar thing when looking at other recent juried photo contests, photo books, etc. It seems that straight photographs, taken by going out into the real world, happening upon interesting things and capturing them with a camera, may be dead/dying.

Maybe I'm too narrow-minded or not creative enough, but the majority of the photographs I see at the included link have little interest to me. I still favor film too, so I'm probably just a dinosaur who's out of touch with current photographic trends...

 

[Hassasin]

I have noticed similar stuff all over, galleries, books, magazines etc., but like most odd things in life, I see this as a passing voodoo art. Straight photography is simple to interpret and as everything classic, it will retain its appeal until we are no longer able to make photographs. Even when AI takes the world dover, it will also shoot straight, at least often enough.

 

[madNbad]

Since the beginning of photography there has been a desire to bring a new and individualized view. As the tools have improved, it has also expanded the artist vision and has afforded a new opportunity to leave a personalized stamp. Art has always been subjective, this is just continuing the trend.

 

[Don_ih]

From your link:

Andreas Feininger, 1940 New York

I do see a lot of manipulated images, but there are also a lot of straight posed, studio, or out-in-the-world shots. I think more image manipulation would have taken place more happily prior to now if it had been so easy.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I've been pondering this question for a while, and it came to mind again today when I saw the winning photographs in the recently held Members Juried Exhibition at the Center for Photographic Art in Carmel, CA.

Only a small fraction of the winning photographs are what I would consider straight photography - and by that I mean an un-manipulated photograph taken of a real scene. I know that the 'un-manipulated' part of that definition could be controversial (I don't include things like contrast adjustment, burning/dodging here), but I think you'll know what I mean when you see the winning photographs - in some cases it's difficult to tell if the image actually started out as a photograph taken with a camera:

Juried Exhibition Winners

I've noticed a similar thing when looking at other recent juried photo contests, photo books, etc. It seems that straight photographs, taken by going out into the real world, happening upon interesting things and capturing them with a camera, may be dead/dying.

Maybe I'm too narrow-minded or not creative enough, but the majority of the photographs I see at the included link have little interest to me. I still favor film too, so I'm probably just a dinosaur who's out of touch with current photographic trends...

No, you are not narrow minded and I agree with you. I have always had a problem with people putting in or removing major objects in a photograph and then proporting it to be a photograph of real things, example the shark jumping at the helicopter that was all over the internet a few years ago.

 

[Hassasin]

Since the beginning of photography there has been a desire to bring a new and individualized view. As the tools have improved, it has also expanded the artist vision and has afforded a new opportunity to leave a personalized stamp. Art has always been subjective, this is just continuing the trend.

Except some of that "art" comes and goes, and other type, stays. Particularly in photography.

I've bought some newer "art" magazines recently and frankly I see it as a perverted attempt to say something in a format and form that pushes away rather than pulls in.

I agree, it is all subjective, but lasting effect makes a difference in final valuation. To this day we continue to cherish photographs shot well more than a century ago, lots of stuff shown last month is gone from most memories.

 

[Sirius Glass]

From your link:

View attachment 334182

Andreas Feininger, 1940 New York
View attachment 334183

I do see a lot of manipulated images, but there are also a lot of straight posed, studio, or out-in-the-world shots. I think more image manipulation would have taken place more happily prior to now if it had been so easy.

The reflection in the second photograph is an obvious manipulation because as a reflection the letters would be backwards. "Fakin' it, but not makin' it"

 

[logan2z]

From your link:

View attachment 334182

Andreas Feininger, 1940 New York
View attachment 334183

I do see a lot of manipulated images, but there are also a lot of straight posed, studio, or out-in-the-world shots. I think more image manipulation would have taken place more happily prior to now if it had been so easy.

Yes, there are some straight images as I mentioned, but they are in the minority amongst the winning photographs.

 

[Don_ih]

I have always had a problem with people putting in or removing major objects in a photograph and then proporting it to be a photograph of real things

Dali by Halsman

 

[Don_ih]

The reflection in the second photograph is an obvious manipulation because as a reflection the letters would be backwards. "Fakin' it, but not makin' it"

I doubt there was a "straighter" (or more cerebral) photographer than Andreas Feininger. You should maybe look him up some time.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I doubt there was a "straighter" (or more cerebral) photographer than Andreas Feininger. You should maybe look him up some time.

He never talks to me.

 

[Don_ih]

Yes, there are some straight images as I mentioned, but they are in the minority amongst the winning photographs.

Very few of those are heavily manipulated. Are you talking about the crumpled paper with projections on them? Or the cup with the projection? Those are straight photos. The photo of the woman holding a photo over her mouth? That's not manipulated. There is a polaroid of some grass. There is a photo of cyanotyped gloves. The majority of those photos are set up and it looks like the level adjustments are the only manipulation.

