Wrestling with the concept of "Straight" Photography

[DavidTriplett]

So, I recently posted an image into the No Words forum, under the thread of Historic Structures. Here is the original as it came out of the camera:

Now, I found several things about the source image unacceptable: 1) The guy next to me with his elbow and lens in the picture. 2) The radio tower was an historical non-sequitur. 3) Being just after sunset, the light balance was a little off. 4) The frame proportions did not provide a pleasing visual balance. 5) The dead palm tree was a significant distraction. I wasn't after a documentary, so, I used the tools available to me to make this:

I won't pretend this is anything we might define as "straight" photography. But, I wonder if knowing the degree to which it was manipulated makes it less interesting or attractive? Please, be honest. If you liked this in the No Words forum, but now feel betrayed, I won't be hurt if you unlike it. As you consider this in terms of "straight" versus "not straight" photography, please keep in mind that I only did three essential operations: I used the clone stamp and crop to remove undesirable elements, I adjusted the exposure, and I played with the color balance. Other than the clone stamp for the tower and dead palm, everything I did would have been available in a traditional darkroom. It was, for me, a fun and interesting exercise in making something modestly presentable from a fairly raw source image. Since I'm not a traditional darkroom guy, I'm really not sure how I might have obtained anything nearly so engaging without using the digital tools I had available. Please share your thoughts through the lens of Sandy's original question.

Edited June 20, 2017 by DavidTriplett

[Supriyo]

David, you did what you needed, to present the character and charm of this historic structure to the viewers, and you took all the right decisions. No regrets. The most significant difference IMO is due to the removal of the radio tower, which was an eyesore in the original scene. While, you could have avoided cropping by reframing the original scene, there was no way to avoid the radio pole. So removing that was absolutely necessary in post process.

 

Hmmm, it could be an interesting exercise to preserve the radio pole, and still do justice to the subject, by shooting from different angle, focal length, time of day etc, I am not sure if that's at all feasible.

[DavidTriplett]

David, you did what you needed, to present the character and charm of this historic structure to the viewers, and you took all the right decisions. No regrets. The most significant difference IMO is due to the removal of the radio tower, which was an eyesore in the original scene. While, you could have avoided cropping by reframing the original scene, there was no way to avoid the radio pole. So removing that was absolutely necessary in post process.

 

Hmmm, it could be an interesting exercise to preserve the radio pole, and still do justice to the subject, by shooting from different angle, focal length, time of day etc, I am not sure if that's at all feasible.

Thanks, Supriyo. That's how I felt about it. This was on my Route 66 trip last year, and the group arrived on-site just at sunset, so the choice of time of day and lighting was made for me. However, this moment in time did allow capture of the earth shadow, which can be hard to see. Funny, but my choice of framing was driven to a large extent by trying to avoid my travelling companions, who were mucking up the whole scene! (I guess I was mucking things up for them as well.)

[donald_miller5]

This goes back to a long and contentious thread about journalistic photography and the formats that were acceptable. There was another similar contentious thread about "phtoshopping" photos in National Geographic.There was another thread that I initialed with a quote questioning the use of a photo for documentary purposes. Being aesthetically challenged I am an authenticist. I think ther could be a field of study beased on snapshots taken by young children with their Brownies and instamitics (maybe the only true street photography. Your posted shot is much more pleasant to look at but also filters out the reality of what the real world was. I am not saying one is better than the other or right or wrong. They are both fine, Just have to the sense the are presented in

[donald_miller5]

That motel was just down I think

[DavidTriplett]

the sense the are presented in

Donald, you make an excellent case. For me, this particular presentation of this image was intended as an exercise in aesthetics within the larger media of photography. I would have approached it very differently if it were the subject of an architectural documentary study (which I frequently do as a part of my work). Thank you for your feedback.

 

FYI: The owner of the hotel has been working on a restoration, so I hope it's still there.

[Norma Desmond]

But, I wonder if knowing the degree to which it was manipulated makes it less interesting or attractive?

Not to me. I think it's a good photo of an interesting place and the things you did make sense to me in terms of the goal you had.

 

Had you wanted to say something different, yes, you could have shot in such a way as to make the odd juxtaposition of the radio tower and the motel work. But that would have been a different photo with a different goal and sensibility.

 

The kinds of things that make a difference to me and that might detract are when a photo suggests to me that a certain chain of events happened in proximity and I later learn it was created from several exposures or cloned or merged together. If a street photo, for example, shows the simultaneous crossings of several interesting people making gestures that seem to relate to each other, and then turns out to have been put together in post, that would affect my response to it. Because part of photography is the very significant notion of timing. Now, I'm not saying someone couldn't put together an interesting collage that mimicked such a thing, but I think such a collage would be interesting not if it tried to fool me into thinking it all happened at once but if it played with that idea in such a way as to give me a twist on the notion of simultaneity or the way a photo can fabricate. In other words, the collage would need a degree of self-awareness rather than simply trying to convince me it was something it was not.

