What is "Pure photography?"

sevencrossingsevencrossing Posts: 2,800Member
edited October 2013 in General Discussions
This is Nikon New slogan

what does "Pure photography" mean to you
Post edited by sevencrossing on
«134

Comments

  • sevencrossingsevencrossing Posts: 2,800Member
    For me apart from aperture its setting as many things as possible to AUTO
    and concentration on light and composition
  • ElvisheferElvishefer Posts: 329Member
    Pure photography... it's a lifestyle choice.

    or maybe

    Pure photography... it's Nikon trying to sell a crapton of cameras.
    D700, 70-200mm f/2.8 VRII, 24-70mm f/2.8, 14-24mm f/2.8, 50mm f/1.4G, 200mm f/4 Micro, 105mm f/2.8 VRII Micro, 35mm f/1.8, 2xSB900, 1xSB910, R1C1, RRS Support...

    ... And no time to use them.
  • Tradewind35Tradewind35 Posts: 77Member
    I see it as intervention by the photographer to choose himself or herself the image effect required, rather than using a programmed setting which a committee of geeks has decided is "landscape" or "sunset" or "portrait" etc
    Robin
  • sevencrossingsevencrossing Posts: 2,800Member
    edited October 2013
    Sorry perhaps a Mod could close this thread

    I though it might be an interesting question

    it has just attracted the usual "I hate Nikon" posts

    One might as well read the comments in the Daily Mail
    Post edited by sevencrossing on
  • PB_PMPB_PM Posts: 4,312Member
    To me pure photography is having the ability to capture a scene the way your minds eye sees it. To me this requires a great deal of manual control, and thought. Time is not only spent on composition, and seeing the light as it is, but also seeing the light the way a camera does. Understanding the limits of the camera, and using them to creat something. I don't think most of my photos come from pure photography moments. Maybe 1 in 100. ISO, aperture and shutter speed need to be controlled independently by the photographer to achieve this, no auto setting can get you there.
    If I take a good photo it's not my camera's fault.
  • PB_PMPB_PM Posts: 4,312Member
    Sorry perhaps a Mod could close this thread

    I though it might be an interesting question

    it has just attracted the usual "I hate Nikon" posts
    Huh?
    If I take a good photo it's not my camera's fault.
  • sevencrossingsevencrossing Posts: 2,800Member
    Huh

    Pure photography... it's Nikon trying to sell a crapton of cameras. - See more at: http://forum.nikonrumors.com/discussion/1754/what-is-pure-photography#Item_4

  • PB_PMPB_PM Posts: 4,312Member
    Ignore troll posts. More good answers will come.
    If I take a good photo it's not my camera's fault.
  • IronheartIronheart Posts: 3,017Moderator
    @seven, one (somewhat funny IMHO) comment does not ruin a thread, hang in there :-)

    I think/hope what pure photography means is a digital version of my nikkormat FTn. I still use/love this camera and a modern one with dedicated controls would be as pure as pure can be to me.
  • donaldejosedonaldejose Posts: 3,373Member
    "Pure Photography" is going back to the old school way of doing things such as using the Zone System and shooting in manual with "old style" clicking shutter speed control dial/aperture ring. The point of this advertizing teaser campaign is to match retro body style with retro photography style. Notice that silver ring around the lens and how he is holding the lens cradled in his left hand to set the the f-stop with that hand. Notice the dial on top of the camera where an LCD is today. That dial will set shutter speed and maybe even P,S,A,M modes.
  • snakebunksnakebunk Posts: 954Member
    edited October 2013
    Like other people when I hear Pure Photography I think of manual exposure and a camera with good controls but without unnecessary stuff (like in camera editing and video). For me it would be good because it minimizes the risk of messing things up and I only use manual exposure anyway. I think many of us have experienced bad images due to a stupid unintended change of settings. I would even like a camera without jpg functionality.

    I don't see the point in moving the aperture and shutter speed controls though. I like the wheels of the current DSLRs, where you can easily change exposure without moving the eye from the view finder. I guess I'm too new to photography to appreciate the retro thing all the way.

    If they have some kind of hybrid electronic view finder, maybe you could see a live histogram in the view finder? That would be really useful.
    Post edited by snakebunk on
  • donaldejosedonaldejose Posts: 3,373Member
    Of course "pure photography" can be practiced with any modern DSLR. It is a way of shooting; not a type of camera. I think Nikon is just using it as a catchphrase to "go back to shooting like was done in the classic olden days of the Nikon F when cameras were mechanical instruments instead of computers." The clicks you hear in the video are mechanical sounds from "the olden days."
  • sevencrossingsevencrossing Posts: 2,800Member
    edited October 2013
    I am often puzzled, why friends who always use Auto or P and take perfectly composed, correctly exposed photographs at the decisive moment, with beautiful lighting; want to "understand" shutter speeds and apertures

    I am not puzzled by the fact that when they do start doing things manually, their results are under or over exposed and suffer from camera shake

    One thing AUTO Nikon could remove, is auto bracketing
    Post edited by sevencrossing on
  • snakebunksnakebunk Posts: 954Member
    I am often puzzled, why friends who always use Auto or P and take perfectly composed, correctly exposed photographs at the decisive moment, with beautiful lighting; want to "understand" shutter speeds and apertures
    For me it's the opposite. I've tried using automatic modes but find it hard to get the exposure right. I think it takes a lot of practice to be able to comfortably switch between modes.

  • proudgeekproudgeek Posts: 1,422Member
    edited October 2013
    Not to be cynical, but it's all just marketing. I'm not as offended as Pitchblack, but it is a total hipster thing. These will undoubtedly sell very well in places like Williamsburg, Brooklyn. There's nothing about my D800 and 17-35 that keeps me from doing the same thing the shooter in the teaser videos is doing.

