Is straight photography dead?

[Don_ih]

So replacing a sky would qualify as "pure photography" (a BS term as I have ever seen).

By the Ansel Adams definition, as outlined here, yes. As would an AI-generated photo, since it would be precisely made to imitate the technique and content of a typical "photo". Uelsmann's photos would be pure photography, also, since they are combinations of photos.

Lots of things were more difficult then and the composites that are a snap of the fingers now were beyond the imagination of Adams writing something like that.

It makes more sense now to reserve the term "straight" photography to mean non-manipulated in destructive or intrusive ways. So whatever the camera provides to whatever least intrusive production of it (scan, print, enlargement - with minimal enhancements (dodging, burning, contrast adjustment, dust spotting, sharpening) that do not disguise or otherwise distort the content).

At this point in time, photography includes many techniques that are not derivative of other art forms yet completely change the content of the photo. And, furthermore, it is absurd to try to preclude from photography considerations that were not first grounded in other forms of visual art. The entire idea of composition, for example, predates even the faintest glimmer of anything photographic.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

So replacing a sky would qualify as "pure photography" (a BS term as I have ever seen).

Why are you straining to define what is clearly already defined as not add or removing a significant object that is on the negative or slide? Cloning is merely a method for adding or removing an object, nothing more.

You're both missing my point (maybe poorly stated): I'm saying that you can take the definition of "straight photography" as it was stated at that time by Ansel Adams and the rest of the group (i.e., mid-1930s) to try to understand what they meant by it and how it defined photography then, but you run into trouble as soon as you try to apply it to a modern, contemporary context.

Pieter, I don't like the term more than you do, but as much as it might be BS for you, it wasn't for them. So if I'm trying to understand what "pure" or "straight" photography might mean, I have to take into account their point of view. The "pure" vs "something else that's not pure" debate was a common one throughout the 19th century, so it's not surprising to find it still active in the early 20th. Was present in music, with Brahms representing "pure" music vs Liszt's programmatic music, and also, albeit stated differently, in the arts, with the "line" vs "color" of Ingres vs Delacroix.

 

[Arthurwg]

Well, mere "ideas" generally look half-baked to me; and that would describe much of the more academic side of the work of Baltz. It seemed like a fishing expedition for some art project grant. At one time, grants mainly went to already proven artists and were visually based. Then at some point, they started being based on "what about this" written resumes, or "fishing expeditions". I saw quite a few of the results in museums. One could tell. And it's exactly that kind of pandering to armchair pontification which caused many of us to avoid academic art careers like the plague. Glad I did.

Do you feel the same about Robert Adams? I'd call that "straight" photography as well.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I really like Robert Adams, but not necessarily in books; it's best to see his actual prints, which are elegantly understated and mostly midtone silvery, but very well done. But I really don't belong on this thread because I think the whole debate over what "straight photography" does or doesn't mean has little relevance to how we photographers actually see and print things. Mostly just a semantics debate.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Straight means it's not artsy-fartsy like pictorialism. Authentic means there's no cloning things in or out.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Straight means it's not artsy-fartsy like pictorialism. Authentic means there's no cloning things in or out.

Correct. Alan gets it.

 

[Don_ih]

Well, when someone stacks nd filters on their lens to prolong an exposure of river rapids to make the water look all smooth and ghosty, that's pretty "artsy-fartsy" - and it's totally "straight".

 

[Alex Benjamin]

Well, when someone stacks nd filters on their lens to prolong an exposure of river rapids to make the water look all smooth and ghosty, that's pretty "artsy-fartsy" - and it's totally "straight".

Excellent point. Someone mentioned Lewis Baltz earlier. Would this photo of his fit as straight? Not manipulated, but shows there is a huge difference between "what the eye of the photographer saw" and "what the camera saw". I'll always find the latter more interesting than the former.

 

[Don_ih]

In order to maintain any meaningful use of the term, the photo you just posted, Alex, would have to be called straight. All kinds of things can be done with the camera, all on its own, to make "unreal"-looking images. In these instances, no manipulation of what is provided by the camera is necessary. So, take the camera, set it to B, go out at night, and hold open the shutter while someone "paints" with a flashlight. That's straight - it's just what the camera could do. From that point, you can talk about what happened to make the exposure. And, of course, you can always further manipulate the image after that, if you want it to be not-straight....

 

[Alex Benjamin]

In order to maintain any meaningful use of the term, the photo you just posted, Alex, would have to be called straight. All kinds of things can be done with the camera, all on its own, to make "unreal"-looking images. In these instances, no manipulation of what is provided by the camera is necessary. So, take the camera, set it to B, go out at night, and hold open the shutter while someone "paints" with a flashlight. That's straight - it's just what the camera could do. From that point, you can talk about what happened to make the exposure. And, of course, you can always further manipulate the image after that, if you want it to be not-straight....

