What is "Pure photography?"

Symphotic

Panatomic X, Leica M4P, 35 mm Summicron f/2 and the smell of acetic acid.

Ade

@Ade: the professional under assignment you imagine in your thought experiment doesn't sound like a great photographer to me. Every time—*every* time—that I'm on a paid shoot, I always tell myself after I think I'm done, what haven't I thought about? What can I experiment with? I've got the shots in the bag, now let's try something unexpected. Sometimes it's a big fail and sometimes it's a huge success.

Sure but would you be willing to risk not getting ANY shot? Very few professional photographers on assignment have the luxury of going back to a paying client and say, "Sorry, I didn't get anything for you, I was too busy trying out ideas interesting to me, and unfortunately it failed in a big way. But thanks for the cheque anyway."

That's what I mean. The amateur photographer has the luxury of doing photography for photography's sake. There is no "success" or "failure".

Just re-read your own phrasing... you do your experiments and take risk of a big failure after you think you're done. That is the compromise. It implies that before you think you're done, you're bound by the same constraints as the photographer in my thought experiment (which is me).

If you re-read my post again, my approach is to first make sure that I have safe useable shots for the client. Everything else comes later. I don't think you approach your assignments that differently than I do.

Symphotic

The Polaroid Swinger. "It's more than a camera, it's almost alive, it's only nineteen dollars, and ninety five"

Golf007sd

Very thought-provoking question. In golf, I know what a pure shot is, I have felt it and have seen the result; but in photography, I believe it is an open-ended question. One could argue that a photographer that "specializes" in a specific type of photography such as macro, landscape, birds-in-flight and action shots could be considered a "pure photographer." Hence, style not equipment that distinguish he or she. For me the pure shot is more about how the Image affects my senses. If it moves me to a place where the I feel inspired then I would say "that is a pure shot." How much of that is in relation to the photographer or his level of PP is secondary to me.

I wish each of you that pure shot, moreover, may your skills rise to a level that we can label you as a "pure photographer."

Cheers...

Msmoto

I tend to agree with Mike G.....bologna...marketing hype....from the minds who brought us the D600

kyoshinikon

I think the idea behind "pure photography" is to limit the tool to its basic functions so instead of focusing on the gear you focus on the photograph. How that idea translates into reality is another thing. I personally enjoy photography the most when I use a fully manual camera (one without auto options or other features) for many it is the polar opposite...

spraynpray

Further thoughts on your question @sevencrossing:

I think I actually feel less of a 'pure photographer' these days, and I believe that is down to a few things:

The first is that there is no pressure to get it right first click as we can chimp and learn how to improve it in a few seconds time.

The second is that we don't print all of our images like we had to before. I am talking about the average photographer who would go out, shoot a roll or two then send them off for processing and wait to see if he/she got the shot. Even when I processed my own (B&W) shots it was long after the moment that I got to see if I got the shot.

Lastly, if we screw-up (even quite a lot), we can fix it in post!

Thanks for making me think about that seven, I think I'll sell my gear and go back to film...

So in conclusion, maybe pure photographers are those who are under pressure to get the shot and get it right first time.

snakebunk

English is not my native language and I may miss something in the definition of words but I think there are three interesting lines of thought here.

First there is nothing pure about gear or technique. But perhaps it is most pure to use the most efficient technique to get what you want. I would call it being effective.

Second there is the trail example. To never give up to what you want, and not to do anything just to please others. I would call it being honest.

Third there is the golf metaphor. To get a good shot that takes you straight to the goal. I would call it being clean.

Maybe if you are both effective, honest and clean we could label it pure?

heartyfisher

Man .. for the first time on this forum I find that I am not in agreement with anyone ... let me think about it a bit more before I post :-) (and enjoy this unique feeling for a bit)

spraynpray

I'm all a tingle waiting hearty!

snakebunk

I must add one thing (sorry). Using an old body to sell more gear can maybe be fun but it is not pure. It is like dressing up like Churchill and expecting more votes.

heartyfisher

Man .. for the first time on this forum I find that I am not in agreement with anyone ... let me think about it a bit more before I post :-) (and enjoy this unique feeling for a bit)

After thinking a bit about it I realised that I was wrong and you were all right ... and I agree with you all..

sevencrossing

For me the biggest difference between working in the the digital age and Lightroom and working in he film age, in the darkroom, is the speed in which I can work

In the film age, I changed film stock, today I can achieve a similar results by making changes in Lightroom

No amount post production in Lightroom or the Darkroom is going to produce a perfect result from a badly exposed original

The skill in capturing the decisive moment remains unchanged

Msmoto

I hope we are in the "fun & humor" mode today..... to use the words, 'pure photography' takes me to a time when I was on the edge of the Snake River Canyon in Idaho, 4" x 5" view camera, about two hundred feet off the edge, two feet away.....windy, pulling slides, almost loosing the slide in the wind, that is where I find 'pure photography'.....

heartyfisher

Man .. for the first time on this forum I find that I am not in agreement with anyone ... let me think about it a bit more before I post :-) (and enjoy this unique feeling for a bit)

After thinking a bit about it I realised that I was wrong and you were all right ... and I agree with you all..

