Wrestling with the concept of "Straight" Photography

Is this thread topic attempting to assign or define some type of ethics in the process of how a photograph is made or how it is made to look?

 

After reading the OP and comments I think I need some clarification.

Tim, "what we have here is a failure to communicate". Not trying to assign anything to anyone, simply trying to clarify my own thought process. What can't you understand about my not doing phones or videos -- I don't even watch TV! The OP is pretty clear, please read again -- Miss Costello back in seventh grade would have called it reading for comprehension, nowadays we call it "cognitive dissonance". There should be a method to shut down hijacked threads -- possibly by poll? (Ha, Ha, they work so well!)

Verbs take adverbs, not adjectives.

[sheepish, perhaps slightly guilty look from my place of penance in the corner...] Yes, yes. I even considered using "adverb" instead of "adjective", but I left it alone in the name of intentional imprecision. Shame on me... Now, how will I ever hold my head up amongst so erudite a community of thinkers? (Please read previous with tongue planted firmly and conspicuously in cheek.)

 

Back to the topic of truth in photography: There are two quotes that stand out. The first is from Steiglitz: "In photography there is a reality so subtle that it becomes more real than reality." And the second, from Robert Doisneau: "If you take photographs, don't speak, don't write, don't analyse yourself, and don't answer any questions." I think the Steiglizt quote addresses a socio-cultural paradigm; the belief that a "picture is worth a thousand words", and somehow carries more cultural veracity than words alone, even though we all know such was never true, and is even less so today. Yet, the whole question of what constitutes "straight" photography presupposes that such a thing actually exists. Any photographer who wants his/her work to communicate effectively must keep this in mind. The Doisneau quote, while I don't agree with it's surficial premise, is interesting to consider against these discussions. Isn't our art worth talking about? If we can't or won't share our own feelings about it, then why would we suppose or desire others to ascribe meaning or feelings? I'm curious how you all respond to these two premises?

Tim, "what we have here is a failure to communicate". Not trying to assign anything to anyone, simply trying to clarify my own thought process. What can't you understand about my not doing phones or videos -- I don't even watch TV! The OP is pretty clear, please read again-Miss Costello back in seventh grade would have called it reading for comprehension, nowadays we call it "cognitive dissonance". There should be a method to shut down hijacked threads -- possibly by poll? (Ha, Ha, they work so well!)

 

Maybe you should've titled the OP to read "Wrestling with the concept of "Straight" Talk about Photography.

 

Photography is photography whether it comes from a cellphone or a large format film camera and sense you didn't specify any digital camera in your OP, I'm far from off topic on my point. And you're asking the same question I pointed out above from the quote in your OP...

 

At what point, or is there one, does a photo stop being a photo and become a "Work"? I find myself inclined to value the skill with the camera in a different way than post processing manipulation since camera work is what interests me most.

 

What's camera work? You never answered this.

 

So, yes, you are correct in saying what we have here is a failure to communicate, but it isn't me that's failing. I even answered your question with the reference to the iPhone video, but you didn't get it. You only saw it as being off topic which it was not.

Edited June 12, 2017 by Tim_Lookingbill

The OP is pretty clear, please read again

 

OK

 

At what point, or is there one, does a photo stop being a photo and become a "Work"?

 

 

Why do you care?

I don't care.

Why did you ask?

I need to know.

Why?

Because I ...

Care? Why do you care?

 

How about something like this, as one out of many possible reasons why you care enough to ask:

 

(ignoring the obvious exchange: How can you "really" see what you don't "think" you see? Trust the think-less camera!)

i never realized Paul Strand was a pioneer of straight photography. i only knew about his informal portaits of family life.

but the manipulation was done within the limits of the medium.

would those limits include stuff like instagram filters?

Completely OT: this is for Sandy. It is a straight photo; actually doesn't do him justice. He was a thing of beauty when in motion. (Yes, that Julie is this Julie.)

I am going straight out on a very slender limb here...

 

Adams stated throughout his life that he "made" images. He further divided the process into three primary component processes; The Camera, The Negative, and The Print. His books on this should be on every serious photographer's bookshelf. I will posit that the only 'straight' photograph is one taken without any filter or device that substantially distorts the incoming image--that the camera itself does not perform any "digital effect magic" in storing the image--and that is displayed directly via screen or contact print. Each component he describes is an opportunity and place for the photographer to substantially change the reality of the image--that which "was" and the representation of the photographic mind's "is."

