Sunset at White Sands, NM © Michael Maurer Smith
I find little need to resort to tricks to make a picture interesting or beautiful. The world has plenty to offer a discerning eye and mind and for me that is the challenge and joy of photography. I prefer to make “straight” photographs.
I do not add or remove objects from these photographs and I rarely use an image-editing program to alter them in ways that would change their essential reality. However, I do color correct, sharpen, adjust contrast, eliminate dust spots and crop judiciously. My goal is to render a final image that is as close to what I saw as possible, although that is always subjective—simply by shifting position to the left or right it is possible to leave out of the frame something as large as an aircraft carrier! Photography is all about choice, judgment, taste and intention.
The simple test of the straight photograph is this: could another person in the same position, at the exact same moment, using the same equipment and settings have recorded this same image—in the camera? Of course, final processing and printing are other matters entirely.
The reason I prefer ‘straight’ photography is simple. It is the ability—the magic really—of photography that it can apprehend the actual reflection of light from the subject, as it happened and preserve that particular moment of time for future viewing and review.
There are many times I intentionally deviate from making straight photographs but when I do I am making a photo-illustrative or artistic interpretation. There is a significant difference between making a photograph as a faithful record of that seen or using the camera to acquire resources from which a photographic image is later constructed, either in the darkroom or on the desktop.
Since I work professionally as a graphic designer I often use photography as a tool of persuasion and communication. As an artist I often use the camera to make images I plan to alter for expressive purposes. However, I make a point to identify my altered images as such. I owe this to the viewer and my conscience.
In my opinion, as a photographer, painter and designer, the overt manipulation of a photographic image removes it from the realm of photography and places it into the realm of illustration and creative self-expression. And this is fine. However, the photographer needs to know what he or she is really doing and be honest about it.
© Michael Maurer Smith 2009
Don’t think I could have worded this better myself, Mike. Recently saw a friend’s effected photos and had to keep my trap shut. I did manage to nicely state that I’d be interested in seeing an uneffected version. The reason I love photography is that it is real.
I’ve learned a good bit since I was here last, including the phrase “post-processing”. And, I’ve roamed a couple of photographic sites where the photographers take your cautions to heart and make it very, very clear precisely what has been done with each image.
I don’t think I would consider straight photography more “real” than the kind of work I do to produce illustrative material. On the other hand, it struck me after reading this that a site I used to visit just to look around – Worth1000 – isn’t on my visiting list any longer. The kind of manipulation I see there – the construction of obviously “unreal” images – just isn’t as interesting as, for example, your photo above.
I like the distinction between “faithfully recording” and “acquiring resources”. That’s easily understood, and helpful.
Linda: Thanks as always.
No photograph is the reality it points to. Ansel Adams reportedly made 1,300 prints of “Moonrise, Hernandez, NM.” No two of them exactly alike. He dodged and burned to adjust tones. He printed the images at different sizes and used different papers. However, in none of them did he move the moon, delete or add things that weren’t in the negative. Undoubtedly Adams was an artist and his photographs are art, and they are “straight” photographs.
In comparison, no two journalists will use the same words, phrasing and writing styles to report the same set of facts. However if they are reporting honestly they will not add or delete facts, knowingly leave them out, editorialize or embellish.
“In comparison, no two journalists will use the same words, phrasing and writing styles to report the same set of facts. However if they are reporting honestly they will not add or delete facts, knowingly leave them out, editorialize or embellish…”
Such a good analogy! Thanks!
I couldn’t agree more. First of all, splendid image; I seldom see your work in b/w and it really speaks to that palette.
Second, as you know, I am a straight photographer. Part of this is that I don’t have the brains/wherewithall/passion or time to play with the computer to make the photos be something more than they are. And part of it is “It’s a photograph!” If I want it to be different, I’ll try (often with less than lovely results, but I’ll try!) to draw it. Or paint it. Or express it in another form. And it becomes a drawing or painting or a poem.
(I do, however, agree with cropping and/0r cleaning up!)
What a dramatic, beautiful photo, Mike! I love B/W.
Judy. I’m glad you like it. I hope to make more soon. I have a trip planned to New Mexico in October and the plan is to spend more time at White Sands. It is an amazing place.