Is straight photography dead?

[Sirius Glass]

As would dogs... This always leading me to wonder about how much we are missing in the spectrum.

I have owned five dogs, all of whom lived long lives, but not one of them showed any interest in photography other than stopping moving to pose when they saw a camera aimed at them. I would be interested in seeing your dogs' photographic work. Please share.

 

[warden]

As would dogs... This always leading me to wonder about how much we are missing in the spectrum.

Mantis shrimp has entered the chat

 

[Pieter12]

Semantics, what you say is same thing, makes no difference how it processed, When I say " that's what I see" it ought to be simple enough for anyone to understand. If instead I starting talking about how the "electric impulses" traveled through my internals, good portion of audience I was trying to address would go ... what ?!

Neither the eyes nor the brain "see." Optical images stop at the retina.

 

[Pieter12]

It is clear that when St. Ansel descended from the mountain with the tablets defining pure photography, no one was there to document the moment so we are left with confusion about how photography was truly meant to be practiced.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Neither the eyes nor the brain "see." Optical images stop at the retina.

However the brain processes the impulses generated by the optical image, and the result of the brain processing is what we perceive as "seeing".

 

[faberryman]

As someone pointed out -- the terminology is all screwed up, so thus the discussion...

I think the discussion is screwed up for reasons that extend beyond the terminology. Basically we've got members guessing what "pure photography" meant to the founders of Group f/64 based on the generalized statements in the Manifesto. Basically, what the members of Group f/64 were saying is that they wanted nothing to do with what the Pictoralists were doing. It is not possible to derive from their words of the Manifesto whether deckle-edged prints were pure photography. We'll each have reach our own judgments on that issue.

And what I find the most interesting about the F64 group was the inclusion of women artists as equal members...something not found in Europe or elsewhere in the USA up to that time. And perhaps one of the reasons the movement caught on.

Anecdotally, when I got caught up with the f/64 movement as a young and impressionable youth, I didn't know there was Group f/64, and certainly didn't know it had women members. I had heard of Imogen Cunningham, but not
Sonya Noskowiak. Maybe old Sonya was a household name. The counter to your hypothesis is that there were quite a few women in the Pictoralist movement already. Maybe men and women jumped on the Group f/64 movement because it was easier to take a photograph of of a mountain and stream and process it simply than to come up with a hare-brained idea which required a Hollywood set to execute. You can't very well do that in you basement darkroom on a Sunday afternoon.

None of this is important if one just wants to make pretty pictures. If one is trying to translate experiences and one's personal appreciation for the light through one's images, then it is worth considering.

Only the photographer himself knows whether he is just making pretty pictures or he is trying to translate experiences and one's personal appreciation for the light in his images. Of course you have to say the latter if you want to be taken seriously. Perhaps there is even an element of delusion at play. And then the two approaches aren't mutually exclusive and exist on a continuum. So where does that leave you.[/quote]

 

[Vaughn]

When I was eleven (1965), I was watching a national holiday parade in some mid-west town...Lincoln, Nebraska perhaps. I stood at the curb watching various tanks, personnel carriers and what not flow down the street in front of me. A hot day...looking down at the pavement at my feet, I could see the asphalt move. Too spooky to mention to anyone in my family around me -- did not anyone else notice?

Eventually discovered that when presented with a constantly flowing image, my brain wants to continue that flow when looking away from the original movement, causing an otherwise static image (reality?) to move. Sitting on a tailgate of a pickup driving out of Kings Canyon (1973), watching the landscape recede, the driver pulled out at a wide spot and stopped completely. Both my friend and I on the tailgate started to freak. To us, our brains told us that since the landscape was no longer receding, we must be moving in the opposite direction, and it took us that second or two to be sure the truck was not actually rolling backwards over the cliff as our brains were trying to tell us it was.

Anyone with experience with courts know the unreliability of an eye witness.

 

[Sirius Glass]

When I was eleven (1965), I was watching a national holiday parade in some mid-west town...Lincoln, Nebraska perhaps. I stood at the curb watching various tanks, personnel carriers and what not flow down the street in front of me. A hot day...looking down at the pavement at my feet, I could see the asphalt move. Too spooky to mention to anyone in my family around me -- did not anyone else notice?

Eventually discovered that when presented with a constantly flowing image, my brain wants to continue that flow when looking away from the original movement, causing an otherwise static image (reality?) to move. Sitting on a tailgate of a pickup driving out of Kings Canyon (1973), watching the landscape recede, the driver pulled out at a wide spot and stopped completely. Both my friend and I on the tailgate started to freak. To us, our brains told us that since the landscape was no longer receding, we must be moving in the opposite direction, and it took us that second or two to be sure the truck was not actually rolling backwards over the cliff as our brains were trying to tell us it was.

Anyone with experience with courts know the unreliability of an eye witness.

Image what a bottle of Scotch could do to the images from the back of a pickup truck.

 

[faberryman]

When I was eleven (1965), I was watching a national holiday parade in some mid-west town...Lincoln, Nebraska perhaps. I stood at the curb watching various tanks, personnel carriers and what not flow down the street in front of me. A hot day...looking down at the pavement at my feet, I could see the asphalt move. Too spooky to mention to anyone in my family around me -- did not anyone else notice?

Unless everyone else was completely oblivious (not an unusual occurrence), I'd wager a lot of people saw it but it made no lasting impression on them for a variety of reasons. I'd only be worried if you didn't really see it. In fact, even if you didn't really see it, you could say you have a creative imagination which, if properly channeled, is a good thing.

