Is straight photography dead?

[Arthurwg]

Everyone is splitting hairs to fit their own views of honest or straight(forward) photography. But photography itself is not honest.

Some photography is more honest than other photography.

 

[Arthurwg]

If you really want to see some "straight" photography, check out Lewis Baltz. But in his case, those pictures are informed by a brilliant concept and sensibility.

 

[snusmumriken]

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.

I totally agree with this.

 

[Dali]

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.

Some photography is more honest than other photography.

Is there any morale judgment in photography???

 

[awty]

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.

Ic-racer is correct, its ignorance and method of decrementing. Also goes deeper as we want the subject in hard focus (so no shooting in bulb while hand held), you must use the view finder to compose (no shooting from the hip), you must not crop, we want the pictures to look timeless (so no photos of people using phones or contemporary surroundings) etc.
Thats why this forum lacks any diversity, use to have quite a number of people who had interesting photography, now most have gone. Now its just full of grumpy old men wanting it to be like the old days.
Even the term is derogatory, opposite of straight is bent.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Similar to Jeff Wall - which means that his work can be powerful, evocative, thought provoking, beautiful and soul stirring.
Wall's "After Invisible Man by Ralph Ellison - the Prologue."


View attachment 334287

Or perhaps "Untangling"
View attachment 334288

Yes, these are re-enactments. They are also wall size - most likely Cibachromes.
Are they "straight"?

I don't think I used the word straight. In any case Crewdson is like a cinematographer shooting a single photo. He's a screenwriter. No one believes that a movie is real.

 

[MattKing]

I don't think I used the word straight. In any case Crewdson is like a cinematographer shooting a single photo. He's a screenwriter. No one believes that a movie is real.

Do those who seek "straight" photography watch documentary movies?
Do they read novels or plays or poetry or attend stage productions that speak to the heart or the soul and communicate higher "truths"?

 

[Pieter12]

Excellent example of what the OP is talking about. Robert Frank's picture shows a skill and sensibility that lifts it out of simple "documentary" and makes it art. Gregory Crewdson's picture, on the other hand, illustrates exactly what is wrong with much contemporary photography. It's false and empty of real meaning and may have been constructed by AI. Indeed, his position as head of photography at Yale has done a great disservice.

It obviously wasn't AI, no could it have been because it was created before the technology. Mr Crewdson has a style and you may not like it, but that is his vision.

 

[Pieter12]

No one believes that a movie is real.

But so many believe the actors are like the characters they play. People are easily duped.

 

[DREW WILEY]

If I want to watch a movie or see a stage production, that's what I do. But I sure as heck don't want to see the same kind of thing on a gallery or museum wall. Yeah, it's going on; but they're not going to selling a ticket or membership to me. What Crewdson and Wall do might be some kind of art; but it sure ain't photography in my dictionary - more like painting without a painter's skill. Look like it too. And no, they're no Cibachromes - wrong era, too big - but probably mostly inkjet.

As far as Ai imagery goes, sure, at first it will be a big novelty, a few idiots will pay high prices for early ostentatious examples, they will be in some catchy gallery and museum venues, and within a couple year every junior high student will be doing the same thing, and the whole concept in terms of collector value will go they way of the Dodo and the Hula hoop. Gimmicks wear thin fast.
Real perception is timeless.

 

[MattKing]

And no, they're no Cibachromes - wrong era, too big

Jeff Wall was, for a while (late 1970s?), the largest user of Cibachrome transmission materials in Canada, and one of the largest in the world.
All those photographs are backlit, using technology borrowed from the sign industry.
Although some of the material might be better referred to as Ilfochrome - I'm not sure.

 

[MattKing]

One example, chosen because the internet information lists materials. It is in the National Gallery of Canada's collection, the 1978 work "The Destroyed Room". Note the size.

Seen here:

 

[logan2z]

One example, chosen because the internet information lists materials. It is in the National Gallery of Canada's collection, the 1978 work "The Destroyed Room". Note the size.

View attachment 334311

Seen here:

View attachment 334312

I can't help but be reminded of the Paul Rand quote: "If you can't make it good make it big, if you can't make it big make it red"

 

[DREW WILEY]

Ciba has been over for almost 20 yrs now. Peter Lik also does backlit's - currently Fujitrans - which are about as elegant as a backlit Hamm's beer sign in a dive window, but far more obnoxious due to their sheer size. I admit I don't like things which resemble "catcha" or "gotcha" advertising or ad agency photography. I specialized in Ciba, but only up to 30X40 print size. Anything backlit using fluorescent bulbs of the era probably faded very prematurely if continuously displayed. Ciba didn't do well with strong UV. Most of my own Cibas look like they were printed yesterday; but I've protected them from UV.

