Digital BW, The Print

Joel Eisinger's book, Trace and Transformation: American Criticism of Photography 
in the Modernist Period (1995, U.New Mexico Press), provides a broad look at the 
various perspectives on photowork that were articulated from the time of Pictorialism 
(late 19th C.) through early Postmodernist accounts (late 1960's through early 1980's). 
It's scholarly, but very readable -- a few copies are available on Ebay.

Eisinger's history looks at the serious critical writing on photographs that developed 
during this period, a time when "people were still learning to write about photography, 
still defining the subject, identifying central questions...", and wrestling with the central 
issue that seems unique to photowork:  How can something which, on the one hand, 
seems to be a copy of "reality" (it's mechanical trace) can also be a vehicle of subjective 
vision. It's interesting that the two poles of this issue are the very same ones that has 
driven the discussions on this thread. Eisinger's book gives a long-view context that's 
not possible in short email posts.

John       
    


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

John,

Thanks for the good response on this issue.

To elaborate on my response to Alan Zinn's 5/1 post:

> I'd love to see a useful, short statement that
>addresses print v. original film image honesty.
>Something like:  "Un-altered camera image."

I have used the term "straight" photography for this purpose, and I think it
represents a genre that is fairly well accepted.  The term may have been
first used by Stieglitz and Strand, was then strongly espoused by the f64
group, and made most famous by Adams.

Relating to this, some of the following material may be of interest.

From the PBS website:

"People have disagreed for decades about photography's essential nature. Is
it a fine art, equivalent to the other visual arts, or a documentary tool,
best suited for recording the facts? Some photographers and critics have
said that photography should take advantage of what lenses do best, and be
"straight," representing the world as it is. Others have thought that
photographs must be more impressionistic, or "artistic," in order to be
successful."

[Numerous quotes on both sides of the debate follow the above and can be
seen at
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/ansel/sfeature/sf_role.html]

"In the years 1915-1917, Stieglitz and Strand were in close contact. It
becomes difficult to distinguish who influenced whom, but when at the end of
this period Strand produced a body of sharp-focus work, including somewhat
abstracted still-lifes of kitchen bowls and cityscapes, Steiglitz was prompt
to recognize the breakthrough this work represented.... Strand became known
as an advocate of the new realism called "straight" photography."

[Text from The Encyclopedia of Photography (1984) reproduced at
http://www.masters-of-photography.com/S/strand/strand_articles1.html]


"With Edward Weston, Imogen Cunningham, and a handful of other
photographers, Adams founded in the early 1930s Group f/64, which was
dedicated to straight photography as an art form. Photography at the time
was dominated by the \ufffdpictorialists,\ufffd who created staged, artificial (and
now largely forgotten) photographs that imitated the conventions of
painting. Adams was instrumental in the struggle to gain for photography
recognition as art on its own merits."
<http://www.turtlebay.org/exhibitions/anseladams/pg04.html>

From the Friends Of Photography website:

"As renowned photographic historian Beaumont Newhall said, "Ansel Adams, in
his photography, his writing, and his teaching, has brilliantly demonstrated
the capabilities of straight photography as a medium of expression.""
<http://www.friendsofphotography.org/pastexhibitions.html>

"Throughout his active life, Ansel Adams struggled to master the technical
challenges of  black-and-white printing so that he could express his
"visualization," or vision, of the original scene. ... However, Adams was
interested in much more than technical perfection. "You don\ufffdt make a
photographer just with a camera," he said, "you bring to the act of
photography all the pictures you have seen, the books you have read, the
music you have heard, the people you have loved." Near the end of his life,
Adams produced prints intended to represent his life\ufffds work not just as a
series of landscape images but as a panorama of the possibilities of the
"straight," unmanipulated style to which he adhered."

[From text accompanying the announcement of a Yellowstone Art Museum show
"Ansel Adams: A Legacy - Masterworks from The Friends of Photography
Collection.  From the Collection of Lynn and Tom Meredith. October 4, 2002 \ufffd
January 12, 2003. See,
http://yellowstone.artmuseum.org/Past%20Exhibits.html]

So, when people ask what type of photography I do, my response is that it is
"straight" B&W -- not digital.  It may not be "un-altered," but I think
"straight" photography as a genre includes Alan's concern.

Paul
http://www.PaulRoark.com

____________________________________________________

-----Original Message-----
From: John/Julie Gittins [mailto:jgittins2@...]
Sent: Saturday, May 03, 2003 9:42 AM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Digital BW] Re: un-altered camera image


Joel Eisinger's book, Trace and Transformation: American Criticism of
Photography
in the Modernist Period (1995, U.New Mexico Press), provides a broad look at
the
various perspectives on photowork that were articulated from the time of
Pictorialism
(late 19th C.) through early Postmodernist accounts (late 1960's through
early 1980's).
It's scholarly, but very readable -- a few copies are available on Ebay.

Eisinger's history looks at the serious critical writing on photographs that
developed
during this period, a time when "people were still learning to write about
photography,
still defining the subject, identifying central questions...", and wrestling
with the central
issue that seems unique to photowork:  How can something which, on the one
hand,
seems to be a copy of "reality" (it's mechanical trace) can also be a
vehicle of subjective
vision. It's interesting that the two poles of this issue are the very same
ones that has
driven the discussions on this thread. Eisinger's book gives a long-view
context that's
not possible in short email posts.

John

Hi Paul,

Your essay was a tour de force... 

However, it seems to me that AA sometimes is credited with somewhat more than might be totally correct. That is particularly true of the PBS  documetary on his life. Without doubt so far as the general public is concerned, AA was the most influential American photographer of his time. Others in the early days also had an important role to play, particularly Edward Weston.

Well before the F64 group was formed, Edward Weston made the jump from being a pictorialist to a "realist." His photos of the Armco Steel Plant in 1922 or the wonderful pictures of Mexico he made during his fling with Tina Modotti are certainly sharp focused and anything but pictorialist. His seeing is different from AA's but it is magnificent in its own right. According to the Maddow biography, "In the autumn of 1932, Willard Van Dyke, and his wife Mary Jeanette Edwards, her father J.P. Edwards, Ansel Adams, Edward Weston, Imogen Cunningham, Sonya Nosokowia, and Henry Swift founded a group based on Weston's expressed theories. As Minor White put it in his acute analysis (Image, October 1956), 'it meant 'previsualization ... imagining the print while looking at the scene.'" How each of those artists developed their ability to see and how they used these principles is of course different from person to person.

"Straight photography" as coined by Stieglitz is an accurate description but needs, I think,  a sense of photographic history to be fully appreciated and to realize that others than AA contributed greatly to the body of work.

Roger

 -----Original Message-----
From: Paul Roark [mailto:paul.roark@...]
Sent: Sunday, May 04, 2003 1:57 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Re: un-altered camera image






        Yahoo! Groups Sponsor 

             
       
       

  Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:

  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

  If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same page.

  Please follow these basic guidelines:
  - Include your full name with your message.
  - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
  - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
  - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
  - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or "flames."
  - Complete your Yahoo profile.
  - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various resources on the homepage. 




  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. 


