What is "Pure photography?"

sevencrossing

Msmoto
I doubt if 'pure photography' can even be defined in a way folks agree

Reading the posts here I agree
Many seem to think PURE is a very personal thing; so in some ways, if we did agree it would not be PURE

One thing we do know about the pure photographer: he has not shaved, drives a very dated Vehicle , that is soon to be discontinued and has not discovered, black masking tape, to hide the chrome on your dated camera, Black rapid straps, camping stoves or Gortex Jackets

proudgeek

One thing we do know about the pure photographer: he has not shaved, drives a very dated Vehicle , that is soon to be discontinued and has not discovered, black masking tape, to hide the chrome on your dated camera, Black rapid straps, camping stoves or Gortex Jackets

Funny. In all seriousness, based on the videos I've seen, it seems to me that "pure photography" is stripped down to its most basic form. No lenses that do your thinking for you and strip you of the ability to set your own aperture. No fancy filters. No Active D lighting (or similar settings). In other words, less technology between you and the image. It's an attractive concept for those who may feel that photography has become more of a technological exercise and less of an art (I am not among them). In the world of "pure photography," less appears to be more. It is ironic, given that for the past few years Nikon has been marketing ever-more sophisticated cameras and lenses, moving away from "less is more" towards "more is essential."

The "hybrid" in my mind is the convenience and immediacy of digital paired with the stripped down approach of older film cameras. The key to the marketing campaign is not only "pure photography," it's the double entendre "It's in my hands again." In my mind this can mean that a camera that you once had is now (in a more modern form) attainable, while at the same time the user can now exercise a greater degree of control over the image.

I can see that at a certain price point this will have a lot of appeal to some people and even if priced at $2,000 should not significantly cannibalize D600 sales.

kenadams

I think it comes off as rather pretentious, if you ask me. Marketing surely thought they'd need the stripped down car to go with the stripped down camera, so we see a guy styled up like out of a retro fashion show walk through the woods as if it were the first time in his life until he notices what could become *the* shot of the day. I find that is a bit much. For instance, if he's so old school, why doesn't he shoot film? What's he even doing out there in his preppy clothes? They're not selling a camera but an image, a feeling.

One of the things I really loved about the D600 spot (other than it being beautifully shot) is that the Schultz brothers were believeable. You could well imagine them really doing the stuff they were showing in the spot.

WestEndBoy

I think that we will have to wait and see. It implies some sort of appeal to a customer sub-set with a certain philosophical take on photography. If it is marketing bs, we can spank Nikon. Even though I probably will not buy one, then I am very curious.

Then again, if they answer Sony and offer a Nikon version of the Leica rangefinder, I will be all over that. But somehow I doubt it with a cheap 50 1.8 lens........

SquamishPhoto

Has anyone on this board ever been persuaded by Nikon marketing into buying a camera or lens? Didn't think so. Don't forget that these are the same people that thought that having Ashton Kutcher as their spokesperson was a good idea....for years.

framer

I only buy a camera on its merits. Top quality in performance is a must. I try to overlook the cool factor. I do not own a cell phone.

framer

HipShot

Pure photography requires a filter.

framer

Pure photography requires a filter.

A box with a pin hole...

Photobug

I find it entertaining that a marketing phrase...Pure Photography can generate such a diverse and large number of comments. Goes to the point that photographers are a very diverse group of talented people!

Mac_The_Knife

I just can't help but be reminded of the ad campaign for Michigan.

Rx4Photo

I look at 500px almost every day and to be honest, what I see there is beyond Pure Photography and steps into the relm of Pure Creativity. I understand that that kind of work doesn't appeal to everyone but I know that I'm just blown away by something there every time I visit. Many of these photos are manipulated in some way or another so I wonder if a camera that's broken down to this "purity" will have any mass appeal in the long run other than to an old school select crowd looking to obtain a modern camera with retro functionality. Heck, I might even want one with the brushed chrome top to permanently pair up with my 35mm lens. I'd be interested to find out what demographic grabs this camera up.

Lookin back at Ade's comments on page one of this thread I find myself somewhat in that camp. What we see in so many publications nowadays is beyond pure.

adamz

@tommie - glad you mentioned Ansel Adams... I know that for folks in US he is an icon, a way to go with B&W landscapes and I can also bet that most of you doesn't know how "heavily" manipulated his pictures were. he used all known analog darkroom technique he could to get what he wanted: dodging, burning, etc...

proudgeek

Interesting that you bring up Ansel Adams. My dad was at a photo show in NYC last week and sat in on a bunch of lectures, including one by a guy sponsored by Canon whose father had worked closely with AA. What the guy said was that Ansel Adams did a ton of darkroom manipulation, including stacking negatives of images shot at varied focal lengths in order to cherry pick the portions of the image that were in focus, thereby creating a composite image.

Ade

I used to love playing in the darkroom. That is until I started to shoot slides -- the original WYSIWYG (what you shoot is what you get).

