Jump to content

Wrestling with the concept of "Straight" Photography


Recommended Posts

This is a spin off from the David Plowden post. Several people referenced "Straight" photography, and that resonated with an unresolved self conversation on the subject of classifying? identifying? codifying? different levels of photographic manipulation and outcomes. Clearly, Plowden's, film photos, are straight photos in one sense. Snapped with a Rollei, developed and processed in the darkroom by "a meticulous craftsman" whose darkroom efforts were clearly dedicated toward achieving his desired results. Flashing back in time -- we chose film for effect, exposed for effect, processed either normally or for effect, chose paper, developer, again for effect. We printed, dodged, burnt, etc. At the end of the processes, we had our outcome, but one negative frame could produce myriad results, varying in minor or major ways.

Fast forward to digital, and some personal thoughts on the initial premise. At one end of the continuum is the image that delivers the desired result straight from the camera printed at the default

(some would categorize that harshly as impossible) , at the other abstracts, photos transformed to paintings, or Ben or David's fabulous Daliesque creations.

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. Clearly there are many times when I crop, brighten, sharpen, etc. no more or less than I did in the darkroom. Photo Net used to have a notation as to whether an image had been manipulated. Does it matter?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 267
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Sandy, as you know, an argument is going to ensue. (I assume you are looking forward to it.) Take this post as ... support? encouragement? for you. Not for your "side" but simply for the argument: these things are not decided by "someone else" they're up to you and/or us and/or time. Here is Walead Beshty saying it better (about art in general):

 

… Remember that the conversation is always changing, and that there are many taking place simultaneously. If none are to your liking, you can easily invent a new one. Also, despite the amount of time wasted on discussing it, the market is not as powerful as some pretend. It does not think or make judgments. It is incapable of representing or communicating complexity. It is furtive, inconsistent and at best one circulation system among many. Those who discuss it with exuberant derision are most often its clergymen, giving it divine provenance and false solidity. The only rule is not to try to outthink it; the market is too stupid to outwit; treat it like the wind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

on the surface of where the light splatters

be it film or sensor or no,

the meaningful meaning that matters

is to label it as a "photo".

 

but touch it with tool or a finger

whether artist or craftsman or jerk

long may your brain and eye linger

but, regardless, it's now become "work".

 

;)

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Work" is something that artists or professional photogs produce. Amateurs and hobbyists just take photos...unless the amateurs consider themselves artists. I personally think hobbyists are a little pretentious to call their photos "work", but I suspect most here don't agree.
Robin Smith
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One starting point for a definition of "straight photography" is the standard that most newspapers, magazines, and wire services have adopted for their photojournalists. A news photo must fairly depict the subject with a minimum of post-processing manipulations. Traditional darkroom techniques such as burning, dodging, color correction, and cropping are allowed unless they radically alter the subject of the photo. But using an image editor to add, subtract, or alter picture elements -- even minor distracting elements, such as overhead electrical wires in outdoor scenes -- is forbidden and potentially a firing offense. Exceptions are photos altered for graphics-arts purposes, which some newspapers label as "photo illustrations."

 

Amateur photographers can make their own rules, of course. Generally, I follow the photojournalist standard, although I confess to sometimes making minor alterations. For example, I have used the Photoshop clone tool to erase a distracting light switch that I didn't notice when taking a snapshot portrait of someone standing next to an interior wall. But I don't make major alterations, such as adding or subtracting people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A 'work' is whatever the gallery or viewer decides. Most of HCB's works were taken in a fleeting moment. Effort is irrelevant. Sorry to those who struggle and yet can't take a decent photo, but it's true.

 

You can manipulate photos as long as you declare it. It is no longer photography, though, but meta-photography. But that doesn't mean it's less worthy.

 

Tom, I wouldn't even go that far. The furthest I would go is slightly desaturating a small blemish on an actor's cheek (I had to do that once). In real life it wasn't distracting, so I emulated the effect so that the photo reflected reality. That's not manipulation, merely adjustment. I will never remove a blemish. No element was added or subtracted from the scene, and all elements had their relationships preserved.

