Is straight photography dead?

[Hassasin]

Replace the word "straight" with "honest" and it all will become clear.

Moonrise was not honest, looking for drama, I like some infrared, but that is the same.

Galleries will do what they feel is needed to fill the need to amuse. Hard sell to see straight.

 

[VinceInMT]

OK, I checked out the gallery cited and I will have to say that I like the work that is shown. It is certainly in keeping with the latest trends in the art world where “Contemporary Art” relies on the conceptual and not adhering to any rules. And, one must understand that what is exhibited in a juried show will likely reflect the view of the jurist(s).

As for “straight” photography, as I understand the position of the OP, that references the taking of a photo to record what is in front of the camera whether that scene was “staged” or not. Many of the images in that show contain elements that never appeared in front of the camera and were added in post-production. This is not the same as just adjusting the contrast, burning and dodging, etc. of the original image. At the university I just graduated from, the courses that deal with the type of work in this show come under the heading of “New Media.”

 

[bernard_L]

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"

Not so.

The reflection occurs on a glass door. One inversion. But the glass door is behind the shop window, "sees" the lettering from behind; that is the second inversion. Altogether appears in readable orientation. If in doubt, just perform a simple experiment at home, e.g. the edge markings of a film strip, seen from the front, and reflected from a mirror located behind the film. Experiment trumps all arguments.

 

[snusmumriken]

Replace the word "straight" with "honest" and it all will become clear.

I don’t think that works, either. I don’t believe honesty resides in the photo. In some circumstances, presenting a straightforward photo without a caption can be misleading and dishonest. But omitting a caption deliberately to mislead may also be done for whimsical artistic effect, eg surrealism. In other circumstances, a dishonest caption, or use of a straight photo in a misleading context, can turn a straight photo into a political weapon. So I don’t believe straight=innocent. I don’t believe straight=artless, either.

 

[TJones]

Replace the word "straight" with "honest" and it all will become clear.

Based on the OP’s additional comments, I would use “found” in place of “straight”.

 

[ic-racer]

And "straight", with regard to photography, means that going from negative to print doesn't receive any heavy alteration or addition. The camera takes a picture and that's it.

There is no "that's it" after the shutter is pressed. The latent image is invisible to humans. A considerable transformation on many levels is required to make sense of the latent image to the human mind. Somehow it has to be made visible and there are ten thousand ways to do that, all with different results.

Going from negative to print is a massive 'alteration.' Black becomes white, etc. There is no "Standard" method to make that transformation. What about lost shadow and highlight detail, cropping, altered tonal scale. There is no "Straight Print." And if there were, it would look like crap, what photographer, customer, gallery would want that.

This 'Straight Photography' only exists in fairyland or in the imagination of the uninformed.

 

[Don_ih]

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.

You said it right there, Alex. It's a composite, which is not a straight photo.

I'm trying to say that it is useless to use a word when there is no agreement on its meaning. That Smith's photo isn't straight (as in, that it is a composite) doesn't mean it is bad or evil or even misleading. Whether or not a photo (straight or not) is misleading is a separate issue.

To me, your comment amounts to such a degree of frog hair splitting and philosophizing as to be simply nonsensical

What you said was nonsensical was my saying that photos don't come "straight from the world" - which was in reference to what logan had said in the quote I posted. He had shown some good photos, and said they'd come straight from the world - that he had been walking around, noticed something, framed it up, pressed the shutter. I was merely preserving his activity as meaningful - that he is the photographer, not the camera, and that he chooses what's in the photo, not the world.
Perhaps you find that hair-splitting. But I'm trying to keep the definition of "straight" simple. His photos are straight photos. But when he said "straight from the world", he meant "unstaged". Well, "unstaged" is a perfectly good word to use for an unstaged photo.

 

[ic-racer]

"Straight Photography" is a term invented by ignorant viewers with a naive concept of photography. I'm surprised the term would be used by anyone with even the most basic understanding of the photographic process.

I'm an idiot when it comes to painting so I think I'll invent "Straight Painting" where the image is painted "Just As The Painter Viewed It" based on my fantasy understanding of how one paints...

 

[Don_ih]

There is no "that's it" after the shutter is pressed.