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Roark [mailto:paul.roark@...] 
> Sent: Sunday, May 04, 2003 10:57 PM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Re: un-altered camera image
> 
> ...
> "With Edward Weston, Imogen Cunningham, and a handful of 
> other photographers, Adams founded in the early 1930s Group 
> f/64, which was dedicated to straight photography as an art 
> form. Photography at the time was dominated by the 
> "pictorialists," who created staged, artificial (and now 
> largely forgotten) photographs that imitated the conventions 

Just to address the sarcasm enclosed in parenthesis: I simply don't
beleive that Joel-Peter Witkin's (which is not the only photographer to
present staged, artificial photographs) work will be forgotten in the
future...

> of painting. Adams was instrumental in the struggle to gain 
> for photography recognition as art on its own merits." 
> <http://www.turtlebay.org/exhibitions/anseladams/pg04.html>
> ...

> ...
> Near the end of his life, Adams produced prints 
> intended to represent his life's work not just as a series of 
> landscape images but as a panorama of the possibilities of 
> the "straight," unmanipulated style to which he adhered."

I don't consider AA's work unmanipulated at all. Did you see the
straight print of "Clearing Winter Storm, Yosemite" in his book "The
Print"? It has nothing to do with the "finished" print presented few
pages later. If his photographs were not manipulated the contact print
and the enlargement of the same negative would look identical apart the
sizing (which is impossible in the case of AA).

http://www.masters-of-photography.com/A/adams/adams_clearing_winter_stor
m_full.html (this is not the best reproduction though)

> ...

Regards,
Loris.

>> Near the end of his life, Adams produced prints
>> intended to represent his life's work not just as a series of
>> landscape images but as a panorama of the possibilities of
>> the "straight," unmanipulated style to which he adhered."
> 
> I don't consider AA's work unmanipulated at all. Did you see the
> straight print of "Clearing Winter Storm, Yosemite" in his book "The
> Print"? It has nothing to do with the "finished" print presented few
> pages later. If his photographs were not manipulated the contact print
> and the enlargement of the same negative would look identical apart the
> sizing (which is impossible in the case of AA).
>...
> 
> Regards,
> Loris.

William Shakespeare asked and answered this question for us more than 4
centuries ago - "What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other
name would smell as sweet" Frank Stella is exhibiting work that most of us
would call sculpture, but he calls them painting. I am not trying to say
that naming and classification is unimportant, rather that when referring to
art (or any aesthetic) that the real value transcends its label.

On the other hand a LA Times photographer, was recently fired for
manipulating an image in Photoshop that ran in the paper as if it was a
"straight" or a faithful document of a moment during the Iraq War. But this
sort of manipulation has been going on since Matthew Brady began dragging
dead bodies around the battlefield for better composition during the US
Civil War. He did not need Photoshop to manipulate the "truth" within a
photograph. 

This is the thing about photography - it lies and tells the truth
simultaneously.  

Wendel

Loris wrote:

>>...
>> "With Edward Weston, Imogen Cunningham, and a handful of
>> other photographers, Adams founded in the early 1930s Group
>> f/64, which was dedicated to straight photography as an art
>> form. Photography at the time was dominated by the
>> "pictorialists," who created staged, artificial (and now
>> largely forgotten) photographs that imitated the conventions

>Just to address the sarcasm enclosed in parenthesis:
>I simply don't beleive that Joel-Peter Witkin's
>(which is not the only photographer to present staged,
>artificial photographs) work will be forgotten in the
>future...

Just to be clear, the phrase/sarcasm in the parenthesis was in the original
quote -- it's not mine.

>>... Adams was instrumental in the struggle to gain
>> for photography recognition as art on its own merits."
>> <http://www.turtlebay.org/exhibitions/anseladams/pg04.html>
>> ...

>> ...
>> Near the end of his life, Adams produced prints
>> intended to represent his life's work not just as a series of
>> landscape images but as a panorama of the possibilities of
>> the "straight," unmanipulated style to which he adhered."

>I don't consider AA's work unmanipulated at all. ...

Nor do I.  In addition to lots of dodging and burning, he even eliminated
the big "LP" (for Lone Pine High School) that was on a hill in the middle of
one of his shots of Mt. Whitney.

That is why I think "straight" photography is a good, accepted term for the
genre of photography that includes what I and many other landscape
photographers do.  It includes AA's work, most of other Group f64 member's
prints, and many more traditional B&W landscape photographers.  There are
certain traditional manipulations that have been accepted in the genre.
Yet, the significant details and physical relationships of the lens-formed
image are preserved.

This is not to say that the "straight" photography genre is better or worse
than any other, but it may serve as a way to describe a certain style that,
in my view, retains the essence of the "basic honesty" of the lens-formed
image that gives viewers of photographic prints the feeling they are looking
at a slice of reality.  The genre clearly still allows manipulations that
are, in my view, necessary to convey the photographer/printer's overlay
communication that makes notable and memorable prints more than random
snapshots.

(Note that even contact printers can dodge and burn their prints.)

Wendel wrote:

>..."What's in a name? That which we call a rose by
>any other name would smell as sweet" ....

Maybe, but maybe not always.  When I represent my work to be "straight"
photography, that gives the viewer information that adds value to what I
do -- at least for some, like me.  Again, I love the digital, fantasy
landscapes, but being a nature lover, the fact that a photo is a "straight"
view of my beloved nature is important to me.

>... [An] LA Times photographer, was recently fired for
>manipulating an image in Photoshop that ran in the paper
>as if it was a "straight" or a faithful document of a
>moment during the Iraq War. But this
>sort of manipulation has been going on since
>Matthew Brady began dragging dead bodies around the
>battlefield for better composition during the US
>Civil War. He did not need Photoshop to manipulate
>the "truth" within a photograph.

>This is the thing about photography - it lies
>and tells the truth simultaneously.

Absolutely, and it's a more major problem now than in the "good old days."

It's not an easy thing to define the line between a "lie" and a manipulation
that simply emphasizes that part of reality which the photographer wants to
communicate.  Did AA's elimination of the "LP" from the hill misrepresent
the view in a significant way, or was it removing a human intrusion into a
beautiful scene.

I think the L.A. Times, in doing and publicizing the firing did the same
thing I try to do with my label of "straight" photography.  For some
markets, a major part of the value of the photograph comes from the
"illusion" that it is an "accurate" representation of reality, at least
within boundaries that the viewer, perhaps unconsciously, has accepted.  The
L.A. Times is mostly in the news business, not the art business.  The ease
with which digital tools allow manipulations -- and the viewer's knowledge
of this -- has the potential to seriously undermine a major part of
photography's value to that news organization.

Traditionally, whether true or not, most believed that a photo represented
"truth."  The L.A. Times wants to assure it's readers that, unlike the
tabloids, it's photos do represent the truth.  Figuring out how to
preserving this characteristic of photography, at least for some subset of
the larger field, is what this thread is about.

One thing I like about Photoshop is the ability to remove twigs, etc. from
intruding into my shots.  When one considers that the old-time landscape
photographers cut down trees to clear their views, I feel good about my
modern methods.  Even if they portray a view of reality that is not strictly
accurate, I consider them to be accurately described as "straight"
photographs.