He never talks to me.

Neither does Ansel Adams.

 

[L Gebhardt]

The reflection in the second photograph is an obvious manipulation because as a reflection the letters would be backwards. "Fakin' it, but not makin' it"

Could be a double reflection

 

[Don_ih]

Could be a double reflection

I do believe it's a shadow. Of the letters on the window. But, yes, a double-reflection is possible.

 

[MattKing]

No.
Is it as popular as it has been at some times in the past - yes and no.
A huge percentage of the photographs on social media are unmanipulated snapshots - and those are straight photography.
Is it ground-breaking? Rarely, but than that has always been the case.

 

[Paul Howell]

Non commercial photography has always had it Ray Man's of the surrealism bent.

 

[Pieter12]

I've been pondering this question for a while, and it came to mind again today when I saw the winning photographs in the recently held Members Juried Exhibition at the Center for Photographic Art in Carmel, CA.

Only a small fraction of the winning photographs are what I would consider straight photography - and by that I mean an un-manipulated photograph taken of a real scene. I know that the 'un-manipulated' part of that definition could be controversial (I don't include things like contrast adjustment, burning/dodging here), but I think you'll know what I mean when you see the winning photographs - in some cases it's difficult to tell if the image actually started out as a photograph taken with a camera:

Juried Exhibition Winners

I've noticed a similar thing when looking at other recent juried photo contests, photo books, etc. It seems that straight photographs, taken by going out into the real world, happening upon interesting things and capturing them with a camera, may be dead/dying.

Maybe I'm too narrow-minded or not creative enough, but the majority of the photographs I see at the included link have little interest to me. I still favor film too, so I'm probably just a dinosaur who's out of touch with current photographic trends...

I still see a lot of socially-conscious documentary photography as well as a ton of female self-portraits that seem heavily influenced by Francesca Woodman, portraying what comes across as alienation, depression and exclusion. The documentary work is straight photography with the portraits heavily staged (think Crewdson without the big budget or elaborate settings), but not necessarily manipulated.

 

[KerrKid]

Maybe the confusion could be eliminated by using the term "imagery" rather than "photography".

 

[Pieter12]

I have noticed similar stuff all over, galleries, books, magazines etc., but like most odd things in life, I see this as a passing voodoo art. Straight photography is simple to interpret and as everything classic, it will retain its appeal until we are no longer able to make photographs. Even when AI takes the world dover, it will also shoot straight, at least often enough.

Much of the AI work I have seen tends toward the sci-fi, fantastic style. But maybe that's due to the early creators taste.

 

[logan2z]

I still see a lot of socially-conscious documentary photography as well as a ton of female self-portraits that seem heavily influenced by Francesca Woodman, portraying what comes across as alienation, depression and exclusion. The documentary work is straight photography with the portraits heavily staged (think Crewdson without the big budget or elaborate settings), but not necessarily manipulated.

Sorry, I wasn't clear. When I say 'manipulated' I'm including the scene as well, not just the photo after it's taken. By that definition, I would not consider Crewdson's work straight photography, but more conceptual. IMHO, several of the photos linked above fall into that category.

 

[Rolleiflexible]

Much of the AI work I have seen tends toward the sci-fi, fantastic style. But maybe that's due to the early creators taste.

I saw a photographer on IG whose b+w streetscapes blew me away. It took me awhile to realize that it was “generative AI,” not a photograph from his camera. The technology gets caricatured in fantasy and scifi but that’s the tip of the iceberg.

 

[pentaxuser]

We now have three possible "deads" on Photrio: 1. film craze; 2. digital photos and 3. straight photography We must be getting as close to a pandemic as I have seen since we abolished the Covid 19 thread but sadly not Covid 19 itself yet

pentaxuser

 

[Pieter12]

Sorry, I wasn't clear. When I say 'manipulated' I'm including the scene as well, not just the photo after it's taken. By that definition, I would not consider Crewdson's work straight photography, but more conceptual. IMHO, several of the photos linked above fall into that category.

Your definition of "manipulated" narrows things down quite a bit. It eliminates a lot of still lives, posed portraits and much interior architectural photography. And pretty much all commercial and fashion work.

 

[logan2z]

Your definition of "manipulated" narrows things down quite a bit. It eliminates a lot of still lives, posed portraits and much interior architectural photography. And pretty much all commercial and fashion work.

I know, maybe "grossly manipulated" would be better But seriously, I think you know it when you see it. For example, a studio portrait is a completely different animal than something like a Crewdson photograph.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Maybe the confusion could be eliminated by using the term "imagery" rather than "photography".

Imagery is what space crafts such as Voyager took with its scientific instruments.