Is straight photography dead?

[takilmaboxer]

The very acts of subject selection and composition require a human perspective. Therefore, "straight photgraphy" is an illusory concept. The photographic image is not the thing itself, it is the photographer's point of view. So is the viewer's.

 

[takilmaboxer]

Vaughn's quote from 5th century China says it all, and much more eloquently than any quote from me.

 

[DREW WILEY]

ALL photography is illusionism. It's not the real world, but a form of representation which inherently factors a psychological as well as technological intermediary. But a good illusionist never shows his hand. Much imagery today is so blatantly gussied up that it has fingerprints, handprints, bootprints, and tire tread marks all over it. And the whole idea of color has been reduced to jam and jelly and honey being slathered over sugar cubes - no nuance at all, just louder volume.

 

[Pieter12]

The whole debate about seeing is interesting. I would rather say that humans perceive rather than see. A bird-watcher may clearly see a small bird in a bush, while the individual standing next to him cannot see or find the bird at all. The same physical, optical and neural impulses are present, but the perceptions are different. Similarly "pure" photography is about one's perception of what that might entail. For a strict purist, it might be a photograph taken with a normal angle of view, from standing height and an easily-accessible position. For others, it might just mean a photo that has not been changed in any way since the image was recorded on film using normal processing techniques. The reality is, I couldn't care less when AI is at our doorstep.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Bird watchers. Ha! I dislike most TV shows, but do enjoy nature documentaries. I'll sit there in the evening, too tired to do anything else, with the kitten snoozing on my lap. Wolf documentaries, hippos, horses, bears - the kitten just snoozes away as if it didn't exist. But a couple weeks ago there was a segment about a local birdwatching club and what they were looking at in the marshes. The kitten instantly popped up and ran over to the TV screen, leaping up and repeatedly swatting at it the whole time. So cats perceive too, and don't just see. Of course, some of those birds which looked small on the screen were actually large hawks which sometimes of eat kittens, instead of the other way around.

 

[Vaughn]

Thank you, Pieter -- perceive is a much better word in this case. I am interested in how people perceive the image presented to them as a photograph...not just the mechanics/optics of seeing the image. Those are also important...for example, selecting a matt surface paper to take advantage of the light scatter on its surface and how that affects how we see and perceive the shadows.

 

[Sirius Glass]

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.

No you do not see infrared. What you are seeing is the spillover below the infrared range.

 

[Sirius Glass]

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

Correct

 

[Sirius Glass]

Hartmann in "A Plea for Straight Photography" set out examples as definition of the first instance/meaning/intent.
View attachment 335727

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

So in the past there were photographers who removed objects from a print. Big deal. By your logic that if it was done in the past, it is now permissible, one could then justify slavery and bigotry. Because something was done in the past is not justification of its continued use. Today's work requires today's morals and values which does not support removing or adding to what is on the negative.

 

[Pieter12]

Although this discussion has devolved into the definition(s) of "straight photography" including moral and ethical issues, the OP was about the predominance of manipulated, three-dimensional and multi-media imagery presented by galleries (actually, one in particular) showing art photography. And no-one seems to really have an opinion about that, they are just set off and put off by anything that does not align with their concept of what a photograph should be.

 

[Pieter12]

...I think the back-to-film movement is evidence of that. Seemingly, an excess of complication can lead to a desire for more simplicity...

1. Black and white film is not simple, nor a paradigm of simplicity. It is technically more complicated than digital.
2. A mixed-media, three-dimensional piece based on photographic elements can easily be less complex than a Jeff Wall film photograph.

 

[awty]

And no-one seems to really have an opinion about that, they are just set off and put off by anything that does not align with their concept of what a photograph should be.

Its great the gallery doesn't discriminate against different styles of photography and has a rich diverse range of styles reflecting modern tastes .

 

[Alex Benjamin]

Although this discussion has devolved into the definition(s) of "straight photography" including moral and ethical issues, the OP was about the predominance of manipulated, three-dimensional and multi-media imagery presented by galleries (actually, one in particular) showing art photography. And no-one seems to really have an opinion about that, they are just set off and put off by anything that does not align with their concept of what a photograph should be.

Good of you to bring us back to order.

Tale of manipulated photographs brings to mind the story of Boris Eldagsen—I think it has been evoked in this thread, but not sure—, who submitted to the Sony World Photography Awards an AI generated photograph and won first prize... which he refused to accept.

His statement: "AI images and photography should not compete with eachother in an award like this. They are different entities. AI is not photography. Therefore I will not accept the award."

