Is straight photography dead?

[Alex Benjamin]

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

Easy: "The Color Purple is a novel written in1982 by Alice Walker that tells the story of a poor young African-American girl in rural Georgia at the turn of the 20th century..."

Of course, since I'm talking to a blind person, I won't mention the movie...

 

[Alex Benjamin]

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.

My dog doesn't do photography. She's into literature.

 

[madNbad]

My dog doesn't do photography. She's into literature.

If she’s reading “Book II, The Negative” we could wrap this thread back to the beginning!

 

[TJones]

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.

Thanks for setting all of us “straight”.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

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

So how would you explain the color purple?

 

[DREW WILEY]

Somewhere between blue and violet.

 

[DREW WILEY]

TJones - Moses didn't accidentally drop one of the tablets. Kodak dropped Super XX, and there were only 10 zones left.

 

[MattKing]

So how would you explain the color purple?

I think wine analogies might be useful. You would need to have a two way conversation, and build the analogy based on the exchange.

 

[Pieter12]

I think wine analogies might be useful. You would need to have a two way conversation, and build the analogy based on the exchange.

As long as it's good wine and you get to drink it.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I think wine analogies might be useful. You would need to have a two way conversation, and build the analogy based on the exchange.

White wine?

 

[Hassasin]

Has straight photography been taken to a prosectorium already for further examination ?

 

[Arthurwg]

There are a couple of flies in that ointment. The profoundly informed ideas are in RA's head, and the only way you will know about RA's profoundly informed ideas, which may or may not be profound, is if he tells you about them, and if what he tells you about them is true, and not just a ruse to get a grant.

I disagree entirely. It's all there in B&W. If you don't see it you are missing something, no explanation needed. That really is the point of photography IMHO.

 

[Hassasin]

White wine?

Now this would take a lot of wine to make that white wine … white.

 

[Arthurwg]

"What the eyes see."

FWIW...Eyes do not see. The brain does that. Eyes just supply the electric impulses caused be the interaction of light with the retina (with some auto focus and exposure controls). And the brain is the grand manipulator of images!

Figure of speech.

 

[Hassasin]

Figure of speech.

It’s whether we say:

• I see a hot nude straddling a chair

or

• my brain tells me that it has received a signal from my retinas through my internal piping that apparently I am looking at a hot nude straddling a chair

 

[Arthurwg]

So long as it was ‘straight’ Scotch.

Yes, I like straight Scotch. I also like Scotch on the rocks, Scotch and water and Scotch with soda. I even like Drambuie on occasion.

 

[faberryman]

I disagree entirely. It's all there in B&W. If you don't see it you are missing something, no explanation needed. That really is the point of photography IMHO.

What exactly is “that” in your final sentence?

 

[Don_ih]

People (me included) are in the habit of equating how the lens/camera 'sees' with how our eyes/brain sees. Few things are further from the truth, to put it straight.

Just suggesting that "straight" photography is impossible since we do not see "straight". And, of course, neither does the camera. As someone pointed out -- the terminology is all screwed up, so thus the discussion..

All you do by making such statements is shut down the conversation.

Now, there have been some things said above about what "see" means. What you are offering is a physical description of how "seeing" occurs. It's the equivalent of saying, while watching Star Trek (as someone mentioned that above), you're not watching a television show, you're watching coloured rectangles flicker on a screen. Oh, but then you're not "watching" at all, because that's just some uncontrollable electrical impulses occurring in the depths of your brain brought about by ... by .... by what, exactly? If you can't discern an independent reality from your experience of it, you have slipped into solipsism. Maybe you like it there.

"To see" means, and will continue to mean, what it meant before there was the available biological description of the event. "Seeing" is an experience that involves a person and something seen. That is what the biological description seeks to describe. If you attempt to eliminate the actuality of the experience being described by replacing it with a description of how that experience comes to be, you destroy the implicit link between the person and the thing experienced.

It's like "I've been stabbed." But how you want it, "Electrical impulses..." No amount of nattering on about electrical impulses will deal with the practical reality of having a knife shoved in one's chest. But, if you look down, you might see it there.

