Maybe I'm too narrow-minded or not creative enough
No, you are confused about what is straight photography. What the lens records regardless of position, lens, focus exposure is straight photography. Adding or deleting major object is not straight photography. Please stop weasel wording just to get your way.
The lens records flare, diffraction, movement, blur, and many other things that were not there in the scene. It (photography) also converts a 3D scene to 2D as tiny clumps of silver. Nothing "straight" about any of it. Any "straightness" is an illusion of the viewer.
The lens records flare, distortion, diffraction, movement, lens aberrations, blur, invisible UV light, and many other things that were not evident in the scene. It (photography) also converts a 3D scene to 2D as tiny clumps of silver and removes all color. It (photography) also leaves out great portions of the scene that are too dark or bright to show in the print. Woha the print...now we are discussing distortions in brightness scales, un-even illumination, etc. Nothing "straight" about any of it. Any "straightness" is an illusion of the viewer.
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.
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.
That is part of what is recorded on the negative and part of straight photography. Your misunderstanding is that you are not using the definition most of the rest of us are using which is also the definition that most of the worlds is using. There is no discussion of lens aberations or distortions in the definitions.
It is a photography. The image is on the negative. There was not FauxTow$hopping here, just the mechanics of the shutter in the camera.
Much of the AI work I have seen tends toward the sci-fi, fantastic style. But maybe that's due to the early creators taste.
The reflection in the second photograph is an obvious manipulation because as a reflection the letters would be backwards. "Fakin' it, but not makin' it"
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.
That reflection (in the 2nd) is from a mirror hanging on the wall inside the shop and reflecting te text which is written on the window, not a subject from outside the shop reflected on that window.
A little confusing but well spotted by the photographer.
"noticing something" and "framing it up" are completely sufficient to demonstrate that what you have there is not "straight from the world" but mediated by your choices. 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 generally don't have much to say in these type threads, but I usually follow along, sometimes an opinion works its way out of me...........................this is just complete nonsense.
I wouldn't go as far as to say that "staged" scenes are straight photography, but it's debatable in that sense. Meaning, is straight really as simple as a record of what was out there at the moment, or is staging that veering away from straight.
Well, that is my point, is straight representing what took place, or is it pure meaning of not being fabricated afterwards? That is the difference I am not convinced about.I think, at this point in time when composites and outright photographic fabrications are not only possible but both easy and convincing, that "straight" is most helpfully reserved for whatever the camera shot.
"Staged" is a different word and its meaning is obvious. But you can take a straight photo of a staged scene or you can composite, distort, or otherwise change the image - which makes it not-straight. But the original image was straight. Otherwise, what exactly is it that's being fabricated?
If you stage a scene, whatever you put there was actually there, the things were actually together, it existed in the real world. A photo of it remains straight until you introduce elements to the photo that were not in the scene you staged.
Leaving terms vague just leads to an inability to communicate.
I think, at this point in time when composites and outright photographic fabrications are not only possible but both easy and convincing, that "straight" is most helpfully reserved for whatever the camera shot.
Is it that simple, though? W. Eugene Smith added, from another negative, the hand and saw handle at the bottom right of this photo because he felt it made for better composition and added depth and meaning, does that mean that the photo is no longer "straight"? After all, it is, essentially, a fabricated photo, corresponding not to what was seen but to what the photographer wants to show, and the story he wants to tell.
Also shows that composites have been possible for quite a while.
Then elaborate on what way it is nonsense. When you take a photo, you choose what ends up in it. Past that, when you go through your photos, you choose what you should keep. By that time, it's completely removed from the world - it becomes a function of your personal valuation.
Saying "just complete nonsense" but not justifying it or explaining how things truly are is vapid.
Back to the original post, the point was about the predominance of deliberately manipulated images in galleries. So-called "straight" photography is still being practiced in droves, but the galleries (and by extension, the critics and collectors) seem to be uninterested unless it is by a blue-chip name. Photoshopped images are old hat and mainstream now. In the quest to interest new collectors or to broaden a collection, galleries are expanding their offerings, showing more artwork that features or is based on photography but doesn't stop there. You can't download or have AI create a 3-dimensional, hand-colored, multi-media (such as the addition of other materials like sewing thread or metal) artwork. So these pieces become more unique and collectable for some.
I wouldn't go as far as to say that "staged" scenes are straight photography, but it's debatable in that sense. Meaning, is straight really as simple as a record of what was out there at the moment, or is staging that veering away from straight. Straight implies that's how it happened, if scene was set up to deceive what took place, then maybe that is not as straight as it looks in the photo?
Straight is certainly nothing that's was NOT in the scene when picture was taken, but became part of it in post production.
But to go further, not-straight has also several facets, some fine or at least digestible in my view, some are just representation of crazy art that is meant to say something, only that something is simply not there. Listening to some gallery visitors discussing the thing hanging on a wall is often plain amusing. One could argue lots of poetry falls into same category, word salads are not far off either.
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?