Really high quality huge non-trans Cibas were being done in this neighborhood by a fellow whose studio was a six story downtown highrise. He still has a massive deluxe studio, but no longer does chemical photog - offered all his lab equip to me for free, including about 24 pro enlargers. I had no space for any of it except one really nice Durst 8X10 enlarger; and I certainly didn't want the health risks he underwent with 200 gallon tanks of Ciba sulfuric acid bleach at a time for sake of a 50 inch wide processor, which I also turned down. He kept his Sinar P camera and lenses, and now uses digital backs on them in 4X5 rather than 8x10 configuration.

That posted red room example is exactly why I refused to participate in an early CIba show in a major regional gallery. Ciba for Cibas's sake, with its stereotypical loud red dominant in the majority of images. To me that's just kitchy and corny ploy. I think there are only two Ciba images in my entire collection of hundreds which have dominant red. Show me a Ciba printer who knows how to handle nuanced neutrals and they'll earn my respect. Size for sake of size doesn't impress me either. But I suspect this was just an example of Wall's, as well as the mediums, visual adolescence, like zits on a teenager. A lot of 70's color photography was like that, for better or worse, and folks moved on. But it was an exciting era in terms of all the experimentation going on.

 

[logan2z]

Since Gregory Crewdson's name has come up multiple times in this thread, and a recent post was looking for some levity, I recommend watching this video:



Stephen Leslie's YouTube channel has quickly become one of my favorites. It's very well researched, very funny, and one of the few photography-oriented YouTube channels I've come across that actually talks about photography rather than gear. Worth a look...

 

[MattKing]

I can't help but be reminded of the Paul Rand quote: "If you can't make it good make it big, if you can't make it big make it red"

Before you think that, you should see one of these.
I haven't seen the original of that one, but the ones I have seen are compelling, and the size and mode of presentation are definitely part of that.
They are created with the means of presentation in mind.
Back then, I believe he was working on 8"x10" transparency film in camera.

 

[MattKing]

Ciba has been over for almost 20 yrs now.

Yep, and I'm sure Jeff Wall stopped using it about then or sooner.
But when he was using it, it was extraordinary for its time. And that work is really worth seeing.
And to paraphrase a certain Drew Wiley, it isn't really possible to fully appreciate it on the internet.

 

[logan2z]

Before you think that, you should see one of these.
I haven't seen the original of that one, but the ones I have seen are compelling, and the size and mode of presentation are definitely part of that.
They are created with the means of presentation in mind.
Back then, I believe he was working on 8"x10" transparency film in camera.

I'm sure it's a completely different experience in person. It was the size and the fact that there is a lot of red in the photo that brought the quote to mind - and the fact that it resonates with my offbeat sense of humor

 

[DREW WILEY]

Well, big Cibas could indeed be impressive if they contained the level of detail the medium was capable of. But a serious problem back then was how to mount that shiny stuff perfectly flat without orange-peel effect, and light it properly. Backlits handled it another manner. I developed my own proprietary framing system which was expensive but effective. Later modern smooth substrates and permanent thin acrylic adhesive foils came along, but still demand dedicated equipment and a serious learning curve.

In terms of handling and hue control, present Fujiflex is a much easier product to work with than Ciba ever was, but unfortunately only available in wide expensive rolls, limiting amateur usage. It's RA4 compatible.

 

[MattKing]

I believe Drew, you are repeating yourself (see post 139).

 

[Don_ih]

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.

I don't mean undeviated from the real world but from whatever the camera holds to the print, in as much as that is possible.

 

[warden]

I've been pondering this question for a while, and it came to mind again today when I saw the winning photographs in the recently held Members Juried Exhibition at the Center for Photographic Art in Carmel, CA.

Only a small fraction of the winning photographs are what I would consider straight photography - and by that I mean an un-manipulated photograph taken of a real scene. I know that the 'un-manipulated' part of that definition could be controversial (I don't include things like contrast adjustment, burning/dodging here), but I think you'll know what I mean when you see the winning photographs - in some cases it's difficult to tell if the image actually started out as a photograph taken with a camera:

Juried Exhibition Winners

I've noticed a similar thing when looking at other recent juried photo contests, photo books, etc. It seems that straight photographs, taken by going out into the real world, happening upon interesting things and capturing them with a camera, may be dead/dying.