Paul
http://www.PaulRoark.com

Ansel Adams manipulated his prints as much as they could possibly be
manipulated, in the darkroom. Suggest you read his "The Making of 40
Photographs", which tells how he manipulated them, and why.

Jerry








Loris Medici wrote:

> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Paul Roark [mailto:paul.roark@...]
> > Sent: Sunday, May 04, 2003 10:57 PM
> > To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Re: un-altered camera image
> >
> > ...
> > "With Edward Weston, Imogen Cunningham, and a handful of
> > other photographers, Adams founded in the early 1930s Group
> > f/64, which was dedicated to straight photography as an art
> > form. Photography at the time was dominated by the
> > "pictorialists," who created staged, artificial (and now
> > largely forgotten) photographs that imitated the conventions
> 
> Just to address the sarcasm enclosed in parenthesis: I simply don't
> beleive that Joel-Peter Witkin's (which is not the only photographer to
> present staged, artificial photographs) work will be forgotten in the
> future...
> 
> > of painting. Adams was instrumental in the struggle to gain
> > for photography recognition as art on its own merits."
> > <http://www.turtlebay.org/exhibitions/anseladams/pg04.html>
> > ...
> 
> > ...
> > Near the end of his life, Adams produced prints
> > intended to represent his life's work not just as a series of
> > landscape images but as a panorama of the possibilities of
> > the "straight," unmanipulated style to which he adhered."
> 
> I don't consider AA's work unmanipulated at all. Did you see the
> straight print of "Clearing Winter Storm, Yosemite" in his book "The
> Print"? It has nothing to do with the "finished" print presented few
> pages later. If his photographs were not manipulated the contact print
> and the enlargement of the same negative would look identical apart the
> sizing (which is impossible in the case of AA).
> 
> http://www.masters-of-photography.com/A/adams/adams_clearing_winter_stor
> m_full.html (this is not the best reproduction though)
> 
> > ...
> 
> Regards,
> Loris.
> 
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> 
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same page.
> 
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or &amp;amp;quot;flames.&amp;amp;quot;
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various resources on the homepage.
> 
> 
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Jerry wrote:

>Ansel Adams manipulated his prints as much as they
>could possibly be manipulated, in the darkroom.
>Suggest you read his "The Making of 40
>Photographs", which tells how he manipulated them, and why.

But this was within the limits of an understood ethic.  There were (I
believe and hope) no composites -- no huge full moons were artificially
stuck into the photos.

For example, to me, "Moonrise, Hernandez, New Mexico" benefits from the
increased sky contrast that AA put into the later versions of the photo, but
if that moon turns out to be artificially stuck in there -- or, for that
matter, enlarged in size or moved -- my regard for the photo and AA would be
decreased substantially.

Part of the "straight photography" genre that I'm attempting to describe is,
I believe, that every significant element or physical object in the final
print is also on the negative and in the same physical position or
relationship to the other parts of the photo.  (And, I suppose, no one is
hanging a moon or flying saucer model from a fishing line in the scene, like
a low-budget Ed Wood sci-fi flick.)

I think the way this thread started was an attempt to define or label a
category of photography.  Again, this is not saying that this "straight"
photography, if that old term is appropriate, is better or worse than the
many other categories of the medium.

Paul
http://www.PaulRoark.com
__________________________________


Loris Medici wrote:
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Paul Roark [mailto:paul.roark@...]
> > Sent: Sunday, May 04, 2003 10:57 PM
> > To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Re: un-altered camera image
> >
> > ...
> > "With Edward Weston, Imogen Cunningham, and a handful of
> > other photographers, Adams founded in the early 1930s Group
> > f/64, which was dedicated to straight photography as an art
> > form. Photography at the time was dominated by the
> > "pictorialists," who created staged, artificial (and now
> > largely forgotten) photographs that imitated the conventions
>
> Just to address the sarcasm enclosed in parenthesis: I simply don't
> beleive that Joel-Peter Witkin's (which is not the only photographer to
> present staged, artificial photographs) work will be forgotten in the
> future...
>
> > of painting. Adams was instrumental in the struggle to gain
> > for photography recognition as art on its own merits."
> > <http://www.turtlebay.org/exhibitions/anseladams/pg04.html>
> > ...
>
> > ...
> > Near the end of his life, Adams produced prints
> > intended to represent his life's work not just as a series of
> > landscape images but as a panorama of the possibilities of
> > the "straight," unmanipulated style to which he adhered."
>
> I don't consider AA's work unmanipulated at all. Did you see the
> straight print of "Clearing Winter Storm, Yosemite" in his book "The
> Print"? It has nothing to do with the "finished" print presented few
> pages later. If his photographs were not manipulated the contact print
> and the enlargement of the same negative would look identical apart the
> sizing (which is impossible in the case of AA).
>
> http://www.masters-of-photography.com/A/adams/adams_clearing_winter_stor
> m_full.html (this is not the best reproduction though)
>
> > ...
>
> Regards,
> Loris.
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
page.
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or
&amp;amp;quot;flames.&amp;amp;quot;
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
resources on the homepage.
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
page.

Please follow these basic guidelines:
- Include your full name with your message.
- Include the address of your website, if you have one.
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
- As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or
&amp;amp;quot;flames.&amp;amp;quot;
- Complete your Yahoo profile.
- Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
resources on the homepage.




Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

While AA manipulated the contrast, selection through cropping, the local 
vs. global brightness and tonality he did not manipulate (at least that 
we know of) the structure of what was on the negative. He didn't 
superimpose objects into the image. He didn't superimpose one image on 
another. His representation of the image was much the way a classical 
musician pays a score with the negative being the score and the final 
print the production. Within the constraints of the score the 
performance may be different between two different performances.  It 
seems the goal of straight photography is to produce the pre visualized 
image that was faithful to the actual image on the paper. The negative 
was the intermediate point in this process.

Of course what the term "faithful" means is open for discussion.

Truman

Jerry Olson wrote:

>Ansel Adams manipulated his prints as much as they could possibly be
>manipulated, in the darkroom. Suggest you read his "The Making of 40
>Photographs", which tells how he manipulated them, and why.
>
>Jerry
>
>
>  
>

Paul,

I think that you are drawing a very fine line in the sand on this 
one.  I fully agree that putting things into a photo after the fact, 
or taking them out for that matter, would compromise the idea 
of "straight photography." However, I suspect that at some point 
extreme tonal and contrast corrections would also.  This is a dicey 
area as a photographer is trying to convey what he or she felt with a 
two dimensional image. It would seem to me, however, that 
if "straight photography" is to have meaning, than more observers 
than just a photographer would have to share that sense of meaning 
about a scene when loooking at it in real time.  There has to be a 
point where changes in tonality and contrast are the moral equivalent 
of inserting or removing objects; for example, what about a scene 
shot in mid-afternoon rendered as late evening?  Nothing implanted or 
removed, but not exactly "straight photography" either.

I just reread AA's description of "Moonrise..." in The Making of 40 
Photographs and I am not really sure about this one. Hard to tell how 
far removed the image is from what the preverbial objective observer 
would have seen.