 

It's very hard to generalize about such things, and I usually assess how I feel about various photos and manipulations on a case by case basis. So, coming back to yours, it's a good photo and I have no qualms about the work you've done on it.

[Norma Desmond]

Just took another look. The only detail I notice is that you cropped out most of the foreground. I understand your focus was on the motel itself, but I wonder if you considered leaving perhaps not all the original foreground but more than you did. I kind of think the motel deserves that kind of entrance/introduction. Though it would set it a bit further back from us, I actually think it would bring it emotionally closer to allow it a bit more foreground. In the original, it strikes me how it commands its environment and I lose some of that in the final photo. This is, of course, an aesthetic and not a moral consideration.

[DavidTriplett]

...it strikes me how it commands its environment and I lose some of that in the final photo.

Fred, your point is well taken. The choices I made were based on wanting the building and sky to be the character-giving elements, rather than the gravel apron. Shortening the sky and/or lengthening the gravel would have changed the nature of the image appreciably, and away from what I found appealing. I can see the interest in making the gravel apron a point of interest, perhaps in another episode. If that were my intent from the beginning, then I might get really low and wide (12mm?), to make the gravel expanse that much more expansive. I think your comments illustrate the kinds of editorial/compositional decisions that are inherent to every image. Thanks for the feedback.

[Supriyo]

The kinds of things that make a difference to me and that might detract are when a photo suggests to me that a certain chain of events happened in proximity and I later learn it was created from several exposures or cloned or merged together. If a street photo, for example, shows the simultaneous crossings of several interesting people making gestures that seem to relate to each other, and then turns out to have been put together in post, that would affect my response to it.

 

I can relate to this. I remember there was a POTW showing a landscape with sun hidden behind clouds, with couple of birds flying at close range. The scene seemed to capture the perfect moment. Also, given the low light and fast bird movement, it seemed almost impossible to capture such a scene as it would need extreme fast shutter speed. Later, when I figured out, it was a composite, it killed the sense of the timing and coincident events and changed my feeling towards the photo. Had I known from the beginning that it was a composite, I would have approached and seen the image differently.

Edited June 20, 2017 by Supriyo

[DavidTriplett]

Had I known from the beginning that it was a composite, I would have approached and seen the image differently.

That has been the criticism of several POTW selections, going back some time. You and Fred have hit it on the head when you identified timing and simultaneity as defining elements of photography as an art. Treatments and approaches that remove our trust of simultaneity undermine our appreciation, unless the image is intentionally and self-consciously a composite or collage. I couldn't agree more.

[Wilmarco Imaging]

It doesn't matter. "Stop" to me does not apply because it connotes an end. To me, images fall along a continuum of expression. Straight images, if they are definable, fall along this continuum.

 

Take portrait images, specifically portrait paintings, as an example. From cave painting, to the Northern European Renaissance, to 20th century modernists, portraits have been more or less literal, more or less "straight".

 

Portrait photography is comparable, in its variety of expression, to portrait painting. Soft focus, black and white (when color is available), lighting, lens, camera position, and on and on. Each choice is a subjective decision made by the artist. Yes, I mean photographers in this sense are artists.

 

If one wants to pursue straight photography, whatever that is, then do it. If one wants to make expressive choices in each of the dozens of variables available to the photographer, then do it. Neither is right or wrong, better or worse.

 

Photography is a prevalent means of image making, an extension of a human activity thousands of years old. Photography will be around for a long time. New imaging means will be developed. These are the good ole days.

 

 

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?

Edited June 20, 2017 by Wilmarco Imaging

[Allen Herbert]

"That has been the criticism of several POTW selections",

 

Usually by folks who don't contribute.

 

Try walking the walk instead of talking the talk.

 

Straight photography what is it? old time stuff or something else.....pray do tell.

[DavidTriplett]

Usually by folks who don't contribute.

Not so. Most critiques (but not all) that differentiate between composite and non-composite images have come from careful observers who take the time to examine the images in detail. I like to include myself in this group. These individuals are also mostly regular contributors. There are, of course, exceptions. I'm thinking of one particular example by Giangiorgio where the issue of timeliness and simultaneity were integral to the impact of the image. The fact that the image turned out to be a composite negated the impact, and therefore modified perception of the image. This is not an issue of valuation. It was still a very pleasing image to look at, but knowing it was a contrivance changed my perception, as it also did for others.

[DB_Gallery]

I had to laugh to myself and wonder why do other photographers care that much about another's work.

 

Because I don't want my work to ever to be associated with someone else's lunch break fantasy photoshopped garbage. And a lot of the stuff out there is truly garbage, no long term value, no social value, no artistic value, no talent required, just complete give-all-the-credit-to-the-software trash.

 

Thankfully people in the art buying world care too and just laugh at the billions of garbage computer images out there.

Edited June 20, 2017 by DB_Gallery

[Norma Desmond]

Because I don't want my work to ever to be associated with someone else's lunch break fantasy photoshopped garbage.