 

When I dodge, burn, choose this paper over that one--change curves, levels, so on and so forth--I am attempting to elicit a 'greater' quality to the image, and influence its impact. The purpose may be as benign as adding some clarity and range--or deliberately calculated to lend drama as an emotive element to the subject. That latter thing is where my belief that the dividing line lies between a 'work' and an ordinary photo; between a 'straight' photo and one that has been manipulated with an intent to insert the photographer's sensibilities and interpretations into the final image.

 

I am unable to add anything to the 'verb' conversation... :p

I think the video that Phil posted explains it pretty good. It's what I had come to in my thoughts on it. However I do not really get Adams and the F64 club's aversion to cropping. I do not see how cropping would render the print similar to another art form. I suppose without cropping they could only produce print sizes in the format they were shooting. That would not work for me at all. I shoot 120 film in a 645 and I do not ever print in the 6 x 4.5 (4/3rds) shape. I crop to 4x6 or 8x10 usually. However I am not trying to change the Art world or live within some system of rules. I just do what I feel like doing.

I really don't care about the ethics of digital post processing. I do it when I need it because of time or effort constraints. Raw is more flexible for volume editing. I make changes in post processing when necessary. I like to get a large swim meet processed and on the web in a couple of hours and prints soon after. When I shoot a swimming meet in large venues the variable lighting, and sometimes nasty white balance make consistency difficulties. I would like all the photos to have the same general color, white balance and exposure character. The same was true with my weddings. I try to please the user within ethical bounds.. I do what that takes. When I worked for a paper I had to conform to journalistic rules about post processing changes. I have no artistic compulsions that I am a slave to. I did my very best to make my brides look good by giving them a little help when needed. Most did not really need much if properly lit. I have photographed professional models who are properly lit and made up. That makes a big difference. I use raw mostly for post processing purposes when needed because of a high volume of pictures. I did a lot of weddings with film where post processing wasn't possible on a global scale as it was impractical because of time and technical limitations. This, to me, is not an ethical issue, it is a production issue. It is all so much easier in digital with Lightroom particularly when making global changes. .I am not for or against raw enabled post processing. I do it if time and picture volume dictates I do it.

Most of the viewpoints expressed here distinguish straight vs non-straight based on post processing and manipulation. I just want to bring up the point that composition and framing are great manipulating elements too. What the photographer wants to communicate can be quite different from what the photo looks like on first glance. A photo of a mountain can be about the mountain itself, OR, the mountain can be a symbol to communicate something else. Sometimes. A heavily photoshopped picture of a mountain still remains the photo of a mountain. Alternatively, by changing the framing, and/or including new elements, a mountain photo may no longer be about the mountain, without any post processing.

 

For me, therefore, straight vs non-straight is more about the correspondence between what the photo displays vs what it represents. Straight as in straight talk vs figurative or loaded statement. Whether the photo is manipulated in PP becomes less important in that regard.

" I find myself inclined to value the skill with the camera in a different way than post processing manipulation since camera work is what interests me most".

 

Stuff and nonsense. It has always has and always will be part of the same process. Don't listen to me ask the question of those old masters who walked before us....education is a wonderful thing.

 

I think of an old lost forgotten place covered in dust and cobwebs. Creaking chairs, the occasion cough of a cobwebbed old chap, and most of all the occasional mutterings and silence.

 

The Butler, with a creaking elbow...an old war wound; polishing the cobwebbed cameras which are rarely used. A coughing and a sputtering about the good old days before they nod off into their early eternal sleep.

 

Straight...what does that mean? Does anyone actually believe those from past times were straight photographers. They were innotive; challenging the percieved straight that was before them.

 

The old timers lost in the good old days when photography was straight and Franklin D Roosevelt was President. Really.

We should always try something different whether it works or not.

 

Im sure those who walked before would like to think we have actually achieved conscious minds of our own.

Allen -- you cannot speak for me. The quote you misused describes My preference, not an attempt to impose it on anyone else. As to the rest, your customary product of fevered imagination. Your attached image is related to this thread how? Certainly not as an argument in favor of post processing.

The only photography considered "straight" in photo club circles I remember from 1969- 2003 was slide projection. Everything was projected on silver or lenticular screens with Kodak Carousel or Ektragraphic projectors. It was doctrinaire. We were even concerned with how color temperature changed over the life of a projector bulb (it "warmed"). Kodachrome was the ideal with many, though later it became somewhat less influential. I believe this approach might have been based on National Geographic's editorial policies, though I might be wrong.