By "that's it", I mean the film or digital file is subjected to normal workflow to generate a standard image, however the photographer gets the most basic image from the film or data. That can include scanning, putting through Lightroom, enlarging, toning, intensifying, whatever that is non-distorting. The photograph, so far as "straight photography" would be concerned, is the actual end result - and it has already been subjected to whatever processing. If the photo is a result of a basic, non-combinatory, no-distorting process, it's a straight photo.

It's possible to use the term in a meaningful way.

 

[Pieter12]

Everyone is splitting hairs to fit their own views of honest or straight(forward) photography. But photography itself is not honest. Time doe not stop and freeze a moment, people don't hang mid-air while jumping, things don't blur with speed. Grain is an artifice of the recording process, not natural to observation. Obviously, the world is not black and white or out of focus, distorted like a super wide-angle lens or objects isolated like a telephoto wide open. There is no reality in still photography, nobody can draw the line between honest or not.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

"Straight Photography" is a term invented by ignorant viewers with a naive concept of photography. I'm surprised the term would be used by anyone with even the most basic understanding of the photographic process.

I'm an idiot when it comes to painting so I think I'll invent "Straight Painting" where the image is painted "Just As The Painter Viewed It" based on my fantasy understanding of how one paints...

A painting is understood by the viewer to come from the artists mind and brush. So the viewer understands there's an interpretation of reality going on and makes an allowance for that. But with a photograph, the viewer usually has a different consideration, one of expecting to see what the photographer saw. Sure there are edits to correct for camera and film limitations for the loss of lighting, color, and contrast. These may have to be "normalized". But the original subjects remain in more or less their same position and depiction of what they looked like.

Of course, some edits so distort the photo, it;s understood that it was changed substantially. Those are like paintings and understood to be an interpretation. The problem is with "normal" photos of normal scenes that are edited in ways that change what they originally captured in the camera.

 

[Pieter12]

The problem is with "normal" photos of normal scenes that are edited in ways that change what they originally captured in the camera.

And why is that a problem?

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Everyone is splitting hairs to fit their own views of honest or straight(forward) photography. But photography itself is not honest. Time doe not stop and freeze a moment, people don't hang mid-air while jumping, things don't blur with speed. Grain is an artifice of the recording process, not natural to observation. Obviously, the world is not black and white or out of focus, distorted like a super wide-angle lens or objects isolated like a telephoto wide open. There is no reality in still photography, nobody can draw the line between honest or not.

Of course they can. It's done all the time in court. Photos are presented as potential evidence and questions are asked about how they were processed. If there is editing going on beyond standard adjustments to exposure, color and lighting, the judge won't allow the photos to be used as evidence.

People aren't stupid. They know what's real and what isn't.

There was a recent murder case where the prosecutor presented a video to the jury that was reduced in resolution from the original. You couldn't clearly see that the defendant legally defended himself when he shot the victim. You could clearly see this in the original higher resolution video. When the judge found out the persecutor submitted a video with less resolution, he nearly sent the prosecutor to jail for contempt of court and almost threw out the whole case against the defendant. He let is go when the defendant was found innocent by the jury in any case. Had the jury found him guilty, I believe the judge would have reversed their decision. So the idea you can play with and edit video and photos and they're all "real" is just not accurate.

 

[Pieter12]

Of course they can. It's done all the time in court. Photos are presented as potential evidence and questions are asked about how they were processed. If there is editing going on beyond standard adjustments to exposure, color and lighting, the judge won't allow the photos to be used as evidence.

People aren't stupid. They know what's real and what isn't.

There was a recent murder case where the prosecutor presented a video t the jury that was reduced in resolution from the original. You couldn't clearly see that the defendant legally defended himself when he shot the victim. You could clearly see this in the original higher resolution video. When the judge found out the persecutor submitted a video with less resolution, he nearly sent the prosecutor to jail for contempt of court and almost threw out the whole case against the defendant. He let is go when the defendant was found innocent by the jury in any case. Had the jury found him guilty, I believe the judge would have reversed their decision. So the idea you can play with and edit video and photos and they're all "real" is just not accurate.

Photos used as evidence are to illustrate an event or situation. But the fact remains that photos are approximations of reality, not reality itself. The angle that the camera captured the evidence will always leave something out. Just the fact that a judge can throw out photographic evidence proves that it is not all decisive or all-inclusive. The most honest witness can be wrong.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I've never really understood the term "straight" photography...

