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.
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.
Shooting slides and projecting them is probably the closest to Straight.
Hartmann in "A Plea for Straight Photography" set out examples as definition of the first instance/meaning/intent.
View attachment 335727
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
...I think the back-to-film movement is evidence of that. Seemingly, an excess of complication can lead to a desire for more simplicity...
Its great the gallery doesn't discriminate against different styles of photography and has a rich diverse range of styles reflecting modern tastes .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.
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.
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.
Nothing like using the defined word in the definition to add clarity.
what I said went right over your head
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.
No you do not see infrared. What you are seeing is the spillover below the infrared range.
It wasn't a definition. It was a description of the activity.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?