You sound insecure about your work if you think it could be associated so easily with garbage. When someone feels the need to inflate their importance or supposed talent by comparing themselves favorably to garbage, they've crossed a serious line of self-awareness, not to mention hubris.

[donald_miller5]

We certainly seem to take ourselves seriously. Why does anyone have to laugh or put themselves on a pedestal. In some sense some feel they have to have their own special space to look down from. I do not think that is what art is about. It sounds a little too elitist and isolating.

[Supriyo]

So, I recently posted an image into the No Words forum, under the thread of Historic Structures. Here is the original as it came out of the camera:

[ATTACH=full]1193580[/ATTACH]

Now, I found several things about the source image unacceptable: 1) The guy next to me with his elbow and lens in the picture. 2) The radio tower was an historical non-sequitur. 3) Being just after sunset, the light balance was a little off. 4) The frame proportions did not provide a pleasing visual balance. 5) The dead palm tree was a significant distraction. I wasn't after a documentary, so, I used the tools available to me to make this:

[ATTACH=full]1193583[/ATTACH]

I won't pretend this is anything we might define as "straight" photography. But, I wonder if knowing the degree to which it was manipulated makes it less interesting or attractive? Please, be honest. If you liked this in the No Words forum, but now feel betrayed, I won't be hurt if you unlike it. As you consider this in terms of "straight" versus "not straight" photography, please keep in mind that I only did three essential operations: I used the clone stamp and crop to remove undesirable elements, I adjusted the exposure, and I played with the color balance. Other than the clone stamp for the tower and dead palm, everything I did would have been available in a traditional darkroom. It was, for me, a fun and interesting exercise in making something modestly presentable from a fairly raw source image. Since I'm not a traditional darkroom guy, I'm really not sure how I might have obtained anything nearly so engaging without using the digital tools I had available. Please share your thoughts through the lens of Sandy's original question.

 

David,

Just saw your photo of the same site in the NW forum, but with the telephone pole present. In the new photo, I think the telephone pole not only appears non-distracting, it actually forms an interesting counter-balancing element in the composition to the signboard on the right. Also I think, the long shadows go very well with the industrial shape of the telephone pole. In this thread, we were discussing composition possibilities that may work with the telephone pole in place, and I think I have found my example.

[DavidTriplett]

David,

Just saw your photo of the same site in the NW forum, but with the telephone pole present. In the new photo, I think the telephone pole not only appears non-distracting, it actually forms an interesting counter-balancing element in the composition to the signboard on the right. Also I think, the long shadows go very well with the industrial shape of the telephone pole. In this thread, we were discussing composition possibilities that may work with the telephone pole in place, and I think I have found my example.

Supriyo, thanks for the follow-up. I agree. Last night's NW posting was all about the shadows, so the other elements were acceptable (to me). It's so nice to have you address these discussions holistically. Your input is always appreciated.

[DB_Gallery]

We certainly seem to take ourselves seriously. Why does anyone have to laugh or put themselves on a pedestal. In some sense some feel they have to have their own special space to look down from. I do not think that is what art is about. It sounds a little too elitist and isolating.

 

Nah, my world is all good, I have never been doing better in my career and craft, mentor dozens of young photographers per year though legitimate academia as a means to give back and keep it real.

 

But once and awhile, the love-fest of the inter webs with all its empty praise and likes needs to hear a different opinion. I stand by what I see and believe, since the use of computers in altering photographs has gone mainstream, there is a TON of garbage out there.

 

And you know what they do with garbage right? They generally put it in a landfill, which can be a hole. And when one looks up from a hole, everything above it might *seem* to be on a pedestal.

 

Just like photoshopped pictures, all might not be what it seems.....

Edited July 12, 2017 by DB_Gallery

[Norma Desmond]

Neither extreme, pompous purism nor dismissal of craft, appeals to me.

[Norman 202]

everything in moderation, including moderation

 

some playwright or other.

[Norman 202]

it's good to express yourself, sometimes argumentatively, about things you are passionate about. Edited July 12, 2017 by Norman 202

[Tim_Lookingbill]

If you fritter and finger around noodling with a new technology it'll eventually feel like a craft once the artist sees results they like. Problem with that is once it becomes a turnkey process discipline all the frittering, fingering and noodling gets tossed which was the original source for the final results and inspiration.

 

True creativity is not subject to reverse engineering or else everything would look the same. That's the definition of a turnkey, cooky cutter process.

[Norman 202]

If you fritter and finger around noodling with a new technology it'll eventually feel like a craft once the artist sees results they like. Problem with that is once it becomes a turnkey process discipline all the frittering, fingering and noodling gets tossed which was the original source for the final results and inspiration.

 

True creativity is not subject to reverse engineering or else everything would look the same. That's the definition of a turnkey, cooky cutter process.

Tim, you do realize this is an English Language forum, don't you? => :)