Is there really such a thing as straight photography?

Question

It certainly seems there is. Ever since the advent of photography there has been a rift amongst practioners of so called pure photography vs. the so called practioners of soft focus/manipulated photography. On one side of the fence resides your Ansel Adams types, and on the other side Jerry Uelsman types. Although one would assume that the manipulator would spend more time in the darkroom(or behind the computer) you will find that zone system photographers or self described straight photographers spend equal if not more time in the darkroom. The question I am trying to get at is that isnt all photography a manipulation of reality in that the human eye and the camera are not a 1:1 basis and that straight should not equate or be assumed as reality. One only needs to look at the original negatives of moonrise over hernandez and the various printed renditions of the aforementioned negative to see that there is a disparity between reality, camera reality and human imagination.

additionally, do you feel that digital photography, in particular the use of Photoshop is causing this rift to grow or decrease?

Answer 1

If there is such a thing as straight photography, I would have to say that it is the photography practiced by the millions of people who go out and buy a camera to simply take snap shots of their lives -- family events, vacations, birthday parties, etc. To me, these are the folks who least interested in trying to stretch reality, but rather are trying to capture reality, or at least what they perceive as reality, on film (or a memory card). These are folks who have no interest in learning anything of the craft of photography. They are photographers only in the sense that they have a camera and use it to take pictures.

I say this simply as an observation and in no way mean it as a disparaging comment. They are primarily interested in recording memories and are happy with the results they are getting. That's perfectly acceptable.

Nonetheless, it's not where I want to be. I want to always be striving to reach the next level, whatever that is, as a photographer. I've never been satisfied with just shooting for the sake of shooting, I want my photographs to say something, whether I do that in the camera or in the darkroom (or my computer now that I've finally entered the digital age).

I'm not sure I would divide photography into "pure" and "manipulative" camps; I think photography is bigger than than. I think each photographer, each "serious" photographer, needs to find what he or she truly enjoys doing and then stretch that as far as they can. Comparing Ansel Adams to Jerry Uelsmann as representing extreme schools of thought in approach to photography is interesting, but I'm not certain it's constructive.

There is certainly a surrealistic edge to Uelsmann's work that you don't see in Adams's more naturalistic work, but is either one truly reflecting reality? Uelsmann clearly uses composite images to produce his finished work while Adams used single images to produce his. But Adams clearly manipulated his single negative to achieve his desired result as much as Uelsmann manipulated his multiple negatives to acheive his. If you want to compare surrealism to naturalism that's one thing, but to say that one manipulates reality while the other doesn't is flat out wrong. They are different schools of expression, and I would call neither "straight" photography.

But in answer to your original question: Yes, there is such a thing as straight photography. It is the photography practiced by the millions of people who buy everything from disposable cameras to the latest and greatest digital wonders that Canon and Nikon and Leica and Hasselblad and so forth can conceive of and use it to take the millions of snap shots that represent those aspects of their lives they want to remember. They may not spend hours sweating over getting just the right exposure. They may not spend hours in the darkroom or on the computer fiddling with an image to make some kind of high art form. But they do enjoy what they do with their cameras, and they are happy with the results they get. Most, if not all, also appreciate the work done by photographers like Ansel Adams and Jerry Uelsmann and others. I started out in that group and caught the "bug." I think a lot of "serious" photogrpahers do.

Answer 2

I think Nihls essentially nailed it in terms of your question. The billions of snapshots taken every year are the closest thing to straight photography there is. However these people aren't photographers and you're talking about the difference in how photographers work. You mention Ansell Adams. I learned the zone system from Ansell Adams many, many years ago.

Most people think of the zone system as an exposure system. It's not. It's a complete process of realizing an image from exposure to printing. As part of that, when we went back to print our images (these were shot on Polaroid 4x5 positive/negative film), we got the chance to watch Ansell Adams do the basics of what he did. These images were highly manipulated. As a final touch, and you will see it in virtually every one of his images, he would darken the borders. This was to help keep the viewers eyes from wandering outside of the frame, or trying to. That was a manipulation, but people think of him as is a straight photographer. I think it is the nature of the manipulations, dodging, burning in, development and paper selection, that make it straight photography. These have all been part of the photographers darkroom tool kit for a long time. They are part of the standard set. Another photographer, and one that is a major influence on me, is W. Eugene Smith, who could also be called a straight photographer. However, he was renowned for the amount of darkeoom work he put into his images.

I think this perceived rift starts with how somethings done and not what's done. To me, it doesn't matter. My only loyalty, or interest, is in the final image. If I achieve that digitally, cool. If I achieve that in camera, way cool. If I achieve that with film, or a combination of film and digital, everythings still cool. The truth is, many of the icons of photography who we try to emulate would kill for what we can do in the digital darkroom and embrace it completely. Ansell Adams is one of them.