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

...I am happy though that there are many different ways to express oneself in photography today, than there was say back in f/64 days, where they pretty much snubbed their noses at anything that didn't fit their definition of photography.

 

[Pieter12]

I've never really understood the term "straight" photography...

Heterosexual?

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

And why is that a problem?

I explained it in my post but you deliberately deleted my explanation. Let me present the whole explanation again for you and others:


Quote: "A painting is understood by the viewer to come from the artists mind and brush. So the viewer understands there's an interpretation of reality going on and makes an allowance for that. But with a photograph, the viewer usually has a different consideration, one of expecting to see what the photographer saw. Sure there are edits to correct for camera and film limitations for the loss of lighting, color, and contrast. These may have to be "normalized". But the original subjects remain in more or less their same position and depiction of what they looked like.

Of course, some edits so distort the photo, it;s understood that it was changed substantially. Those are like paintings and understood to be an interpretation. The problem is with "normal" photos of normal scenes that are edited in ways that change what they originally captured in the camera."

 

[Pieter12]

I explained it in my post but you deliberately deleted my explanation. Let me present the whole explanation again for you and others:


Quote: "A painting is understood by the viewer to come from the artists mind and brush. So the viewer understands there's an interpretation of reality going on and makes an allowance for that. But with a photograph, the viewer usually has a different consideration, one of expecting to see what the photographer saw. Sure there are edits to correct for camera and film limitations for the loss of lighting, color, and contrast. These may have to be "normalized". But the original subjects remain in more or less their same position and depiction of what they looked like.

Of course, some edits so distort the photo, it;s understood that it was changed substantially. Those are like paintings and understood to be an interpretation. The problem is with "normal" photos of normal scenes that are edited in ways that change what they originally captured in the camera."

The problem as I see it is the viewer’s expectations, especially in this day and age. And the lack of critical thinking overall.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

The problem as I see it is the viewer’s expectations, especially in this day and age. And the lack of critical thinking overall.

It's hard to believe anything anymore. Most journalists are giving their opinions rather than the news. Photos are edited to match the biased text. Advertisers distort their product views. How can anyone believe anything they see? It creates mistrust of one another. We are all losing something. Imagine what AI will do?

 

[Rolleiflexible]

It's hard to believe anything anymore. Most journalists are giving their opinions rather than the news. Photos are edited to match the biased text. Advertisers distort their product views. How can anyone believe anything they see? It creates mistrust of one another. We are all losing something. Imagine what AI will do?

Messrs. Huntley, Brinkley and Cronkite spin in their graves. Goodnight, Chet.

 

[MattKing]

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.
Among other things, that is why, absent legislative intervention (e.g. traffic cameras), photographs alone can't usually be used as evidence in court. They require corroboration from other evidence.
The OP really likes books of photography. And if you spend a lot of time with those, or at galleries, or reading photographic Art websites, you will get a sense of what sort of photographic trends are current and popular and attracting higher prices in the Art world, and showing up on gallery walls - both real and virtual.
Photographs of things found in the world, presented simply without much technical manipulation, don't seem to be trending. Any trend toward that type of photography is certainly quite quiet. But being less popular doesn't mean death.
FWIW, I wouldn't use "straight" as a definition here. 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.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

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.
Among other things, that is why, absent legislative intervention (e.g. traffic cameras), photographs alone can't usually be used as evidence in court. They require corroboration from other evidence.
The OP really likes books of photography. And if you spend a lot of time with those, or at galleries, or reading photographic Art websites, you will get a sense of what sort of photographic trends are current and popular and attracting higher prices in the Art world, and showing up on gallery walls - both real and virtual.
Photographs of things found in the world, presented simply without much technical manipulation, don't seem to be trending. Any trend toward that type of photography is certainly quite quiet. But being less popular doesn't mean death.
FWIW, I wouldn't use "straight" as a definition here. 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.

IF someone cut a paragraph from one legal document and pasted into another to create a single documents picture, you would consider it dishonest. Why is pasting a sky from one photo into another photo more honest?

 

[MattKing]

IF someone cut a paragraph from one legal document and pasted into another to create a single documents picture, you would consider it dishonest. Why is pasting a sky from one photo into another photo more honest?

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.

 

[Sirius Glass]

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.

Maybe collectable for you but not for me and others. New and different is not always wonderful and great.