Sorry just buying some time.. I have been gathering my thoughts a bit :-)

What is “Pure photography” to me?

To me Pure photography usually results in an image that captures some of the essence of the photographer. Sometimes there is no image because pure photography is a journey not a destination.

Its not technical expertise, its not artistic prowess its not even a great photograph. Its the photographer trying to express himself/herself with this medium of communication.

Though it may imply that there is an impure photography in fact there is no such implication at all. Its a personal journey. You travel it your way, others will travel it their way.

You are not your camera, you are not Post processing software, you are not the way the light illuminates the subject, not the way shadow and darkness creates a mood. These are just tools. Tools you can strive to learn to use better. But they are not you. Pure photography is you expressing you.

If there is anything impure then, like any other human endeavour, its to do with lazyness, uncommitted apathy, copying, envy etc. Pure Photography is the level of dedication, self and mindfulness you put into the pursuit of this medium of expression.

“If you compare yourself with others, you may become vain and bitter; for always there will be greater and lesser persons than yourself.” - Desiderata . I believe some of the best photographs will only be seen by a few people. The grandparents, the grand child, or maybe only the photographer.

sevencrossing

Msmoto ........ 4" x 5" view camera, about two hundred feet off the edge, two feet away.....windy, pulling slides, almost loosing the slide in the wind........

Absolutely. Photography is about being in the right place at the right time
no amount of, in camera settings , or post production, can change that
Retro is about Mahogany and brass view cameras

Msmoto

@sevencrossing

11" X 14" Deardorf view camera...shooting Ekatachrome?

donaldejose

Sure, it is a marketing slogan. But will the camera sell in significant numbers and will users like the different shooting experience it provides? That shooting experience is what Nikon is calling "pure photography." It may be a change in how some of us think about shooting these days. We will see once the camera is out and people use its method of shooting . . . .

Symphotic

The Zone System.

I've been reminiscing about what photography used to be like for me, but actually I wouldn't go back. I can do much more with digital than I ever could before, although I was a very late comer to digital camera, being a bitter clinger to my film cameras until the last roll of Kodachrome. I sold my Leica and Leica lenses, I sold my FM2, I don't even know where my enlarger and lab equipment is any more (maybe my sister has it: she was much more serious about that side of photography)

I don't think I want pure photography any more. It costs me a lot less and I can get a lot more done more quickly with this hybridized stuff.

By the way, how can you call a "Hybrid" system "Pure". That doesn't make sense!

haroldp

Pure photography is what I do, impure photography is what everyone else does.

You will find a more precise reference in the dictionary somewhere between bullfinch and bulwark.

Regards ... H

Elvishefer

I don't think you can go back in time to define pure photography.

Too much has happened to the art form to arbitrarily dismiss.

Having gladly left film behind a long time ago, I would say 'technically' pure photography is 'shoot raw (light it), post produce, share'.

It reminds me of what I've read people say about Ansel Adams if he were alive today - that he'd be all over computerized post production. I have no idea if that's true or not, I never met him. But if I get this 'retro' camera from Nikon I can guarantee I'd digitally enhance every keeper image I took with it. It would not make the experience 'less pure'.

Symphotic

...It reminds me of what I've read people say about Ansel Adams if he were alive today - that he'd be all over computerized post production. ....

Of course it is "Pure" speculation, but I think he would. I also think he would love the high resolution and the high dynamic imagers of today. But he wouldn't be able to do the same kind of work with a D800 that he did with his view cameras. But what do I know...

Tarijk

it's when making a photograph, it's almost like you're not using a camera ... the camera becomes part of your eye and fingers; than, each of your photographs would be a moment that you have lived and seamlessly had chosen to share

spraynpray

@Tarijk: You mean Google glasses are the ultimate in pure photography? @-)

Msmoto

Re: Ansel Adams...Phase One with the IQ280 back.....pure photography........

Seriously now....LOL......I doubt if 'pure photography' can even be defined in a way folks agree, but it may relate to simply producing images and doing what one can in post production, and have the final appearance of a perfect snapshot. ...what one thinks they see when looking at a particular scene.