To be clear, I am not arguing that "straight photography" is better 
or worse than anything else.  Just trying to think about limits.

Steve

<paul.roark@v...> wrote:
> Jerry wrote:
> 
> >Ansel Adams manipulated his prints as much as they
> >could possibly be manipulated, in the darkroom.
> >Suggest you read his "The Making of 40
> >Photographs", which tells how he manipulated them, and why.
> 
> But this was within the limits of an understood ethic.  There were 
(I
> believe and hope) no composites -- no huge full moons were 
artificially
> stuck into the photos.
> 
> For example, to me, "Moonrise, Hernandez, New Mexico" benefits from 
the
> increased sky contrast that AA put into the later versions of the 
photo, but
> if that moon turns out to be artificially stuck in there -- or, for 
that
> matter, enlarged in size or moved -- my regard for the photo and AA 
would be
> decreased substantially.
> 
> Part of the "straight photography" genre that I'm attempting to 
describe is,
> I believe, that every significant element or physical object in the 
final
> print is also on the negative and in the same physical position or
> relationship to the other parts of the photo.  (And, I suppose, no 
one is
> hanging a moon or flying saucer model from a fishing line in the 
scene, like
> a low-budget Ed Wood sci-fi flick.)
> 
> I think the way this thread started was an attempt to define or 
label a
> category of photography.  Again, this is not saying that 
this "straight"
> photography, if that old term is appropriate, is better or worse 
than the
> many other categories of the medium.
> 
> Paul
> http://www.PaulRoark.com
> __________________________________
> 
> 
> Loris Medici wrote:
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Paul Roark [mailto:paul.roark@v...]
> > > Sent: Sunday, May 04, 2003 10:57 PM
> > > To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> > > Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Re: un-altered camera image
> > >
> > > ...
> > > "With Edward Weston, Imogen Cunningham, and a handful of
> > > other photographers, Adams founded in the early 1930s Group
> > > f/64, which was dedicated to straight photography as an art
> > > form. Photography at the time was dominated by the
> > > "pictorialists," who created staged, artificial (and now
> > > largely forgotten) photographs that imitated the conventions
> >
> > Just to address the sarcasm enclosed in parenthesis: I simply 
don't
> > beleive that Joel-Peter Witkin's (which is not the only 
photographer to
> > present staged, artificial photographs) work will be forgotten in 
the
> > future...
> >
> > > of painting. Adams was instrumental in the struggle to gain
> > > for photography recognition as art on its own merits."
> > > <http://www.turtlebay.org/exhibitions/anseladams/pg04.html>
> > > ...
> >
> > > ...
> > > Near the end of his life, Adams produced prints
> > > intended to represent his life's work not just as a series of
> > > landscape images but as a panorama of the possibilities of
> > > the "straight," unmanipulated style to which he adhered."
> >
> > I don't consider AA's work unmanipulated at all. Did you see the
> > straight print of "Clearing Winter Storm, Yosemite" in his 
book "The
> > Print"? It has nothing to do with the "finished" print presented 
few
> > pages later. If his photographs were not manipulated the contact 
print
> > and the enlargement of the same negative would look identical 
apart the
> > sizing (which is impossible in the case of AA).
> >
> > http://www.masters-of-
photography.com/A/adams/adams_clearing_winter_stor
> > m_full.html (this is not the best reproduction though)
> >
> > > ...
> >
> > Regards,
> > Loris.
> >
> >
> > Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, 
Polls and
> other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
> >
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> >
> > If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you 
wish to
> unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting 
this same
> page.
> >
> > Please follow these basic guidelines:
> > - Include your full name with your message.
> > - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> > - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier 
messages to keep
> them short.
> > - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject 
header.
> > - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or
> &amp;amp;quot;flames.&amp;amp;quot;
> > - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> > - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the 
various
> resources on the homepage.
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to 
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> 
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, 
Polls and
> other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> 
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you 
wish to
> unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting 
this same
> page.
> 
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages 
to keep
> them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject 
header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or
> &amp;amp;quot;flames.&amp;amp;quot;
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the 
various
> resources on the homepage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to 
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

At 10:29 AM 5/5/2003, Jerry Olson wrote:
>Ansel Adams manipulated his prints as much as they could possibly be
>manipulated, in the darkroom.

I don't disagree that AA manipulated his prints, but I don't think he 
manipulated them "as much as they could possibly be manipulated, in the 
darkroom." Take a look at Jerry Uelsmann's work ( http://www.uelsmann.net 
); his prints are certainly more manipulated than AA's. And he does it all 
in the darkroom, using a series of enlargers.

Stan

================================
Photography by Stan McQueen
http://www.smcqueen.com

Well, There are artists, and there are photographers. And there are
Artist/Photographers.  As far as I'm 
concerned, ANYthing goes in a fine art print sold as a work of art. I
Know for a fact that Ansel would have 
Loved digital photography. He was well aware of the new trend coming and
said he was sad he wouldn't be 
around to participate in it.

I don't know if he would or wouldn't have made that moon bigger. If it
were a LITTLE bigger, I don't think
it would matter a bit. It would be up to the individual photographer.
There is a limit of how big that moon could be and still be believeable.
Not much bigger, I think. He surely could have made that image a lot
easier to print if he had been using Photoshop and a computer and inkjet
printer. That photograph was a bear to print, according to Ansel.

Jerry



Stephen Kobrin wrote:

