Is straight photography dead?

[Don_ih]

What would have happened if we found out at the time that the photo was modified? Some people would have exclaimed, "FAKE!". Would it have had the same effect on opinion in the country?

You'll notice I said I agree that such photos shouldn't be altered.

And whoever altered the photo thought it was justified - and a clean enough job that fooled the editors of major publications.

And in this instance, that this photo is not straight does not make it deceptive. As Alex said (correcting what I said above), the publishers would have wanted the unaltered photo. But it turns out the majority of people saw the modified one and were shocked at what it depicted.

 

[Don_ih]

If it were up to me, I would have made the alteration and disclosed the fact that I did - stating that the change had been made for the purposes of clarity, and that the original negative is available if required.

Except your original idea, dodging the post, really would have been good enough. Cut that black back to a medium grey and it would just as good as gone - but still there, in terms of unaltered content.

 

[MattKing]

Except your original idea, dodging the post, really would have been good enough. Cut that black back to a medium grey and it would just as good as gone - but still there, in terms of unaltered content.

That is the alteration that I would have made in a journalistic or documentation context - I should have been more clear.
In any other context, I would have leaned toward deletion (EDIT: and not bothered with disclosing the change).

 

[Rrrgcy]

To Pieter12: I believe it altered the truth because there is one less fence post. Something was erased, something physical, beyond a piece of dust or dumb processing artifact or defect on the negative… Next time remove one squirrel from the field of a baseball playoff series image, a cannon from a civil war battlefield image, or one dugout or errant branch in the way from one of those UkrainIan drone grenade drop kill videos.

The removal of the fence post is the canary in the coal mine because its removal is substantial/heavy (to me) as I now question EVERYTHING in it and question every part of the photograph as to what else was manipulated. Therefore, yes, to me, its truth has changed all due to the deliberate conscious affirmative removal of one physical element which now no longer exists in that record of a life event. Cropping, that’s a whole other nut, but removing something physical from deep inside the frame, whether for context or aesthetics, that’s not my definition of straight” photography.

Crap photograph cause there’s a stick embedded in your head? Suck it up world, that’s exactly what it looked like through the lens onto the film when the photo was taken. Yeah, I’m stingy!

ps I deeply enjoy your posts!

 

[Don_ih]

That is the alteration that I would have made in a journalistic or documentation context - I should have been more clear.
In any other context, I would have leaned toward deletion.

In any other context, there would be no reason to disclose you'd deleted it.

 

[MattKing]

Thanks - I should have finished my sentence.

 

[Don_ih]

removing something physical from deep inside the frame, whether for context or aesthetics, that’s not my definition of straight” photography

I think everyone can agree that a photo with some element deleted is not straight.
It's whether or not it's deceptive. That should really be determined on a case-by-case basis. Even straight photos can be deceptive.

 

[Pieter12]

To Pieter12: I believe it altered the truth because there is one less fence post. Something was erased, something physical, beyond a piece of dust or dumb processing artifact or defect on the negative… Next time remove one squirrel from the field of a baseball playoff series image, a cannon from a civil war battlefield image, or one dugout or errant branch in the way from one of those UkrainIan drone grenade drop kill videos.

The removal of the fence post is the canary in the coal mine because its removal is substantial/heavy (to me) as I now question EVERYTHING in it and question every part of the photograph as to what else was manipulated. Therefore, yes, to me, its truth has changed all due to the deliberate conscious affirmative removal of one physical element which now no longer exists in that record of a life event. Cropping, that’s a whole other nut, but removing something physical from deep inside the frame, whether for context or aesthetics, that’s not my definition of straight” photography.

Crap photograph cause there’s a stick embedded in your head? Suck it up world, that’s exactly what it looked like through the lens onto the film when the photo was taken. Yeah, I’m stingy!

How do you know If the fence post was there in the first place? Because you saw a photo? Maybe that is the one that was manipulated. Real truth does not exist, just points of view.

 

[Pieter12]

Crap photograph cause there’s a stick embedded in your head?

Remove the stick. It is impairing your vision. And your head is not what I was referring to.

 

[Don_ih]

Real truth does not exist, just points of view.

Even if it did exist, it wouldn't be a photo.

 

[BMbikerider]

I sincerely hope not. Not everyone who takes photographs have the time or even the energy to bother changing things to what they would like to see. Can some people not face the truth now.

I will continue to take pictures in exactly the same way with the same purpose and what is wrong with that?

 

[BMbikerider]

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...

Join the clan!

 

[madNbad]

Photographic images have been altered for decades and technology has just made it easier. Previously, if a model had a flaw, it was airbrushed now it's Photoshopped. Right or wrong, there always has been and aways will be some level of manipulation in photography. From the choice of lens or the position of the camera. We would all like to accept the image we are viewing is a true representation of the scene but what is there is how the photographer wanted us to see it. I have mentioned this before but it's worth repeating, when there was a papal visit to Philadelphia, PA a photo in one of the local news outlets was of onlookers lined up along the travel route. Just about everyone along the fence had a camera or a phone except for one woman who simply looked on to capture the scene in her memory.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

You'll notice I said I agree that such photos shouldn't be altered.

And whoever altered the photo thought it was justified - and a clean enough job that fooled the editors of major publications.