    But it does beg the question: What is it about the type of photography that most of us are engaged in that is "impure?"
    Post edited by proudgeek on
  • MikeGunterMikeGunter Posts: 543Member
    I actually find the phrase "pure photography" really hipster, pretentious, affected, and offensive.
    Hi all,

    I agree, it's mostly bullshit.

    In my sorted past I was a teacher of photography and of the terrible tasks was judging student works. It was never, ever about about 'art', but rather technical skill and quantifiable results.

    Any thing else is pandering.

    My best,

    Mike
  • PB_PMPB_PM Posts: 4,312Member
    I guess when I looked at the OP's post I interpreted this thread different. I ignored the Nikon ad when I was thinking of the answer. I don't care what Nikon thinks "pure photography is."
    If I take a good photo it's not my camera's fault.
  • snakebunksnakebunk Posts: 954Member
    Yes, this turned out to be a complex thread. My thought was that a minimalistic camera could be interesting. But of course there is nothing more or less pure with using different techniques.
  • ElvisheferElvishefer Posts: 329Member
    edited October 2013
    Huh

    Pure photography... it's Nikon trying to sell a crapton of cameras. - See more at: http://forum.nikonrumors.com/discussion/1754/what-is-pure-photography#Item_4

    I'm sorry ... I thought you were referring to Nikon's new marketing campaign, which is, as such, designed to sell a crap ton of cameras.
    Ignore troll posts. More good answers will come.
    I don't think it was a troll post... An entire marketing campaign PB? Did you see it?

    Edit: Apparently you did.

    My legitimate response was 'it's a lifestyle choice' - as in, to be pure about photography you have to live for it - either as a working professional or as that guy who gets up at 4:30 a.m. to drive to a location and shoot good light. It has nothing to do with gear.

    Post edited by Elvishefer on
    D700, 70-200mm f/2.8 VRII, 24-70mm f/2.8, 14-24mm f/2.8, 50mm f/1.4G, 200mm f/4 Micro, 105mm f/2.8 VRII Micro, 35mm f/1.8, 2xSB900, 1xSB910, R1C1, RRS Support...

    ... And no time to use them.
  • spraynprayspraynpray Posts: 6,389Moderator
    Hmmm, tricky. To me it seems to be about getting the image right in camera and not PP'ing it into submission afterwards. I know people will start going on about old time photographers that burned and dodged, but maybe they didn't practice 'pure photography' either (climbs under table to avoid the storm)?
    Always learning.
  • AdeAde Posts: 1,071Member

    My legitimate response was 'it's a lifestyle choice' - as in, to be pure about photography you have to live for it - either as a working professional or as that guy who gets up at 4:30 a.m. to drive to a location and shoot good light. It has nothing to do with gear.
    I think by necessity most forms of professional photography cannot not equal "pure photography" in the sense being described here. There are so many constraints, conventions, expectations, deadlines -- not to mention money -- that makes most professional photography everything but "pure photography".
  • sevencrossingsevencrossing Posts: 2,800Member
    edited October 2013
    Ok let me try again
    I am not interested in Nikons idea of Pure photography
    I am not particularly interested in what you think about other people
    what interests me, is what YOU think is Pure photography

    For me, it is getting the image I want, using a camera and a lens, by any means possible

    At the moment, my weapon of choice is a D800 using quite a lot of the AUTO settings, shooting RAW and doing quite a bit of post production

    are YOU a PURE photographer ?
    Post edited by sevencrossing on
  • sevencrossingsevencrossing Posts: 2,800Member
    Ade -- that makes most professional photography everything but "pure photography"

    Interesting argument

    If I doing a real estate photo as a professional photographer
    I will use my skills and equipment to get possible result for my client with in his budget and the time allowed
    If I am taking a landscape photograph for my self, I still want the best result and , unfortunately , I will still have a budget and a time restraint

  • AdeAde Posts: 1,071Member
    edited October 2013
    @sevencrossing

    Maybe I can give an example.

    Growing up in Colorado, there were some hiking trails which I looked forward to visit every spring and summer, along with my camera (an old F3HP) and a few rolls of slide film. I knew the trails very well, yet at each visit I still found new things to explore and photograph.

    It's true that at each visit, I'm constrained by time. But I also had the luxury of coming back to the same trails, many many times, year after year. I had the freedom to photograph whatever I wanted, however I wanted. On some visits I got great shots, on other visits I only got "so so" shots, but with a mental note to come back next time to further pursue some ideas in mind until I get the pictures I wanted.

    Such a "pure" pursuit to picture taking would not be possible even if I visited the same exact trails as a professional photographer under assignment.

    That is, I would approach the professional assignment in a completely different way: perhaps by first making sure I get "safe usable shots" for the client, always thinking in terms of framing to fit a vertical page or a horizontal double-spread, making allowances in composition for text and captioning, shooting imagery which I think will have wide commercial appeal, etc. It would no longer a "pure" pursuit but one dictated by professional obligations as part of a contracted assignment.
    Post edited by Ade on
  • donaldejosedonaldejose Posts: 3,373Member
    Perhaps it would help some people to substitute the word "elemental" for "pure" and see it as "elemental photogrpahy:" just using the very elemental types of controls which existed when the classic SLR camera, such as the Nikon F, was invented. Nikon doesn't intend to creat the impression that any other type of photography is somehow negative because it isn't done the old fashioned way with the old manual ways of setting camera functions.

    I see it will be called Nikon DF for digital fusion. The fusion must be new "electronic guts - likely from a D610" inside an old metal Nikon F body.
Sign In or Register to comment.