Totally agree. To go back to AA's definition, long exposures is a "quality of technique" that only belong to photography, and part of the means of visual expression that are offered to you by the camera. Again, to me, it has little to do with what the eye sees; it's what, and how, the camera sees—or, to state it better, it's the passage from one to the other.

 

[Rrrgcy]

To Alex Benjamin and Don Heisz, Straight - it’s precisely what the lens sees (irrespective of time lapse and even camera/film spatial variability, like Pinhole in a canister camera)? The “distorted” aesthetic. The camera didn’t lie. It’s what it saw, even if over 10 hours, or in your example someone painting the scene with a moving flashlight. It was recorded as it was - to the camera.

 

[Don_ih]

To Alex Benjamin and Don Heisz, Straight - it’s precisely what the lens sees (irrespective of time lapse and even camera/film spatial variability, like Pinhole in a canister camera)? The “distorted” aesthetic. The camera didn’t lie. It’s what it saw, even if over 10 hours, or in your example someone painting the scene with a moving flashlight. It was recorded as it was - to the camera.

Yes -but it's not about whether or not a camera does or doesn't lie. It's not about honesty at all - it confuses the issue when that concept is introduced. Truth or falsity imply a reference, for the most part, as in "the photo is true to the subject". It brings in the idea of potential misrepresentation. Truth value should be a separate consideration.

These discussions tend to sink into the mud because the terminology cannot be sufficiently distinctly outlined. There's good reason for it, though. For instance, one may use "straight" as opposed to "dishonest" because of a connotation that a manipulated photo (i.e., a not-straight one) misrepresents the subject of the photo. But there is nothing stopping a straight photo from misrepresenting a subject.

 

[Arthurwg]

I really like Robert Adams, but not necessarily in books; it's best to see his actual prints, which are elegantly understated and mostly midtone silvery, but very well done. But I really don't belong on this thread because I think the whole debate over what "straight photography" does or doesn't mean has little relevance to how we photographers actually see and print things. Mostly just a semantics debate.

Just want to add that RA's pictures are profoundly informed by "ideas," and that their visual quality is subservient to those ideas. I also think that some concept of "objectivity". comes into play here.

 

[faberryman]

Just want to add that RA's pictures are profoundly informed by "ideas," and that their visual quality is subservient to those ideas. I also think that some concept of "objectivity". comes into play here.

There are a couple of flies in that ointment. The profoundly informed ideas are in RA's head, and the only way you will know about RA's profoundly informed ideas, which may or may not be profound, is if he tells you about them, and if what he tells you about them is true, and not just a ruse to get a grant. Otherwise, you have to rely on the professional photography critics who, unless RA explained to them his profoundly informed ideas, in which case the same caveats apply, are just guessing, which guesses may or may not be profoundly informed. After all, if you are a photography critic and want to keep your job, or an academic and want to attain tenure, you have to make your guesses sound profoundly informed. Which is just a long-winded way of saying that you can't believe everything you read in an artist statement. I know. I have written my share of artist statements.

Of course everything the photographer and the critics tell you may be profoundly informed and true. If so, you just need to look at the image and decide whether the photographer was successful at conveying his profoundly informed ideas. If he was, then you have a keeper. The next step is to find out which camera he uses. Or maybe that's the first step. There is some variation in the methodological sequence for evaluating photographs.

If you want to work on your wry smile, spend three minutes watching this scene from Woody Allen's Annie Hall. It is certainly a better use of three minutes than watching some guy parade around naked in his darkroom.

 

[Vaughn]

"What the eyes see."

FWIW...Eyes do not see. The brain does that. Eyes just supply the electric impulses caused be the interaction of light with the retina (with some auto focus and exposure controls). And the brain is the grand manipulator of images!

 

[DREW WILEY]

Well, Arthur, cerebral, whatever.... RA's actual prints, which people like you and me are capable of actually seeing, did a rather efficient job of conveying the sensitivity of whatever thoughts or concepts or emotions were behind them. That is not always the case. Some people have "ideas" but cannot visually communicate them well, so discount the handle on the communicating craft itself, in this case visual, as being of secondary importance to them. They apparently expect you to read their NEA grant resume first,
and then the photographs are whatever they are, regardless. Yeah, that's kinda the plague these days as the pontificators sort through web images rather than actual prints like they once did. But the end result is often half-baked, incomplete.