 

Cropping could be seen as 'removal' of elements, but it removes all elements equally and does not corrupt their relationship. All lenses 'crop' anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Karim said: "Most of HCB's works were taken in a fleeting moment. Effort is irrelevant. Sorry to those who struggle and yet can't take a decent photo, but it's true." I disagree in that even though a photographer finds a "fleeting moment" to capture, which may seem effortless to some, it still takes having a camera at hand and a commitment to look for or at least be on the lookout for these "fleeting moments." I've often said about myself that the "photos find me" rather than me looking for things to photograph. I still have to be "open" and aware of the photos that are all around me that want to be noticed. I have to have a camera. And, there is still the processing into a final product for others to enjoy.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Straight photography defined? Easy! Without introducing vague terms like "manipulation" one could argue that a photograph is "straight" when there is a one to one correspondence between points in a positive and points in the corresponding negative. Furthermore there is a one to one correspondence between the points in the negative and points in the real optical image that exposed it in the camera. And by extension there is a one to one correspondence between points in the real optical image furnished by the lens and points in the real world subject matter that the lens can see. That, I propose, could be a philosophically rigorous answer to the question.

 

Less formally one could say the contents of the positive, negative, image, and subject must match. Adding things that were not there, subtracting things that were there, rearranging things out of their original order, means that the picture cannot be "straight". It could be argued that such a result is not a photograph at all; perhaps a "mechanically assisted painting" or some such term.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe "straight" from the camera without modification after capture? I don't worry about that distinction, because the vision I have for the shot is governing, not whether I alter it in post. Many times I am taking the shot realizing the limitations in capture that can be modified in post to achieve my vision. I am no photo or cooking purist, but still admire Jacque Pepin's (you had mentioned him in another post) basic knife skills. Slicing with knives rather than a food processor.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Occasionally I shoot slide film the more standard one like Provia 100 or I still got some Kodak E100G and just project the images. With digital I guess one could use a standard color settings in the menu and just shoot JPEG or shoot RAW but what I do is download them into Lightroom and apply a preset that I have developed myself.

 

With b/w. Maybe shoot b/w film at box speed, with a quite a general developer. I have been doing mainly that, I don't wet print no room, so I use a flatbed and create a preset so next time when I use that combination which is mostly 99% - box speed, boring plain Delta 100, HP5 400. I just apply the preset from Lightroom that I developed ages ago. Most images I don't do specific dodge and burn, no gradient tool, no adjustment brush.

Edited by RaymondC
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bob_B, An interesting analogy, when I taught my kids to use knives for cooking and other things, part of the lesson was "the price of speaking knife is cutting yourself once a year", true for some, maybe not for gifted others Food processors, well, I am resisting buying one, but some things, pates for example (Pepin Recipes) become much more reasonable to achieve. No advantage to being a Luddite. There are many skills which offer the opportunity to "cut yourself ".

 

Raymond -- slide film is rather unforgiving, IMO a good thing, unless you are making a living from photography!

 

I think one of the joys, for an amateur, is capturing the transient moment, or not. Life without risk, major or minor, is like food without seasoning.

 

Metrics for Straight? Difficult, which leads back to the OP. It is fine to be harsh with yourself, if that is what you require. Best to be generous in your views and more, in comments on / to others. Kindness delivers good karma.

 

Manipulation -- whatever you require. When the PP dominates, and is the major factor in achieving the final result, more attention might well be paid to acquiring the base inage.

 

 

Fred hit the bullseye early on, probably a Sorities paradox (LINK). though that was not my intention

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here are three quotes from Ansel Adams. (Not words anyone should feel bound to live by. Just some simple and clear ideas to consider.)

 

"You don't take a photograph, you make it."

 

"When I'm ready to make a photograph, I think I quite obviously see in my mind's eye something that is not literally there in the true meaning of the word. I'm interested in something that is built up from within, rather than just extracted from without."