Eventually discovered that when presented with a constantly flowing image, my brain wants to continue that flow when looking away from the original movement, causing an otherwise static image (reality?) to move. Sitting on a tailgate of a pickup driving out of Kings Canyon (1973), watching the landscape recede, the driver pulled out at a wide spot and stopped completely. Both my friend and I on the tailgate started to freak. To us, our brains told us that since the landscape was no longer receding, we must be moving in the opposite direction, and it took us that second or two to be sure the truck was not actually rolling backwards over the cliff as our brains were trying to tell us it was.

I have had the same experiences. That's two of us.

Anyone with experience with courts know the unreliability of an eye witness.

You don't need to be a lawyer or a litigant. Anyone with experience with marriage knows the unreliability of an eye witness.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I prefer Moses, with his decalog of ten, to St Ansel, who customarily allowed only eight functional zones of light.

 

[faberryman]

Neither the eyes nor the brain "see." Optical images stop at the retina.

Sort of depends on how you define "see".

 

[Pieter12]

Sort of depends on how you define "see".

And how do you define "see"?

 

[faberryman]

And how do you define "see"?

"See" is a general word which encompasses a process (actually many processes), involving optical and electrical aspects, with the electrical aspect also involving chemical processes. At the very least. An appropriate definition of "see" depends on the audience you are addressing. For Photrio, I would use a common definition out of a general dictionary.

 

[Sirius Glass]

When I was eleven (1965), I was watching a national holiday parade in some mid-west town...Lincoln, Nebraska perhaps. I stood at the curb watching various tanks, personnel carriers and what not flow down the street in front of me. A hot day...looking down at the pavement at my feet, I could see the asphalt move. Too spooky to mention to anyone in my family around me -- did not anyone else notice?

Eventually discovered that when presented with a constantly flowing image, my brain wants to continue that flow when looking away from the original movement, causing an otherwise static image (reality?) to move. Sitting on a tailgate of a pickup driving out of Kings Canyon (1973), watching the landscape recede, the driver pulled out at a wide spot and stopped completely. Both my friend and I on the tailgate started to freak. To us, our brains told us that since the landscape was no longer receding, we must be moving in the opposite direction, and it took us that second or two to be sure the truck was not actually rolling backwards over the cliff as our brains were trying to tell us it was.

Anyone with experience with courts know the unreliability of an eye witness.

When I have stared at snow falling for a while for inside a building and I pull back turning to the room, the room seems to rise for a few seconds. One of the joys of snowfall.

 

[Vaughn]

"Seeing" is the brain's mental construct of one's personal reality based on outside stimuli acting upon various sense receptors, combined with the previous experiences the mind has encountered and those imagined.



Cool about the snow, Sirius...have not experienced enough snow yet. I love the Star Trekkish going into Warp Speed when driving with big flakes coming down.

 

[snusmumriken]

Image what a bottle of Scotch could do to the images from the back of a pickup truck.

So long as it was ‘straight’ Scotch.

 

[faberryman]

Cool about the snow, Sirius...have not experienced enough snow yet. I love the Star Trekkish going into Warp Speed when driving with big flakes coming down.

I wonder what Geordi "sees", if anything. As I understand it, he is two optical paths short of a full deck. At least according to Pieter12, he can't "see", yet you rarely observe him walking around with a white-tipped cane or holding his arms out in front of him so he doesn't bang into things. Probably some digital fakery involved in his visor, so it is not "real" "seeing". (I am running out of quotation marks quickly.)

 

[TJones]

I prefer Moses, with his decalog of ten, to St Ansel, who customarily allowed only eight functional zones of light.

There were originally 15, but Moses dropped one of the tablets.

 

[Vaughn]

I think old Moses dropped more than one tablet.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I have owned five dogs, all of whom lived long lives, but not one of them showed any interest in photography other than stopping moving to pose when they saw a camera aimed at them. I would be interested in seeing your dogs' photographic work. Please share.

Based on the color spectrum they could see, I would think they would like B/W photos better.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

However the brain processes the impulses generated by the optical image, and the result of the brain processing is what we perceive as "seeing".

Explain the color purple to a person who's been blind since birth.

 

[MattKing]

Based on the color spectrum they could see, I would think they would like B/W photos better.

Only if they were photos of treats.

 

[MattKing]

Explain the color purple to a person who's been blind since birth.

You use analogies that are suited to that person's available senses - to touch, taste, smell or sound.

 

[KerrKid]

I think old Moses dropped more than one tablet.

Moses did not drop the tablets according to the story. Just sayin'. What that has to do with the death of straight photography is anyone's guess.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

And what I find the most interesting about the F64 group was the inclusion of women artists as equal members...something not found in Europe or elsewhere in the USA up to that time. And perhaps one of the reasons the movement caught on.

The counter to your hypothesis is that there were quite a few women in the Pictoralist movement already. Maybe men and women jumped on the Group f/64 movement because it was easier to take a photograph of of a mountain and stream and process it simply than to come up with a hare-brained idea which required a Hollywood set to execute. You can't very well do that in you basement darkroom on a Sunday afternoon.

It's an interesting fact about the history of photography in the US that it's always been surprisingly democratic, with women included in many groups. There were those in F/64, but the FSA also had quite a few, as did the Photo League. Magazines such as Life also had women amongst their staff photographers. It's the institutions—museums, galleries—that took a long time to catch on.

Of course I'm talking white photographers when mentioning how democratic it was. It was a different story with black photographers, Gordon Parks being an exception.