Maybe I'm too narrow-minded or not creative enough, but the majority of the photographs I see at the included link have little interest to me. I still favor film too, so I'm probably just a dinosaur who's out of touch with current photographic trends...

I get what you're saying and agree in principle regarding what you refer to as straight photographs. It does seem that collage and other photo based creations seem to be quite popular now, especially with these kind of money/attention-making shows that look for freshness and the new.

This is one of the winners, which appears to be a kind of folding decorated box that the photographer might have made? I'm not sure if the box is the entry or if it is the photograph of the box that is the entry, but I'm guessing the former. The call for entry specifies only "still photographic media", so I guess anything goes, including a box decorated with images.

https://d11pj51h4ledry.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/27092822/Bloomfield-1.jpg

OT:

These art shows seem primarily a way to grow the non-profit and have some fun, and I imagine that happened. I don't know if these shows say much about the state of photography, but since this show had but one juror I think it says more about her tastes. The CV they offered for her was interesting.

Anyway I took a look at their call for entry and it's the typical stuff: Open only for members, there is a fee to enter on top of membership, all work has to arrive framed/ready to be hung, return postage pre-paid, etc. The photographers are paying for this party, of course.

They say about 2200 people entered globally. If we assume say 1/4 of those are new members that joined to participate in the exhibition then the contest generated about $105,000, and the total prizes offered were humble, $2150 split unequally between nine photographers (five of of the nine winners get fifty bucks). The remaining funds should cover the wine and cheese and keep the doors open.

 

[Pieter12]

I get what you're saying and agree in principle regarding what you refer to as straight photographs. It does seem that collage and other photo based creations seem to be quite popular now, especially with these kind of money/attention-making shows that look for freshness and the new.

This is one of the winners, which appears to be a kind of folding decorated box that the photographer might have made? I'm not sure if the box is the entry or if it is the photograph of the box that is the entry, but I'm guessing the former. The call for entry specifies only "still photographic media", so I guess anything goes, including a box decorated with images.

https://d11pj51h4ledry.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/27092822/Bloomfield-1.jpg

OT:

These art shows seem primarily a way to grow the non-profit and have some fun, and I imagine that happened. I don't know if these shows say much about the state of photography, but since this show had but one juror I think it says more about her tastes. The CV they offered for her was interesting.

Anyway I took a look at their call for entry and it's the typical stuff: Open only for members, there is a fee to enter on top of membership, all work has to arrive framed/ready to be hung, return postage pre-paid, etc. The photographers are paying for this party, of course.

They say about 2200 people entered globally. If we assume say 1/4 of those are new members that joined to participate in the exhibition then the contest generated about $105,000, and the total prizes offered were humble, $2150 split unequally between nine photographers (five of of the nine winners get fifty bucks). The remaining funds should cover the wine and cheese and keep the doors open.

Don’t leave out that the membership is most likely an automatic renewal on the credit card used, so even if the entrant/member never enters another show, there is still a bit of money continuing to roll in.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I've been pondering this question for a while, and it came to mind again today when I saw the winning photographs in the recently held Members Juried Exhibition at the Center for Photographic Art in Carmel, CA.

Only a small fraction of the winning photographs are what I would consider straight photography - and by that I mean an un-manipulated photograph taken of a real scene. I know that the 'un-manipulated' part of that definition could be controversial (I don't include things like contrast adjustment, burning/dodging here), but I think you'll know what I mean when you see the winning photographs - in some cases it's difficult to tell if the image actually started out as a photograph taken with a camera:

Juried Exhibition Winners

I've noticed a similar thing when looking at other recent juried photo contests, photo books, etc. It seems that straight photographs, taken by going out into the real world, happening upon interesting things and capturing them with a camera, may be dead/dying.

Maybe I'm too narrow-minded or not creative enough, but the majority of the photographs I see at the included link have little interest to me. I still favor film too, so I'm probably just a dinosaur who's out of touch with current photographic trends...

I see what You mean and noticed the same with the annual photo competition at the Royal Society in Britain. All I can say is "it doesn't do anything for me and I'll continue with my photography"

 

[warden]

Since Gregory Crewdson's name has come up multiple times in this thread, and a recent post was looking for some levity, I recommend watching this video:



Stephen Leslie's YouTube channel has quickly become one of my favorites. It's very well researched, very funny, and one of the few photography-oriented YouTube channels I've come across that actually talks about photography rather than gear. Worth a look...

Thanks for that, good insights and unexpectedly funny too. Subscribed!