No problem with photos that have obviously been rearranged for whatever reasons. Those changes are obvious to the viewer. It's the so-called straight shots that have been manipulated secretly that are a problem to me.
Jeff Wall's photography is totally honest - what you see, and what it communicates, is completely honest.
It is represented as allegory, and it presents as both allegory, and an object of interest, either beautiful or intentionally ugly, depending on the information it intends to communicate.
There is absolutely no misrepresentation involved, and one needs to have misrepresentation for there to be a lack of honesty.
No problem with photos that have obviously been rearranged for whatever reasons. Those changes are obvious to the viewer. It's the so-called straight shots that have been manipulated secretly that are a problem to me.
How about removing a telephone pole, wire or trash?
Sometimes those are not possible. So sh*t-can the photo?I have a problem with removing that. Change the framing, move the shooting location, move closer or use a different lens.
How about removing a telephone pole, wire or trash?
Sometimes those are not possible. So sh*t-can the photo?
... So sh*t-can the photo?
We now have three possible "deads" on Photrio: 1. film craze; 2. digital photos and 3. straight photography We must be getting as close to a pandemic as I have seen since we abolished the Covid 19 thread but sadly not Covid 19 itself yet
pentaxuser
If not, I don't understand why a conversation about the relevance of Straight Photography is said to be "dead".
From the title of the thread: "Is straight photography dead?"
Which followed on from another thread "Is the film craze dead?"
That would make a photo subtractively manipulated, but it wouldn't necessarily be deceptive. Say you like a particular view but there happens to be a pole there that you don't like - yet it is inevitably in the view you really prefer (as in, you can't move around it). Your idealized view doesn't include it, so removing it from the final print (through computers or darkroom magicianship) should be something you really need not worry about. Your print is to please you.
That's different from documentary photography, where an important element is removed. And of course it's just not allowed in photos to be used as evidence of something.
There are a billion facets to photography, each giving a different glint.
Pieter12 might be referring to the famous Kent State Massacre photo, taken on May 4, 1970, by Kent State photojournalism student John Paul Filo:
Before:
As published in Life, Time, People, and others:
The fence pole was airbrushed out in the early 70s, nobody knows by whom.
[1] The purpose of Straight Photography is to, “emphasize and engage with the camera's own technical capability to produce images sharp in focus and rich in detail. The term generally refers to photographs that are not manipulated, either in the taking of the image or by darkroom or digital processes, but sharply depict the scene or subject as the camera sees it.”
[2] The intent of Straight Photography is to essentially document what is seen by the photographer. Although this style may not hold much merit in fine art, it does give a viewer insight into the photographer’s point of view.
From an .EDU web site
The two bolded (by me) parts have in my view a hidden contradiction.
- First seems to say: whatever there was in front of the camera
- Second appears to give room for photographer's interpretation of what he sees through the lens, as in: well, this is what I have, but I'm gonna move this here, that over there, get this girl to shout, that man to laugh and I get what I want to show.
Is the second same as the first? Both record "straight" image. It's not like a water level with both ends balancing out, if water is added or removed, or is it?
If I ask you stand over there in front of the statue so I can get a shot, that's a straight picture. The camera recorded what was there. IF I clone you into a shot of just the statue, that's not a straight shot.
Pieter12 might be referring to the famous Kent State Massacre photo, taken on May 4, 1970, by Kent State photojournalism student John Paul Filo:
Before:
As published in Life, Time, People, and others:
The fence pole was airbrushed out in the early 70s, nobody knows by whom.
If it gets carried over to travel magazines and ads, then it's false advertising. No one wants to buy a ticket in a stadium or theatre and get stuck sitting behind a beam.
Is that a handgun on the ground near his head in the first picture?
We can go on, I was always referring to a staged photos that deceive viewer about an event, not what you are proposing.
I respectfully disagree and believe the publication of the Kent State photo without the pole centered to her head was a dishonest and misleading manipulation. The pole was there, too bad for the student photographer, and too bad for the image - journalism lost a fact w such manipulation. Yes, it’s only a pole.Now that you show it, I've seen it before. There was justification for removing the pole, whoever did it, because it's sticking directly out of the centre of her head. It's not an important element - it may actually confuse some people who see the photo, who might think she has that expression because she has been growing that pole out from her head since her early childhood. So the pole detracts from the photo's ability to convey the situation. Like Matt said, there was no intention to misrepresent anything, so it's not a dishonest manipulation.
There's a bit too much equating "straight" with "good, honest, true" and "manipulated" with "bad, deceptive, false".
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?