Isn’t all photography manipulated in some way? From adding a filter or adjusting development times to the full Photoshop effect. Is the final image something viewers will enjoy or make them curious about the subject or even the process? Most of the members are on this site because we enjoy the traditional film process and want to learn how to be better and achieve our desired results. Even the most traditional of famous photos have been manipulated or added to.
Isn’t all photography manipulated in some way? From adding a filter or adjusting development times to the full Photoshop effect. Is the final image something viewers will enjoy or make them curious about the subject or even the process? Most of the members are on this site because we enjoy the traditional film process and want to learn how to be better and achieve our desired results. Even the most traditional of famous photos have been manipulated or added to.
I attended the Bill Owens exhibit last year and really enjoyed it.
“Straight Photography” has always been an illusion.
Just to be clear, I'm not talking about tweaking contrast using a yellow filter or dodging/burning. I'm talking about the sort of manipulations that resulted in images like these:
I apologize in advance if I'm misunderstanding you, but the photos I've included below came straight from the world. I was walking around with my camera, noticed something interesting (to me, at least), framed it up and tripped the shutter. From there it was a scan/wet print right from the negative. Nobody posed or was directed, nothing was staged.Nothing comes straight from the world - at least nothing photographic.
If you want to be sure if straight photography is alive, click on the Gallery link and page through the images members have posted.
“Straight Photography” has always been an illusion.
Images like these have been part of the photographic process since the 19th century and generated the same type of discussion. When my spouse was getting her degree in Art History, much of it was about the artist that pushed the boundaries as much as the ones who continued with traditional imagery. There is plenty of room for both. Often, the artist who is experimenting is skilled at the traditional technique but wants to branch out.
Does Lartigue’s famous photo of a racing car count as reality or manipulation?
View attachment 334190
My point is that from the very invention of photography there have been people eager to play with the medium and see what it could do. Fox Talbot made photograms, countless portrait photographers put their sitters in front of fake backdrops. People captured movement, photographed themselves twice in one shot, made collages, made the world look more picturesque than it really was, used viewpoint to emphasise scale, photographed abstract arrangements of cutlery, managed to make flowers look erotic, played with the distorting effects of different lenses, photographed photographs and mirrors and mirror-like puddles. There’s nothing new about it.
That's like saying 'If you want to determine if film is the dominant format, visit the Photrio forums'Things are rather skewed to the past here, which is probably why I like it so much
I'm talking about what you see being produced by contemporary photographers. I might be wrong, but I don't think too many people on Photrio (myself included) fall into that category.
the photos I've included below came straight from the world. I was walking around with my camera, noticed something interesting (to me, at least), framed it up and tripped the shutter
As another example, i was showing some landscape photographs at a critique last year - stuff that you might say is in the Robert Adams vein - and the person leading the critique called them 'old fashioned'.
We get to see what you choose to take a picture of. In that way, it's no different from setting up a scene and photographing it.
I don't know why you want to stagnate the field by suggesting basic documentary is the proper way to make photos.
Are you suggesting that this:
Is the same as this?
I think they're entirely different.
I didn't suggest that at all - if I somehow implied it that wasn't my intention. I was simply pointing out that I don't see much in the way of straight photography in books/competitions/galleries from contemporary photographers so my thesis was that it is dead/dying - or at least temporarily out of fashion.
Ah, this I would agree with. I think the current trend is away from more straight, documentary-style photography, and more in favor of manipulated scenes and more highly modified images. At local art shows and in publications or on web exhibits, that is what I see featured more often.I didn't suggest that at all - if I somehow implied it that wasn't my intention. I was simply pointing out that I don't see much in the way of straight photography in books/competitions/galleries from contemporary photographers so my thesis was that it is dead/dying - or at least temporarily out of fashion.
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?