> 
> Paul,
> 
> I think that you are drawing a very fine line in the sand on this
> one.  I fully agree that putting things into a photo after the fact,
> or taking them out for that matter, would compromise the idea
> of "straight photography." However, I suspect that at some point
> extreme tonal and contrast corrections would also.  This is a dicey
> area as a photographer is trying to convey what he or she felt with a
> two dimensional image. It would seem to me, however, that
> if "straight photography" is to have meaning, than more observers
> than just a photographer would have to share that sense of meaning
> about a scene when loooking at it in real time.  There has to be a
> point where changes in tonality and contrast are the moral equivalent
> of inserting or removing objects; for example, what about a scene
> shot in mid-afternoon rendered as late evening?  Nothing implanted or
> removed, but not exactly "straight photography" either.
> 
> I just reread AA's description of "Moonrise..." in The Making of 40
> Photographs and I am not really sure about this one. Hard to tell how
> far removed the image is from what the preverbial objective observer
> would have seen.
> 
> To be clear, I am not arguing that "straight photography" is better
> or worse than anything else.  Just trying to think about limits.
> 
> Steve
> 
> <paul.roark@v...> wrote:
> > Jerry wrote:
> >
> > >Ansel Adams manipulated his prints as much as they
> > >could possibly be manipulated, in the darkroom.
> > >Suggest you read his "The Making of 40
> > >Photographs", which tells how he manipulated them, and why.
> >
> > But this was within the limits of an understood ethic.  There were
> (I
> > believe and hope) no composites -- no huge full moons were
> artificially
> > stuck into the photos.
> >
> > For example, to me, "Moonrise, Hernandez, New Mexico" benefits from
> the
> > increased sky contrast that AA put into the later versions of the
> photo, but
> > if that moon turns out to be artificially stuck in there -- or, for
> that
> > matter, enlarged in size or moved -- my regard for the photo and AA
> would be
> > decreased substantially.
> >
> > Part of the "straight photography" genre that I'm attempting to
> describe is,
> > I believe, that every significant element or physical object in the
> final
> > print is also on the negative and in the same physical position or
> > relationship to the other parts of the photo.  (And, I suppose, no
> one is
> > hanging a moon or flying saucer model from a fishing line in the
> scene, like
> > a low-budget Ed Wood sci-fi flick.)
> >
> > I think the way this thread started was an attempt to define or
> label a
> > category of photography.  Again, this is not saying that
> this "straight"
> > photography, if that old term is appropriate, is better or worse
> than the
> > many other categories of the medium.
> >
> > Paul
> > http://www.PaulRoark.com
> > __________________________________
> >
> >
> > Loris Medici wrote:
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Paul Roark [mailto:paul.roark@v...]
> > > > Sent: Sunday, May 04, 2003 10:57 PM
> > > > To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> > > > Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Re: un-altered camera image
> > > >
> > > > ...
> > > > "With Edward Weston, Imogen Cunningham, and a handful of
> > > > other photographers, Adams founded in the early 1930s Group
> > > > f/64, which was dedicated to straight photography as an art
> > > > form. Photography at the time was dominated by the
> > > > "pictorialists," who created staged, artificial (and now
> > > > largely forgotten) photographs that imitated the conventions
> > >
> > > Just to address the sarcasm enclosed in parenthesis: I simply
> don't
> > > beleive that Joel-Peter Witkin's (which is not the only
> photographer to
> > > present staged, artificial photographs) work will be forgotten in
> the
> > > future...
> > >
> > > > of painting. Adams was instrumental in the struggle to gain
> > > > for photography recognition as art on its own merits."
> > > > <http://www.turtlebay.org/exhibitions/anseladams/pg04.html>
> > > > ...
> > >
> > > > ...
> > > > Near the end of his life, Adams produced prints
> > > > intended to represent his life's work not just as a series of
> > > > landscape images but as a panorama of the possibilities of
> > > > the "straight," unmanipulated style to which he adhered."
> > >
> > > I don't consider AA's work unmanipulated at all. Did you see the
> > > straight print of "Clearing Winter Storm, Yosemite" in his
> book "The
> > > Print"? It has nothing to do with the "finished" print presented
> few
> > > pages later. If his photographs were not manipulated the contact
> print
> > > and the enlargement of the same negative would look identical
> apart the
> > > sizing (which is impossible in the case of AA).
> > >
> > > http://www.masters-of-
> photography.com/A/adams/adams_clearing_winter_stor
> > > m_full.html (this is not the best reproduction though)
> > >
> > > > ...
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Loris.
> > >
> > >
> > > Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks,
> Polls and
> > other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
> > >
> > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> > >
> > > If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you
> wish to
> > unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting
> this same
> > page.
> > >
> > > Please follow these basic guidelines:
> > > - Include your full name with your message.
> > > - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> > > - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier
> messages to keep
> > them short.
> > > - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject
> header.
> > > - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or
> > &amp;amp;quot;flames.&amp;amp;quot;
> > > - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> > > - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the
> various
> > resources on the homepage.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
> > Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks,
> Polls and
> > other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
> >
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> >
> > If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you
> wish to
> > unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting
> this same
> > page.
> >
> > Please follow these basic guidelines:
> > - Include your full name with your message.
> > - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> > - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages
> to keep
> > them short.
> > - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject
> header.
> > - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or
> > &amp;amp;quot;flames.&amp;amp;quot;
> > - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> > - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the
> various
> > resources on the homepage.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> 
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> 
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same page.
> 
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or &amp;amp;quot;flames.&amp;amp;quot;
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various resources on the homepage.
> 
> 
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

At 12:56 PM 5/4/03 -0700, you wrote:
>John,
>
>Thanks for the good response on this issue.
>
>To elaborate on my response to Alan Zinn's 5/1 post:
>
> > I'd love to see a useful, short statement that
> >addresses print v. original film image honesty.
> >Something like:  "Un-altered camera image."
>
>I have used the term "straight" photography for this purpose, and I think it
>represents a genre that is fairly well accepted.  The term may have been
>first used by Stieglitz and Strand, was then strongly espoused by the f64
>group, and made most famous by Adams.
>
>Relating to this, some of the following material may be of interest.
>
> >From the PBS website:
>
>"People have disagreed for decades about photography's essential nature. Is
>it a fine art, equivalent to the other visual arts, or a documentary tool,
>best suited for recording the facts? Some photographers and critics have
>said that photography should take advantage of what lenses do best, and be
>"straight," representing the world as it is. Others have thought that
>photographs must be more impressionistic, or "artistic," in order to be
>successful."
>
>[Numerous quotes on both sides of the debate follow the above and can be
>seen at
>http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/ansel/sfeature/sf_role.html]
>
>"In the years 1915-1917, Stieglitz and Strand were in close contact. It
>becomes difficult to distinguish who influenced whom, but when at the end of
>this period Strand produced a body of sharp-focus work, including somewhat
>abstracted still-lifes of kitchen bowls and cityscapes, Steiglitz was prompt
>to recognize the breakthrough this work represented.... Strand became known
>as an advocate of the new realism called "straight" photography."
>
>[Text from The Encyclopedia of Photography (1984) reproduced at
>http://www.masters-of-photography.com/S/strand/strand_articles1.html]
>
>
>"With Edward Weston, Imogen Cunningham, and a handful of other
>photographers, Adams founded in the early 1930s Group f/64, which was
>dedicated to straight photography as an art form. Photography at the time
>was dominated by the “pictorialists,” who created staged, artificial (and
>now largely forgotten) photographs that imitated the conventions of
>painting. Adams was instrumental in the struggle to gain for photography
>recognition as art on its own merits."
><http://www.turtlebay.org/exhibitions/anseladams/pg04.html>
>
> >From the Friends Of Photography website:
>
>"As renowned photographic historian Beaumont Newhall said, "Ansel Adams, in
>his photography, his writing, and his teaching, has brilliantly demonstrated
>the capabilities of straight photography as a medium of expression.""
><http://www.friendsofphotography.org/pastexhibitions.html>
>
>"Throughout his active life, Ansel Adams struggled to master the technical
>challenges of  black-and-white printing so that he could express his
>"visualization," or vision, of the original scene. ... However, Adams was
>interested in much more than technical perfection. "You don’t make a
>photographer just with a camera," he said, "you bring to the act of
>photography all the pictures you have seen, the books you have read, the
>music you have heard, the people you have loved." Near the end of his life,
>Adams produced prints intended to represent his life’s work not just as a
>series of landscape images but as a panorama of the possibilities of the
>"straight," unmanipulated style to which he adhered."
>
>[From text accompanying the announcement of a Yellowstone Art Museum show
>"Ansel Adams: A Legacy - Masterworks from The Friends of Photography
>Collection.  From the Collection of Lynn and Tom Meredith. October 4, 2002 ­
>January 12, 2003. See,
>http://yellowstone.artmuseum.org/Past%20Exhibits.html]
>
>So, when people ask what type of photography I do, my response is that it is
>"straight" B&W -- not digital.  It may not be "un-altered," but I think
>"straight" photography as a genre includes Alan's concern.
>
>Paul
>http://www.PaulRoark.com
>
>____________________________________________________
>Paul,


Paul,

The question un-intentionally raised a little dust off old ideas about 
photographic aesthetics. Will "pictorialist" always be a pejorative? :-)  I 
t didn't occur to me that some would construe the mere mention of 
“straightness” as a statement of values.  I tend to use the expression 
“straight” among knowledgeable people but as time goes on it may seem 
anachronistic.  Today everything is understood to be (or suspected of 
being)  processed somehow.