I think the dividing line is really between enhancing an image and substantially modifying an image from what you can capture. It has nothing to do with how it's done, but what's done. For example, double exposures have been around for a long time. It's even a technique that's taught and could be considered an infrequently used example of straight photography. On the other hand, compositing an image in the darkroom or on computer wouldn't be considered straight photography even if the results were exactly the same. It falls on the other side of the straight photography line. It's a fuzzy area.

Where images can be considered photography, the division between straight photography and non-straight photography is like defining pornography. You know it when you see it.

It also seems to me that the distinction is only important when you're gearing yourself up to argue for the superiority of one approach over the other. This is something else I personally don't care much about. I'm trying to produce an image that I have imagined as closely as the possibilities and limitations of my chosen medium, photography, can produce. If you can't get from your imagination to a tangible visual representation, then your approach is inferior. If, on the other hand, you are doing by image manipulation what you should have done and could have done through mastering fundamental elements of photography, your approach is crap.

Vance

Answer 3

There has never been a true Straight photography, it has always been manipulated in some way, with old fashion film rolls up to modern digital, simple camera adjustments can manipulate the finished product, early camera's were manipulated by time of exposure and aperture to get different results, people argue about photoshoped images not being true photography, but it is no different to adjusting filters and processes used in the darkroom whilst developing film shots the traditional way. It's just modernization

Answer 4

You are right in that all photography is a vision of the photographer and not a straight reflection of reality. Just by framing you (the photographer) are editing out as much as framing in subjects. The choice of lens (zoom setting) is another interpretation of the photographer's vision.

Recently photojournalists created a standard as to how much to photoshop. You would think that the simple answer to the search for "straight" photography is NO photoshop. But in reality, all photographs are manipulation of reality - just the extent is varied.

Good question.

Answer 5

Well I guess photography is a manipulation indeed. Even if you didn't change anything from the picture you shoot, it still could be a manipulation.

The other day I was showing a photo of my rack to a friend of mine, and when she finally got to see it before her own eye she was quite surprised how the photo actually makes everything looks nicer instead in real life. For me its quite straight photography, but not really because even that simple photo can be deceiving.

So... yeah. May be there is no straight photography after all. But well... at least I haven't heard any "queer" photography so at least we're safe in that part, if you know what I mean. ;)

Answer 6

Yo Sport
Let's cut to the chase here --- photography, as in all other forms of art, is an expression of sorts -- and, in that -- CAN be anything that the photographer is after and CAN be obtained in what ever manner they choose to use !!
Ansel Adams, himself, said, on a number of ocassions before his death, that digital photography would eventually BE the artform !! And, he, of all people was known to spend literally weeks in the dark manipulating negatives to the desired results !!
Add to the mix, here, the FACT that there are thousands of photographers shooting millions of frames of photos on a weekly basis -- targeting absolutely everything IN existance !! And, of these photographers, any number of them are shooting for what THEY want to capture --- whatever that might be !! In that, they are artists, working for the final cut on what THEY want to express --- some of them opting for the raw -- there it is "thing" -- others shooting like crazy for the "concept" approach !!
So, in answer to your original question --- YES, there IS such a thing as "straight" photography --- to the tune of millions of frames a year !! These shots may not always be the ones that you or I see --- or the ones that make it to publications --- or even ones that are considered Great --- but, they are definitely there none the less !!!
As a professional commercial photographer --- MY job is to produce the final that my client is paying for !! And, most usually this is image that is manipulated to the nines by every conceivable tool in the book !! On rare ocassion, I am required to produce photos that are Stark Reality --- and, even in that, there is usually call for contrast elements that punctuate the photo with sizzle of one kind or another --- simply put --- for the impact quotion !!
The public at large has become extremely Jaded as to their attention span offered up to ANY image that doesn't RIP into their senses and literally Tear their thoughts away from the thousands of things going on in their heads as they flip through the pages of their daily lives !! And, because of that -- unless an image has qualities that Scream -- it will be skimmed out of existence by the scan-over that doesn't even ripple as it passes !! This one fact alone DEMANDS that an image be somewhat out of tune with the "norm" and THAT means -- anything BUT straight photography !!

Answer 7

"The question I am trying to get at is that isnt all photography a manipulation of reality."

The answer is a simple yes. The obvious point is we are reducing three dimensions into a two dimension medium. In essence we have stopped time and put a frame around what is to be viewed.

Answer 8

Mr Wallace I'm so happy you are asking such great "discussion" questions. Thank you.

Ok I'm giving you a short answer (your knowledge etc is so above mine how can i really answer you?).

Straight is the "recording" of a subject/sence, not straight is the artist interpretation of a subject/sence.

So straight are images from "normal" view points, and are to give an accurate "recording", artistic or non straight its about using tools (light/lights/lens/media (film or sensor) and knowledge, sensitivity etc).

Most fotogs unless they are working for the press or police etc tend to avoid "straight" images - cause they are boring and not "artistic"

thats my stab at it

a

Answer 9

straight photography

Answer 10

i have never heard of any body ever makeing a staight line unless it was groing hair,so if people name thei children after people in the bible it cant be good for every body