The jury knew it was AI generated, btw.

Sony World Photography Awards 2023 | boris eldagsen

www.eldagsen.com

 

[awty]

Think it's sadder they chose a nostalgia looking picture.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

ALL photography is illusionism. It's not the real world, but a form of representation which inherently factors a psychological as well as technological intermediary. But a good illusionist never shows his hand. Much imagery today is so blatantly gussied up that it has fingerprints, handprints, bootprints, and tire tread marks all over it. And the whole idea of color has been reduced to jam and jelly and honey being slathered over sugar cubes - no nuance at all, just louder volume.

Some people like loud music and spicy food. Others tastes are quieter. Some people like me enjoy Velvia while others like more sedate Provia or Portra. But that doesn't make it fake or not authentic. We still see the scene pretty much as it was as long as there's no cloning.

 

[Don_ih]

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

It wasn't a definition. It was a description of the activity.

what I said went right over your head

Now that is funny.

 

[Don_ih]

So, let's just go a step farther. We've reached the "there is no straight photography" point, so the next step is to claim there is no "photography". Obviously there isn't, since it cannot be categorically justified and none of it's objects can be said to exist (since they are all solipsistic inventions, products of isolated perception of the now unobtainable world - that is the conclusion of claiming perception is totally subjective). The devices of photography seemingly don't have anything to do with creating its products. The products themselves have nothing to do with the actual world. There is no discernible linkage between any of the values associated with the practice. So, there is no photography.

 

[Hassasin]

How about if you just call "straight photography" a figure of speech? And all other "descriptive" photography's trends.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

So, let's just go a step farther. We've reached the "there is no straight photography" point, so the next step is to claim there is no "photography". Obviously there isn't, since it cannot be categorically justified and none of it's objects can be said to exist (since they are all solipsistic inventions, products of isolated perception of the now unobtainable world - that is the conclusion of claiming perception is totally subjective). The devices of photography seemingly don't have anything to do with creating its products. The products themselves have nothing to do with the actual world. There is no discernible linkage between any of the values associated with the practice. So, there is no photography.

Some people feel the entire universe is an illusion.

 

[snusmumriken]

I entered this photo in a ‘Queen’s Jubilee’ category at our local village show last year. (I’m not interested in competitions but one has to support these events.)

It won second prize (in a small field), and the judges commented that it was a “clever and skilful use of Photoshop”.

But here’s the rub: it was a straight print from a straight photograph of someone wearing a Queen Elizabeth II mask at a Jubilee street party. The adjacent negative shows the mask side-on.

 

[Vaughn]

Some people feel the entire universe is an illusion.

And some people feel there is a god. Strange funny world, isn't it?

Don...I accept that there is photography and also that there is no photography. Both conditions are equally true. Can you accept that?

 

[Agulliver]

No you do not see infrared. What you are seeing is the spillover below the infrared range.

Could you explain that further. I'm not familiar with the concept.

 

[faberryman]

It wasn't a definition. It was a description of the activity.

Would the sentence "Hearing is an experience that involves a person and something heard." also be the description of an activity? How about "Smelling is an experience that involves a person and something smelled." Both sound like definitions to me, but if you would like to call them "descriptions of activities", knock yourself out.

If someone did not understand the concept of hearing or smelling, would those sentences be helpful to him to understand? If not, why would "Seeing is an experience that involves a person and something seen" be helpful either?

Basically what you have said is that "seeing" is the gerund and "seen" is the past participle of the verb "to see". Now all we have to figure out is what the verb "to see" means. Care to take another shot at it?

As an aside, many organisms see, so let's not limit the "description of the activity" to persons. We wouldn't want to be accused of being anthropocentric.

 

[Hassasin]

• I heard a smell,
• I smelled a sound,
• I saw a man trying to take a straight photo, but it all came out crooked.

 

[warden]

Good of you to bring us back to order.

Tale of manipulated photographs brings to mind the story of Boris Eldagsen—I think it has been evoked in this thread, but not sure—, who submitted to the Sony World Photography Awards an AI generated photograph and won first prize... which he refused to accept.

His statement: "AI images and photography should not compete with eachother in an award like this. They are different entities. AI is not photography. Therefore I will not accept the award."

The jury knew it was AI generated, btw.

Sony World Photography Awards 2023 | boris eldagsen

www.eldagsen.com

The nightmarish hands are an obvious clue that this is AI. Ten years from now there will be no clues.

There is a good article in the NYT today about the many creative ways AI is being used, from designing products to planning weekly meals. And of course image making.