Baltz did that Park City thing, deliberately pointing his camera a fix number of degrees each time, and making the ludicrous claim this was all for sake of utter objectivity. Of course, the huge number of shots were sorted through afterwards, and only the most interesting selected out; and the whole thing was a premeditated scheme, basically what I
call a gimmick or grant fishing expedition. Even reading his mini-manifesto or the exhibition blurb, it still rings hollow for me.

 

[Don_ih]

Eyes just supply the electric impulses caused be the interaction of light with the retina (with some auto focus and exposure controls).

That's what "the eyes see" means.

If you want to enter some physical/biological realm to explain the meaning of common expressions, that is.

 

[Chuck_P]

It's time to hit the ignore button.....

 

[Sirius Glass]

Excellent point. Someone mentioned Lewis Baltz earlier. Would this photo of his fit as straight? Not manipulated, but shows there is a huge difference between "what the eye of the photographer saw" and "what the camera saw". I'll always find the latter more interesting than the former.

Again what the film saw and what the film recorded, so a straight photograph. Had the automobile lights been added with FauxTow$hop, that would have made it not a straight photograph.

 

[Sirius Glass]

"What the eyes see."

FWIW...Eyes do not see. The brain does that. Eyes just supply the electric impulses caused be the interaction of light with the retina (with some auto focus and exposure controls). And the brain is the grand manipulator of images!

Correct!

 

[Hassasin]

"What the eyes see."

FWIW...Eyes do not see. The brain does that. Eyes just supply the electric impulses caused be the interaction of light with the retina (with some auto focus and exposure controls). And the brain is the grand manipulator of images!

Semantics, what you say is same thing, makes no difference how it processed, When I say " that's what I see" it ought to be simple enough for anyone to understand. If instead I starting talking about how the "electric impulses" traveled through my internals, good portion of audience I was trying to address would go ... what ?!

 

[faberryman]

There appear to be a great many religious fundamentalists of different stripes on RFF, so it is no surprise that so many wars play out here. Perhaps adopting a more humanistic approach would broaden everyone's photographic horizons, most importantly your own. If you don't like religious metaphors, may I suggest you re-read Bread and Jam for Frances.

A small historical point: Group f/64 was formed in 1932 and dissolved in 1935. Its members did not hew the straight and narrow throughout their lives. Neither did its post-dissolution adherents, including me.

 

[Vaughn]

That's what "the eyes see" means.

If you want to enter some physical/biological realm to explain the meaning of common expressions, that is.

People (me included) are in the habit of equating how the lens/camera 'sees' with how our eyes/brain sees. Few things are further from the truth, to put it straight.

Just suggesting that "straight" photography is impossible since we do not see "straight". And, of course, neither does the camera. As someone pointed out -- the terminology is all screwed up, so thus the discussion...

For me, the whole F64 thing was about how and why the camera was used as a tool to create during a period of change in the art of photography. And what I find the most interesting about the F64 group was the inclusion of women artists as equal members...something not found in Europe or elsewhere in the USA up to that time. And perhaps one of the reasons the movement caught on.

Semantics, what you say is same thing, makes no difference how it processed, When I say " that's what I see" it ought to be simple enough for anyone to understand. If instead I starting talking about how the "electric impulses" traveled through my internals, good portion of audience I was trying to address would go ... what ?!

Hopefully, we have higher quality of audience here...
Our brains create a continous gestalt, a moving personal reality based partially on visuals from the 'outside'. Our brains are doing with the incoming images (along with other sensory inputs) what AI does to images when it creates a 'reality' in the form of an image. After all, AI cannot be helped but be modeled after our own brains.

None of this is important if one just wants to make pretty pictures. If one is trying to translate experiences and one's personal appreciation for the light through one's images, then it is worth considering.

 

[DREW WILEY]

What is so interesting to me is how insects see things differently than we do. As this wet season turns out to be another 'superbloom" year, some areas are still predominantly yellow. Some years, even the Mariposa littles are predominantly yellow rather than white. The color of the blossoms in any given season is all somehow coordinated to specific pollinators themselves, and where their vision leads them. Even along the coast, the last few years were predominantly yellow. But it will be interesting to see if this year, in the next two months, a lot of lavenders and purples come out, like sometimes before. The insects follow their own tour guides, and have their own kind of film. They'd rightfully accuse us of not even knowing the real meaning of "panchromatic".

 

[Alex Benjamin]

The insects follow their own tour guides, and have their own kind of film. They'd rightfully accuse us of not even knowing the real meaning of "panchromatic".

As would dogs... This always leading me to wonder about how much we are missing in the spectrum.