And in this instance, that this photo is not straight does not make it deceptive. As Alex said (correcting what I said above), the publishers would have wanted the unaltered photo. But it turns out the majority of people saw the modified one and were shocked at what it depicted.

Yes we agree altering news photos is not a good idea.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

That is the alteration that I would have made in a journalistic or documentation context - I should have been more clear.
In any other context, I would have leaned toward deletion (EDIT: and not bothered with disclosing the change).

Why stop at medium gray? Maybe the next guy figures light gray is acceptable. What the heck. Taking it out completely is almast the same as light gray. "Oh what a tangled web we weave when at first we start to deceive".

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

How do you know If the fence post was there in the first place? Because you saw a photo? Maybe that is the one that was manipulated. Real truth does not exist, just points of view.

I agree. The "real" photo had the post cloned in. The "fake" post was the "real" post. It's the "straight" one.

Mystery solved.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Photographic images have been altered for decades and technology has just made it easier. Previously, if a model had a flaw, it was airbrushed now it's Photoshopped. Right or wrong, there always has been and aways will be some level of manipulation in photography. From the choice of lens or the position of the camera. We would all like to accept the image we are viewing is a true representation of the scene but what is there is how the photographer wanted us to see it. I have mentioned this before but it's worth repeating, when there was a papal visit to Philadelphia, PA a photo in one of the local news outlets was of onlookers lined up along the travel route. Just about everyone along the fence had a camera or a phone except for one woman who simply looked on to capture the scene in her memory.

35 years ago, on a lark instigated by my sister after I broke up with my girlfriend, I placed a personal ad in New York Magazine in the dating section. There was no social media online back them. This was a way for people to meet. So I got about 200 letters at least half with pictures which made it somewhat easier to decide who you might want to call and date. The twentieth girl I dated eventually became my current wife of thirty years. Go figure.

She had enclosed a photo of herself that had been cut vertically through the picture so only she remained in it. There obviously was some person who was standing next to her in the part of the picture cut out. I assumed it was an ex-boyfriend. But I was attracted to her and didn't want to get too inquisitive. So I kept my mouth shut. Later on I found out it was her girlfriend in the picture. My wife told me she didn't want me to mistake her girlfriend for her. So now I'm thinking. Was that a straight photo? Dishonest? Altered? Improved? Clarified?

 

[madNbad]

35 years ago, on a lark instigated by my sister after I broke up with my girlfriend, I placed a personal ad in New York Magazine in the dating section. There was no social media online back them. This was a way for people to meet. So I got about 200 letters at least half with pictures which made it somewhat easier to decide who you might want to call and date. The twentieth girl I dated eventually became my current wife of thirty years. Go figure.

She had enclosed a photo of herself that had been cut vertically through the picture so only she remained in it. There obviously was some person who was standing next to her in the part of the picture cut out. I assumed it was an ex-boyfriend. But I was attracted to her and didn't want to get too inquisitive. So I kept my mouth shut. Later on I found out it was her girlfriend in the picture. My wife told me she didn't want me to mistake her girlfriend for her. So now I'm thinking. Was that a straight photo? Dishonest? Altered? Improved? Clarified?

That’s very much how I met my wife, thirty eight years ago. I knew absolutely no one when I moved to Portland. Answered a personal ad in one of the alt weekly papers. The photo was her in a mirror. We exchanged letters and talked on the phone and eventually met after about a month. We sat down for a chat and never stopped. It could have been a wonky mirror but it worked.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

That’s very much how I met my wife, thirty eight years ago. I knew absolutely no one when I moved to Portland. Answered a personal ad in one of the alt weekly papers. The photo was her in a mirror. We exchanged letters and talked on the phone and eventually met after about a month. We sat down for a chat and never stopped. It could have been a wonky mirror but it worked.

Ah. The mirror illusion. Never fails.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Perfect, Don. I could imagine the caption; "National Guard spears peacenik student protesting the Vietnam War."

 

[Don_ih]

Perfect, Don. I could imagine the caption; "National Guard spears peacenik student protesting the Vietnam War."

The point is, you can do anything with a photo without major modification, just by reframing its context. And, as in this instance, cropping.

(For those who didn't see, I posted a very awful-looking crop of the unaltered Kent State photo with the caption "Tragic Javelin Accident!!" I didn't want it sticking around.)

 

[warden]

It's not dead, it just smells funny.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Don: You should have left it becasue it showed just how easily an altered picture can totally take on another meaning especially with the "right" caption. That's why editing is such a no-no with documentary shots.

 

[MattKing]

Why stop at medium gray? Maybe the next guy figures light gray is acceptable. What the heck. Taking it out completely is almast the same as light gray. "Oh what a tangled web we weave when at first we start to deceive".

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?

 

[Don_ih]

Don: You should have left it becasue it showed just how easily an altered picture can totally take on another meaning especially with the "right" caption. That's why editing is such a no-no with documentary shots.

It was only cropped, though. And a crop is something you can do with a camera (by using a longer lens or stepping closer). Every step of the way involves choice about what will end up in the final image. A crop is not a modification. It doesn't add anything. What it takes away it does by just removing the space occupied. Nothing is changed.