AZ



Build a Lookaround!
The Lookaround Book.
http://www.panoramacamera.us

On 5/5/03 10:58 AM, "Paul Roark" <paul.roark@...> wrote:

> Loris wrote:
> 
>>> >>...
>>> >> "With Edward Weston, Imogen Cunningham, and a handful of
>>> >> other photographers, Adams founded in the early 1930s Group
>>> >> f/64, which was dedicated to straight photography as an art
>>> >> form. Photography at the time was dominated by the
>>> >> "pictorialists," who created staged, artificial (and now
>>> >> largely forgotten) photographs that imitated the conventions
> 
>> >Just to address the sarcasm enclosed in parenthesis:
>> >I simply don't beleive that Joel-Peter Witkin's
>> >(which is not the only photographer to present staged,
>> >artificial photographs) work will be forgotten in the
>> >future...
> 
> Just to be clear, the phrase/sarcasm in the parenthesis was in the original
> quote -- it's not mine.
> 
>>> >>... Adams was instrumental in the struggle to gain
>>> >> for photography recognition as art on its own merits."
>>> >> <http://www.turtlebay.org/exhibitions/anseladams/pg04.html>
>>> >> ...
> 
>>> >> ...
>>> >> Near the end of his life, Adams produced prints
>>> >> intended to represent his life's work not just as a series of
>>> >> landscape images but as a panorama of the possibilities of
>>> >> the "straight," unmanipulated style to which he adhered."
> 
>> >I don't consider AA's work unmanipulated at all. ...
> 
> Nor do I.  In addition to lots of dodging and burning, he even eliminated
> the big "LP" (for Lone Pine High School) that was on a hill in the middle of
> one of his shots of Mt. Whitney.
> 
> That is why I think "straight" photography is a good, accepted term for the
> genre of photography that includes what I and many other landscape
> photographers do.  It includes AA's work, most of other Group f64 member's
> prints, and many more traditional B&W landscape photographers.  There are
> certain traditional manipulations that have been accepted in the genre.
> Yet, the significant details and physical relationships of the lens-formed
> image are preserved.
> 
> This is not to say that the "straight" photography genre is better or worse
> than any other, but it may serve as a way to describe a certain style that,
> in my view, retains the essence of the "basic honesty" of the lens-formed
> image that gives viewers of photographic prints the feeling they are looking
> at a slice of reality.  The genre clearly still allows manipulations that
> are, in my view, necessary to convey the photographer/printer's overlay
> communication that makes notable and memorable prints more than random
> snapshots.
> 
> (Note that even contact printers can dodge and burn their prints.)
> 
> Wendel wrote:
> 
>> >..."What's in a name? That which we call a rose by
>> >any other name would smell as sweet" ....
> 
> Maybe, but maybe not always.  When I represent my work to be "straight"
> photography, that gives the viewer information that adds value to what I
> do -- at least for some, like me.  Again, I love the digital, fantasy
> landscapes, but being a nature lover, the fact that a photo is a "straight"
> view of my beloved nature is important to me.
> 
>> >... [An] LA Times photographer, was recently fired for
>> >manipulating an image in Photoshop that ran in the paper
>> >as if it was a "straight" or a faithful document of a
>> >moment during the Iraq War. But this
>> >sort of manipulation has been going on since
>> >Matthew Brady began dragging dead bodies around the
>> >battlefield for better composition during the US
>> >Civil War. He did not need Photoshop to manipulate
>> >the "truth" within a photograph.
> 
>> >This is the thing about photography - it lies
>> >and tells the truth simultaneously.
> 
> Absolutely, and it's a more major problem now than in the "good old days."
> 
> It's not an easy thing to define the line between a "lie" and a manipulation
> that simply emphasizes that part of reality which the photographer wants to
> communicate.  Did AA's elimination of the "LP" from the hill misrepresent
> the view in a significant way, or was it removing a human intrusion into a
> beautiful scene.
> 
> I think the L.A. Times, in doing and publicizing the firing did the same
> thing I try to do with my label of "straight" photography.  For some
> markets, a major part of the value of the photograph comes from the
> "illusion" that it is an "accurate" representation of reality, at least
> within boundaries that the viewer, perhaps unconsciously, has accepted.  The
> L.A. Times is mostly in the news business, not the art business.  The ease
> with which digital tools allow manipulations -- and the viewer's knowledge
> of this -- has the potential to seriously undermine a major part of
> photography's value to that news organization.
> 
> Traditionally, whether true or not, most believed that a photo represented
> "truth."  The L.A. Times wants to assure it's readers that, unlike the
> tabloids, it's photos do represent the truth.  Figuring out how to
> preserving this characteristic of photography, at least for some subset of
> the larger field, is what this thread is about.
> 
> One thing I like about Photoshop is the ability to remove twigs, etc. from
> intruding into my shots.  When one considers that the old-time landscape
> photographers cut down trees to clear their views, I feel good about my
> modern methods.  Even if they portray a view of reality that is not strictly
> accurate, I consider them to be accurately described as "straight"
> photographs.
> 
> Paul
> http://www.PaulRoark.com
> 
> 
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> 
>  
> <http://rd.yahoo.com/M=247865.3003379.4507215.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=1705019182
> :HM/A=1482387/R=0/*http://ads.x10.com/?bHlhaG9vaG0xLmRhd=1052150126%3eM=247865
> .3003379.4507215.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=1705019182:HM/A=1482387/R=1=1052150126%
> 3eM=247865.3003379.450>
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other
> resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> 
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
> unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
> page.
> 
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
> them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or
> &amp;amp;quot;flames.&amp;amp;quot;
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
> resources on the homepage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
> <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .

I am not trying to be a name dropper but Ansel Adams was very aware of the
coming impact of the computer.  He told me, in reply to a question once,
that if he were a young photographer just starting out that he would explore
the digital route.  He mentioned that he had seen what they could do while
processing digitally his images for publication.  He said he was amazed and
felt that this was going to be the future of photography.  J Vee
-- 




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

One more factoid about the "straightness" of Ansel Adams' photography...
he didn't always stop at tonal corrections. For example, from a picture
of the Sierras at Lone Pine he removed a large "LP" from a foothill,
probably put there by the local high school as they tend to do in small
western towns. I believe he spotted it out of the prints rather than by
darkroom manipulation. Can there be any doubt that he'd have used the
Photoshop clone tool if he'd had it?