 

"There are no rules for good photographs. There are only good photographs."

 

The one idea of my own I'd like to add:

 

I've never confessed to manipulating a photo. When I work on such a photo, it's a choice I readily make, something I embrace and take pride in.

 

I get pleasure out of my straight photography and my . . . oh here goes . . . not straight photography. I'm glad I don't have to choose one over the other and really, really glad I don't have to think up a different name for one of them. (Some things are best left to others!)

We didn't need dialogue. We had faces!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

(as long as it's done in the best possible taste)

LOL!

 

The reason I get such a kick out of David LaChapelle's photos (I almost called it work, but not sure I'm allowed) is because they're in such bad taste that they kind of come full circle around to being good again, or at least making me smile. (LINK)

 

When the PP dominates, and is the major factor in achieving the final result, more attention might well be paid to acquiring the base image.

 

I partially agree with you, Sandy, about this, except in cases where the PP dominates and is the major factor in achieving the final result and that's the point and it works.

We didn't need dialogue. We had faces!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Phil S. said it the best in 12:34 statement though at a certain level the distinctions blend, i.e. some of the formal concerns in pictorialism cross over i.e., composition, color, light etc. But look at movements like Steichen's and his crew's Photo-seccession, etc., where the idea was to put photography on the level of fine art (of the day) and to emulate by alternative processes and other technics to create "other worldly" and "painterly" photographs. To me "straight" photography is generally photography that present what is photographed in a relatively clear manner. Where the lines get crossed, you can decide for yourself. But taking and presenting a "straight" photo has nothing to do with whether it was manipulated or not. Besides there technically is no such thing as an un-manipulated photograph straight from the camera as every photographic process is by nature a manipulation and reaction to the capture of light. Just my 2 cents.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I fooled around with various roll film cameras but after I bought my first 35mm camera and discovered Kodachrome I was hooked. As their slogan said, you click the shutter and Kodak did the rest. The only post processing was deciding which Kodak facility to mail it to. Now that digital is here a little sharpening is all I do. Lazy straight photography?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Charles nailed it above: Shooting slides, out of house processing and projection is as close to straight photography as one could get but the entire idea still doesn't exist in reality. - What about my lens choices, framing, timing? - I (subconsciously) do all of them to manipulate my image's viewer's impression of my subject.

 

I am not into straight photography. - As much as I appreciate Proletarian Realism, I love to shoot B&W and process it to taste which surely includes abstraction and therefor "manipulation", although maybe on a low level.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't quite understand why having a lab process your work is "straight." Seems like it would be straighter to process it yourself. Someone else processing your work is a little like cloning their decision-making into your photo? Now, don't get me wrong. I don't think anyone should process their own stuff if they don't want to. Just questioning why that would be considered straight.
We didn't need dialogue. We had faces!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess there is not much I do with B/W film. Lacking color it's not realistic to the scene at all. Processing is minimal but I would say the manipulation runs deep if you look at it long enough. Film choice is manipulation, contrast filters are manipulation, developer and the development time making adjustments for the zone system. Then there is manipulation during scanning and finally manipulation in LR including white and black adjustments, contrast, clarity, cropping,, sharpening, dust and scratch removal if needed and even the ink jet printer has to be set up which is manipulation. However I do not remove phone lines or litter in a photos. Instead I just do not take the picture as Medium Format has a cost for every frame so I try to choose my subjects carefully. Basically I try to make 15 decent photos each week. Most of them are family photos as I do not care much for any other type. I do shoot landscapes because I hike a lot. I hiked Half Dome on the 8th and it was a great 19 mile hike. I just carried my cell phone however as my pack was very heavy with water already. I am going back with my medium format this summer however for photos around Vernal and Nevada falls.

 

Anyway I do not care about the Straight Photography thing as I do not think it exists anyway. I think a photograph is either realistic to the scene or it's not. Either way it could be very nice or not so nice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...