Thank you. I wondered about that before I posted.
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.
I always find arguments about definitions to be so much fun!
The only photograph that I can think of as being essentially "honest" or "true" or even "straight" is a copy photo of a two dimensional object - such as a document.
Otherwise, every photograph is an allegory - it hints at what might have been in front of a camera, rather than being an exact representation of it. Sometimes the "hint" is really clear. Other times it is really murky.
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.
It's better to preserve a more natural notion of "straight" as being "undeviated" from source to result
The quoted part of my post was me trying to say essentially the same thing as Don. Except I'm uncomfortable with "undeviated", because every two dimensional photograph is very much a deviation from three dimensional reality.If I was going to look for a description, I would probably do so using negatives - photographs that don't have certain things in them. This is the sort of definition that Sirius seems comfortable with.
In all this straight talk, where do images like Moonrise of Ansel fall? What about any infrared photographs?
Neither to me would be straight, but they were just records of what was in front of the lens.
Is there even a chance to define that line of what alterations retain straight designation and where do they move away ?
Maybe collectable for you but not for me and others. New and different is not always wonderful and great.
Non-sequitor Alan. The copy photograph is a fairly accurate copy of something real. Making the photo doesn't change the honesty, or lack of honesty, of that which is before the camera.
Tell that to the judge.
Tell that to the judge.
Moonrise of Ansel - nothing added to the negative, heavy dodging and burning.
Infrared photographs - straight photograph, that is what the negative recorded.
"Neither to me would be straight, but they were just records of what was in front of the lens." The problem is merely yours, put your head on straight.
I have led and relied upon photographic evidence in a trial, and have challenged photographic evidence in a trial.
By the way, photocopies are dealt with similarly in court.
We could talk straight, crooked etc all day, there will be no consensus on what that is supposed to cover. If I'm not mistaken F64 dismissed pictorialists as .. not straight, while most of those images were not that different from say Moonrise or infrared or anything that was heavily treated post exposure on film.
As long as there's no attempt to deceive the court. In my example in the murder trial, the only thing changed that made the evidence bogus was the resolution of the video. There was no cloning, parts removed, or any other changes made from the original video except resolution. Yet that was enough to fool the court, at first, and almost convict an innocent man.
While most photos and videos don't rise to this level of importance, journalistic news photos, commercial photos, and videos, change public opinions and sell products and ideas often due to deceptions of photos and print. It's an important issue. Currently I've checked photos of what my vacation hotel rooms will look like in Paris and London when we visit soon. I hope we're getting that large King size bed they show in the pictures and not a cot.
AI is already making fake photographs (just saw one today of Pope Francis in a white winter coat, all fake and 100% created by AI robot, crazy stuff)Moonrise and Photoshop are why photographers have become better at editing than photography. Why learn how to shoot when you can more easily clone later?
AI will make it even easier. You won't even need a camera. Instead of hunting for discontinued Fuji film, you'll buy a memory card loaded with "mind" images. Plug it into your computer, and a few short words later, and your computer will assemble the photo into something distinctive.
You guys have had this conversation before. Twice.
In fact, this whole thread has a groundhog day feel to it...
Art photos are manipulations
All art photo images are manipulations. Sometimes people get doctrinaire and make pronouncements that photography should be about an objective rendering of reality with no “manipulations” of the image. When I was 17 years old I remember talking to an older family friend that was a passionate...www.photrio.com
is photography supposed to be reality ?
i guess the title says it all is a photograph or photography ( generally speaking i don't care of the format, or language ( digital or analog ) supposed to be reality ? personally i don't think it is, even though its said to be a "mirror" more like a mirror that whoever being the camera...www.photrio.com
I have led and relied upon photographic evidence in a trial, and have challenged photographic evidence in a trial.
By the way, photocopies are dealt with similarly in court.
I had a case which I won because when I showed a 11"x14" print, the opposing attorney made the mistake of challenging it and called it a FauxTow$hop digital photograph. I produced the negative which the judge studied for a minute and then declared me the winner in the case.
Most threads in the forum are like Groundhog Day. Sort of like my photos.
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:
OTOH there's Morris Eisen, the Pothole King of NYC. Many years ago, there was a city ordnance that presumed city liability for any damages caused by potholes deeper than six inches. Morris, a famous personal injury lawyer, had rulers made up at half-scale. They would then stick the ruler in the pothole to make it look deeper than it was, take a photo, and ring up the city for damages.
That, and a variety of other frauds, landed Mr. Eisen in jail. But it was fun while it lasted.
Much to my surprise I rather like these pictures.
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.
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.
Crewdson seems to be a movie maker using one photo to tell a story.
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?