Harry

My 2 cents:

Some folks like coffe; some like tea.

Some like water colors; some like photographs.

Some like platinum; some like inkjet.

Some like compositing clouds from one image into the dull sky of another
image; some like straight photographs.

I like straight. 

There's something for everyone. And I like that.

Jim

On 5/8/03 4:45 PM, "Harry Saddler" <hsaddler@...> wrote:

> One more factoid about the "straightness" of Ansel Adams' photography...
> he didn't always stop at tonal corrections. For example, from a picture
> of the Sierras at Lone Pine he removed a large "LP" from a foothill,
> probably put there by the local high school as they tend to do in small
> western towns. I believe he spotted it out of the prints rather than by
> darkroom manipulation. Can there be any doubt that he'd have used the
> Photoshop clone tool if he'd had it?

> Some like compositing clouds from one image into the dull sky of another
> image; some like straight photographs.
>
> I like straight.

Jim, but that's the whole point - I bet your "straight" photograph isn't
actually "straight"!

tim

>> Some like compositing clouds from one image into the dull sky of another
>> image; some like straight photographs.
>
>> I like straight.

>... but that's the whole point - I bet your "straight" photograph isn't
>actually "straight"!

Of course, the definition of the term "straight" photography isn't set in
stone, and reasonable people can disagree about the meaning.  It my be a
little like the old US Supreme Court definition of "obscenity" -- you know
it when you see it.

I understand the term to describe a genre of photography that is roughly
defined by how the writers have used it and the nature of the work done by
those whose work is held up as samples of the genre.

In my 5/3/03 posting on this subject, I cited a number of web sources.  Some
of the definitions/descriptions included the following:

	..."straight," representing the world as it is ...

	...Strand produced a body of sharp-focus work,
	including somewhat abstracted still-lifes ...

	...new realism called "straight" photography ...

	...Group f/64, which was dedicated to straight photography
	as an art form  ...

	...historian Beaumont Newhall said, "Ansel Adams, in
	his photography, his writing, ... demonstrated
	the capabilities of straight photography as a
	medium of expression ....

The printers referenced did differing degrees of "manipulations" on their
work.  So, there is some variance within the style.

I don't think being digital, as opposed to wet-darkroom, should directly
affect whether a B&W print is "straight" landscape photography or not.

At any rate, I see myself doing a logical and inevitable, digital extension
of my "straight" silver-print, B&W photography -- but better.

Paul
http://www.PaulRoark.com
_____________________________________________________

-----Original Message-----
From: Tim Atherton [mailto:timatherton@...]
Sent: Friday, May 09, 2003 8:23 AM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Re: un-altered camera image


> Some like compositing clouds from one image into the dull sky of another
> image; some like straight photographs.
>
> I like straight.

Jim, but that's the whole point - I bet your "straight" photograph isn't
actually "straight"!

tim



Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
page.

Please follow these basic guidelines:
- Include your full name with your message.
- Include the address of your website, if you have one.
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
- As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or
"flames."
- Complete your Yahoo profile.
- Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
resources on the homepage.




Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

On 5/9/03 9:23 AM, "Tim Atherton" <timatherton@...> wrote:

>> Some like compositing clouds from one image into the dull sky of another
>> image; some like straight photographs.
>> 
>> I like straight.
> 
> Jim, but that's the whole point - I bet your "straight" photograph isn't
> actually "straight"!
> 
> tim

Hi Tim,

I do alter contrast and density when I print.

I think Photoshop is a wonderful program, and computers make it easy to
produce bad work. I once saw images by a photographer who had transfered
cloud portions of some of his images into some of his other landscape
photographs. I thought the result was dramatic  --  and corny.

I don't dislike photo collages. I just don't like fabrications that are
passed off as realistic.

Images by photojournalists Salgado, Bresson, and many others are art without
altering the content of the image. The art was in seeing and feeling the
moment, the pure moment ­­­­ photography's forte.

Sure "the camera is just a tool." But if someone uses the camera as only an
adjunct to a process, then the result is less of the kind of art that I call
photography. I could take the lens off the front of a view camera, remove
the ground glass, and pour paint through the camera onto canvas. The results
might be wonderful, but I would call it a painting, not a photograph.

Just my opinion.

Best, 

Jim

James Klebau wrote:

>I think Photoshop is a wonderful program, and computers make it easy to
>produce bad work. I once saw images by a photographer who had transfered
>cloud portions of some of his images into some of his other landscape
>photographs. I thought the result was dramatic  --  and corny.
>  
>
No argument there.. I feel similarly about digital sometimes... It's 
almost too easy to shoot technically correct images... It allows many 
more to pass themselves off as "photographers" or "artists,"  while when 
you look at their work it is trite, predictable, and/or simply apes 
someone else's..

There are legions of people who take bad initial imagery and want to add 
PhotoShop filters to create pseudo-art...

Here I always try and keep in mind something I learned from Galen Rowell 
about rainbows and apply it to digital.. As many of you know, Galen was 
famous for Rainbows, Mountain Light and other natural lighting phenomena 
in his photos..  He had a cardinal rule though... Don't create an image 
dependent upon that effect.  If it would be a good image WITHOUT the 
effect, then its addition to the image "can" make it a great one (not 
automatically "will"), and can make a "great" image "iconic."  I see 
digital much the same way..  Start with good or great imagery and IF 
digital adds something significant, fine..  If not, leave it alone.. 
 But don't hit me with crap that depends solely upon some "neat" digital 
effect...  The former images will be timeless, the latter will be old 
next week.

>I don't dislike photo collages. I just don't like fabrications that are
>passed off as realistic.
>  
>
Agreed again... Although I get more pissed at pj's who do it than anyone 
else.. It's that feeling of being deliberately deceived by someone who 
ostensibly is supposed to be illustrating reality..

>Images by photojournalists Salgado, Bresson, and many others are art without
>altering the content of the image. The art was in seeing and feeling the
>moment, the pure moment ­­­­ photography's forte.
>  
>
I dunno, kinda bad choice there...

Smith, Salgado, Cartier-Bresson, Bourke-White, etc.. real history shows 
they each staged images when need be...  Pre-visualization and staged 
images (IMHO) are close cousins of images recreated after the fact.. 
 The only REAL difference is that pre-digital it was REALLY tough to 
make believable after-the-fact alterations..  With digital we can all do 
it with ease (the trick is still to not look corny or trite),,

>Sure "the camera is just a tool." But if someone uses the camera as only an
>adjunct to a process, then the result is less of the kind of art that I call
>photography. I could take the lens off the front of a view camera, remove
>the ground glass, and pour paint through the camera onto canvas. The results
>might be wonderful, but I would call it a painting, not a photograph.
>
>  
>
I won't disagree there, understanding the tools of any art..  Their 
advantages and disadvantages is imperative to creating well with that 
tool.  Again that takes us back to creating great imagery in-camera 
first.. (and for me that "in camera" rule would include stuff like Sky's 
where much of what might be traditionally shot "in-camera" is actually 
created in Bryce or Poser, etc..)  For me, the real bottom line is this, 
if technique obscures, rather than enhances an image, or becomes THE 
point of the art, it'll be here today and gone tomorrow.  Even if it 
becomes truly popular in mass culture, and a moneymaker, others will 
copy it and reproduce the effect  at lesser skill levels and the 
technique will become hopelessly bourgeois.  "Elvis on Velvet"  (not 
that painting on velvet was ever a great technique) But, need I say more?
Keith

 

"Just some guy," and caretaker of the Multiverse's largest EPSON printer 
User Community (highly recommended by Vogon Poets and MegaDodo 
Publications), at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EPSONx7x_Printers/
 
"For the rest of you out there, the secret is to bang the rocks together 
guys"

 






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Keith,

You hit the nail on the head. It is just not digital - how many people 
have painted a "cow head" because they wanted to be Georgia O'Keeffe or 
took landscapes because they wanted to be Adams or set up a still life 
of vegetables because they wanted to be the next Weston. They produced 
the "Velvet Elvis" - some may have won local photography contest and may 
have been pleasing to look at - but they would not stand the test of time.