 

In 2003 I switched completely to digital. It was like learning photography all over again, from the standpoint of post production. I loved and hated it, because my raw post production skills stunk. For a while I treated digital photography as I had shooting slide film, staying with the factory color, sharpness and contrast profiles of the cameras I used. But that proved to be not very bright. I needed to leave my "straight photography" ideas from the transparency film era behind, and get with the program.

 

Fourteen years later, I'm enjoying photography more than ever in some ways. Though not "great"in any phase of the creation of images, I make them well enough to bring pleasure to friends, family and a few photo editors. No "straight" ideal exists in my mind. It might be a term used by those who want a category for their unwillingness to grow in post production skills. I don't know.

For a while I treated digital photography as I had shooting slide film, staying with the factory color, sharpness and contrast profiles of the cameras I used. But that proved to be not very bright. I needed to leave my "straight photography" ideas from the transparency film era behind, and get with the program.

 

Did you try what I call calibrating the digital camera to replicate what you see in order to override factory defaults by adjusting contrast, saturation, sharpness and any HDR effects? I've always wondered if that would improve the results on a consistent basis under a wide range of lighting situations when using standard exposure parameters. Sort of like an adjusted WYSIWYG "straight out of the camera" custom setting.

 

I can't do that with my camera. It's too old, but I bet I'ld get better results with newer cameras. But I have my doubts.

Lord Kitchener...I think just moved slightly.

 

I think he agrees with you, Sandy.

 

Sorry if my photo did not work for you but I would have been amazed if it did... I see you as a person set in their ways. Life time of conditioning.

 

But its about what works for you...ignore me and please don't take offence.

Did you try what I call calibrating the digital camera to replicate what you see in order to override factory defaults by adjusting contrast, saturation, sharpness and any HDR effects? I've always wondered if that would improve the results on a consistent basis under a wide range of lighting situations when using standard exposure parameters. Sort of like an adjusted WYSIWYG "straight out of the camera" custom setting.

 

I can't do that with my camera. It's too old, but I bet I'ld get better results with newer cameras. But I have my doubts.

 

I did try that, Tim. And I liked the results after tweaking. But I was teased into the raw workflow in hopes of better dynamic range and micro detail. It took quite a few years to achieve the level of skill that now seems better than anything I can do through out-of-camera jpeg.

I really don't care about the ethics of digital post processing. I do it when I need it because of time or effort constraints. Raw is more flexible for volume editing. I make changes in post processing when necessary. I like to get a large swim meet processed and on the web in a couple of hours and prints soon after. When I shoot a swimming meet in large venues the variable lighting, and sometimes nasty white balance make consistency difficulties. I would like all the photos to have the same general color, white balance and exposure character. The same was true with my weddings. I try to please the user within ethical bounds.. I do what that takes. When I worked for a paper I had to conform to journalistic rules about post processing changes. I have no artistic compulsions that I am a slave to. I did my very best to make my brides look good by giving them a little help when needed. Most did not really need much if properly lit. I have photographed professional models who are properly lit and made up. That makes a big difference. I use raw mostly for post processing purposes when needed because of a high volume of pictures. I did a lot of weddings with film where post processing wasn't possible on a global scale as it was impractical because of time and technical limitations. This, to me, is not an ethical issue, it is a production issue. It is all so much easier in digital with Lightroom particularly when making global changes. .I am not for or against raw enabled post processing. I do it if time and picture volume dictates I do it.

 

Your post reminds me of a presentation given our photo club last winter by one of few surviving newspaper photojournalists in Milwaukee, WI. Though he would love to have the time to process raw files, time constraints necessitate uploading jpegs straight from the camera to production.

I wonder what Ansel Adams would do, say or think if he had today's technology available to him. I would say he used all the technology that was available to him. What would he produce today and how would he defend or attack it.

Donald-- it would be his choice, just as he chose the tools he did from what was available in his time. Would Michelangelo have used power chisels for rough work?

I suppose Ansel would ask a child how to make it work like most of us old guys did when digital stuff became part of our lives.

I think Ansel would have reinvented the digital workflow or at least enabled a giant leap into it, the same way he revolutionized darkroom printing. Innovative minds tend to stay at the top of their game, no matter what age or technology.