"Straight" photography is just a description of how one ends up with the image. That it involved no extra destructive or additive steps from bringing whatever the camera recorded to the final presentation of that image. It's incredibly plain and simple to understand. It's like "I'm drinking straight vodka" where that means it was poured from the bottle, into a glass, no ice, no water, no vermouth, no orange juice - just the crap that came out of the bottle, into the glass, down the hatch.

Try it. You might enjoy the electrical impulses.

 

[Agulliver]

The way I look at "straight" photography is that when using colour film or indeed digital, I try to recreate what my eyes saw. hence my dislike in most instances of Kodak Gold because it tends to make dull days look brighter.....that was it's original raison d'etre. Just not my thing.

Now whether anyone else looks at my pictures and feels they accurately represent what was actually seen is another matter. I know my vision is skewed towards the red end of the spectrum so reds are more bright to me and I can see near infrared. There's a cinema I frequent which has IR lighting on security cameras to catch people misbehaving during the films....and I CAN SEE THE BLOODY RED LIGHTS around the camera lenses.....nobody else can. Equally I'm less sensitive to the extreme blue end.

With B&W it's a bit different because I am usually after recreating the feel or mood and have chosen B&W for artistic reasons. Even then, I'll only tweak the contrast a bit. Maybe ensure the blacks are truly black.

 

[Hassasin]

Was just watching an episode of CSI Miami. The hot blond says: she's dead. Lieutenant Horatio replies: are you sure about that?

 

[snusmumriken]

Was just watching an episode of CSI Miami. The hot blond says: she's dead. Lieutenant Horatio replies: are you sure about that?

That could apply to the stop bath thread. This one is relatively young.

 

[faberryman]

"Seeing" is an experience that involves a person and something seen.

Nothing like using the defined word in the definition to add clarity.

"Straight" photography is just a description of how one ends up with the image.

Or maybe "straight" photography is an aesthetic rather than a rulebook. One difficulty you encounter by using the rulebook model is that we are now 422 posts into the discussion and there is significant disagreement about the rules.

The Group f/64 folks solved the problem by making the rules vague. They had a show to mount.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Shooting slides and projecting them is probably the closest to Straight.

 

[sasah zib]

Hartmann in "A Plea for Straight Photography" set out examples as definition of the first instance/meaning/intent.

https://oac.cdlib.org/findaid/ark:/13030/tf7s2007q4/entire_text/

University of California Press

Scholarship is a powerful tool for changing how people think, plan, and govern. By giving voice to bright minds and bold ideas, we seek to foster understanding and drive progressive change.

www.ucpress.edu

Sadakichi Hartmann

Poems, readings, poetry news and the entire 110-year archive of POETRY magazine.

www.poetryfoundation.org

 

[Vaughn]

All you do by making such statements is shut down the conversation.

Now, there have been some things said above about what "see" means. What you are offering is a physical description of how "seeing" occurs. It's the equivalent of saying, while watching Star Trek (as someone mentioned that above), you're not watching a television show, you're watching coloured rectangles flicker on a screen. Oh, but then you're not "watching" at all, because that's just some uncontrollable electrical impulses occurring in the depths of your brain brought about by ... by .... by what, exactly? If you can't discern an independent reality from your experience of it, you have slipped into solipsism. Maybe you like it there.

"To see" means, and will continue to mean, what it meant before there was the available biological description of the event. "Seeing" is an experience that involves a person and something seen. That is what the biological description seeks to describe. If you attempt to eliminate the actuality of the experience being described by replacing it with a description of how that experience comes to be, you destroy the implicit link between the person and the thing experienced.

It's like "I've been stabbed." But how you want it, "Electrical impulses..." No amount of nattering on about electrical impulses will deal with the practical reality of having a knife shoved in one's chest. But, if you look down, you might see it there.

"Straight" photography is just a description of how one ends up with the image. That it involved no extra destructive or additive steps from bringing whatever the camera recorded to the final presentation of that image. It's incredibly plain and simple to understand. It's like "I'm drinking straight vodka" where that means it was poured from the bottle, into a glass, no ice, no water, no vermouth, no orange juice - just the crap that came out of the bottle, into the glass, down the hatch.

Try it. You might enjoy the electrical impulses.

No -- what I said went right over your head. But that's cool. Just a different way of thinking that can be difficult to grasp. I think Sirius gets it.