Digital manipulation makes it even easier to pretend you are the next 
Weston, Adams, Cartier-Bresson, etc. when only they have found a faster 
way to produce the Velvet Elvis.

Truman



Editor P.O.V. Image Service wrote:

>>    
>>
>I won't disagree there, understanding the tools of any art..  Their 
>advantages and disadvantages is imperative to creating well with that 
>tool.  Again that takes us back to creating great imagery in-camera 
>first.. (and for me that "in camera" rule would include stuff like Sky's 
>where much of what might be traditionally shot "in-camera" is actually 
>created in Bryce or Poser, etc..)  For me, the real bottom line is this, 
>if technique obscures, rather than enhances an image, or becomes THE 
>point of the art, it'll be here today and gone tomorrow.  Even if it 
>becomes truly popular in mass culture, and a moneymaker, others will 
>copy it and reproduce the effect  at lesser skill levels and the 
>technique will become hopelessly bourgeois.  "Elvis on Velvet"  (not 
>that painting on velvet was ever a great technique) But, need I say more?
>Keith
>
>
>
>
>  
>



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

> Digital manipulation makes it even easier to pretend you are the next 
> Weston, Adams, Cartier-Bresson, etc. when only they have found a faster 
> way to produce the Velvet Elvis.
> 

Of course, a really good Velvet Elvis is unbeatable...

Good points Keith.

I think the distinction between manipulations/alterations "after the image
was fixed in the camera" (i.e. darkroom and or Photoshop) and manipulation
"before the image was fixed in the camera" (i.e. filters, film choice, point
of view, lowering the camera 6" to cut out the power lines, posing and/or
influencing the scene - Salgado waving his fist to stop people smiling etc)
is a false distinction.

I also think that photography has always told less of the truth than we
always liked to think. In fact I think a good part of the power of the
photograph is found in it's inherent ambiguity.

I'll see if I can find a post I made on this topic in a LF photography
discussion.

As for the "straight" (factual?) photograph, I got my technical start in
photography doing Scenes of Crime photography - what you might consider as
one of the most "straight " forms of photography out there. And yet the
photographs were never allowed to stand on their own - they always required
supporting testimony from the Scenes of Crime Officer as to their accuracy -
which is why digital is now allowed - it always needs the statements of fact
to go with it. It's accuracy can never be assumed. Even choice of lens tells
the story differently.

As one famous Roman said - "what is truth" - something that could easily be
said about photography - photography tells the truth about something far
less often than we would like to think.

tim

> Smith, Salgado, Cartier-Bresson, Bourke-White, etc.. real history 
>shows 
> they each staged images when need be...  
> Keith

In the case of W. Eugene Smith, he more than staged his images. He 
manupilated them to no end. The Schweitzer images being a case in 
point. In fact, in the darkroom he added elements in most, if not 
all, of his images. But it took him time, hard work and if I may say 
so, dedication!

As we all know, image manupilation is still going on today, and it's 
much easier. But it was invented way before the digital era.

Anyway, what is thruth ? And is photography so much different from 
other arts where artists can interpret reality and be praised for it? 
Cheers,
Andre

At 09:11 PM 5/9/03 -0600, you wrote:
>Good points Keith.
>
>I think the distinction between manipulations/alterations "after the image
>was fixed in the camera" (i.e. darkroom and or Photoshop) and manipulation
>"before the image was fixed in the camera" (i.e. filters, film choice, point
>of view, lowering the camera 6" to cut out the power lines, posing and/or
>influencing the scene - Salgado waving his fist to stop people smiling etc)
>is a false distinction.
>
>I also think that photography has always told less of the truth than we
>always liked to think. In fact I think a good part of the power of the
>photograph is found in it's inherent ambiguity.
>
>I'll see if I can find a post I made on this topic in a LF photography
>discussion.
>
>As for the "straight" (factual?) photograph, I got my technical start in
>photography doing Scenes of Crime photography - what you might consider as
>one of the most "straight " forms of photography out there. And yet the
>photographs were never allowed to stand on their own - they always required
>supporting testimony from the Scenes of Crime Officer as to their accuracy -
>which is why digital is now allowed - it always needs the statements of fact
>to go with it. It's accuracy can never be assumed. Even choice of lens tells
>the story differently.
>
>As one famous Roman said - "what is truth" - something that could easily be
>said about photography - photography tells the truth about something far
>less often than we would like to think.
>
>tim
>

Tim,

Couldn't agree more with your analogy. Part of the aim of my work is to get 
the viewer to expand on the "facts" of the picture in some way and 
re-create the "crime" scene in their imagination. I want the viewer to know 
I don't doctor the "evidence".

I think those who are quibbling about what constitutes manipulation  are 
being disingenuous and deliberately contentious when they know full well 
the common distinctions between so-called straight photography and altered 
image using techniques like montage or collage.  How one makes an image in 
regard to these distinctions isn't about quality of art, amount of 
creativity, or integrity.  It is simply a deliberate choice of means toward 
a desired result.

AZ



Build a Lookaround!
The Lookaround Book.
http://www.panoramacamera.us

It's my impression that the discussion and debate within this thread 
has focused on the "legitimacy" (or not) of various physical means of 
controlling the appearance of photographic images. This is a different 
perspective than the usual one adopted by viewers, who respond to 
whether or not an image has a distinctively photographic "look and feel". 

I think we can and do grasp immediately whether an image has this look, 
and questions about  the technique/means used need not enter in at all  -- 
we simply recognize a camera-based way of representing the world 
when we see it. (We also sense how good the image is, and whether it 
grips us). 

Approaching pictures this way, maybe we can more readily recognize 
that a photo-image made via some "impure" means (e.g. montage, 
deliberately arranged setup, etc.) can be (even if most aren't) as 
photographic-feeling as one made via a more "pure" approach.
 
IMHO when an image really has the look and feel of a photograph, when 
it makes good use of the still camera's great capacity to capture or describe, 
it is engaging us with the world in a way that's different from the kind of 
connection that's set up by a painting, or by a sculpture, or by a movie. 

To me, members of the various photographic-style tribes are more alike  
than different when they each do their work really well. 

John

        




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]