I admit that there were times, hiking + shooting with my F3 and a few rolls of Ektrachrome or Velvia, when I didn't bother to have the slides developed at all. It was the pure journey of picture taking which interested me the most. (Ok, ok, at least that was my lame excuse when friends questioned why I had rolls of undeveloped film lying around in my car. )

But seriously, I bet there lots of people today who spend hours out in the field painstakingly taking pictures, dump all of the RAW files into the computer, maybe browse through a few shots, then never opening/touching the files ever again. Their hobby is taking pictures, not editing/developing them.

WestEndBoy

Ade said:
But seriously, I bet there lots of people today who spend hours out in the field painstakingly taking pictures, dump all of the RAW files into the computer, maybe browse through a few shots, then never opening/touching the files ever again. Their hobby is taking pictures, not editing/developing them. - See more at: http://forum.nikonrumors.com/discussion/1754/what-is-pure-photography#Item_64

I am one of those.

Msmoto

One more thought.... or, how I go out to capture an image. The first step is often in my daily activities, observing the world around me. Second, camera, often a prime lens, this being determined by how I may wish to portray a subject, and more observations. If I see a subject I stop and work on the capture...evaluation of lighting and background is important, then look at the image in camera and move to grab what I think might work, then shoot several images. Sometimes, bracket exposures as I examine each with the histogram. When capturing live subjects, I will do some directing to obtain an angle/lighting I think might work. I believe live subjects must be respected and not "overworked" as they are essentially volunteers, especially in street photos.

The next steps in "pure photography" are to edit and process the data. And, this may mean several hours in post production to obtain a final product.

While the actual techniques are slightly different with digital, the overall process is not different from 50 years ago. As a photographer, my responsibility is from inception to final product. This requires, IMO, some insight into what motivates me, a critical evaluation of what I am producing, and the goal in mind when I produce images. If one examines my photos on Flickr one will see some real "snapshot" P & S style images, some more artistic works, some far out experimental stuff, and possibly some fairly well done professional quality images. But, all are done with an end product in mind and in most cases I get what I am after. Many are just so others can see a documentation of an event.

Well, IMO, this is "pure photography" a management style from inception to final image.

ThomasHorton

I prefer impure photography.
The models are just a little on the trashy side.

Vipmediastar_JZ

Pure photography. Setting the camera to everything manual. Getting inspired.
When I was feeling locked down with no inspiration. I picked up an olympus OM-4 with 50mm 1.4
I could shoot without a battery 1/60 or use a battery for metering and
I wasnt until then then I started to re-learn photography. Prior to that I wasnt really thinking about the final photograph.
I was just thinking about the moment and it didnt matter if i had good light or a good composition.
After a few months with the camera I felt inspired and I felt I could go out there and see things diffrently.
Maybe that is what they are trying to get at with their new camera.

Looking at the videos the person seems to pause and get inspired by the scene and even enjoy his hiking to an extent.

Looking back at the photos developed by walgreens I actually like them. It forced me to take a worthy shot each time.

donaldejose

"Pure Photography" is just advertizing BS. They are really touting the old film-era analogue-world Nikon user interface as "pure" just because it is the "old" way.

That said, I have fond memories of those times and would like to have one of the new DF bodies just to bring back some of those memories occasionally. It would be fun for me but it sure wouldn't be any "purer" or any "better" than working with my current Nikons. In fact, there would be some disadvantages, such as ergonomics. I don't think the old style bodies will prove to be as comfortable in the hand.

spraynpray

@donaldejose: Aw, c'mon Donald, don't spoil the illusion Nikon is trying to create! Since when did logic or fact have anything to do with it.

We could set our new bodies to full manual and get the same experience I suppose, but then having the option to use the facilities may be too much for us. How about turning off the ability to chimp too

PB_PM

"Pure Photography" is just advertizing BS. They are really touting the old film-era analogue-world Nikon user interface as "pure" just because it is the "old" way.

All work and no play makes for a dull chap.

donaldejose

Actually, my shooting really does go back to the days of using the Nikkormat FTn and the Nikon EL, EM, EG etc. In fact, I just gave my original bodies away about 2 years ago, missed them and picked up some more on e-bay! But I love the ability to manipulate the digital image so I have not shot film in ages. I took many tens of thousands of photos using those old analogue controls. It is not just about using manual settings; it is a user interface. You cannot replicate that experience by using a modern Nikon body in the manual mode. So I do applaud Nikon for reintroducing the user interface which served so well long ago. However, it is no more pure than the current Nikon user interface and it does not give you any purer photography.

What will we see next?
How about a non-windows DOS only computer sold under the tag line "Pure Computing" It's in your hands again!

Pierre

To me "pure photography" means "pure interpretation". An innovative and personal take at reality, something never or hardly seen before, an expression of a concept difficult to grasp and distilled out of irrelevant daily noise or born from it, a way for a true artist to express himself, to render visible and sharable his inner workings, something very rare and precious. It has nothing to do with the capabilities of blind chemical or electronic reactions or automations, it involves human mind, interpretation and emotion, something that can be communicated to others, something that transcend physical processes.

Only a courageous and free mind can achieve "true photography" in the same way as "true art" or "true music" can be achieved. Most of us, me included, are so culturally biased and bound to the ideas and expectation of our peers of the moment that we cannot even perceive the extent of our mind-slavery. This is why true or pure whatever is so rare.

Science teach us that reality is so much stranger, counter intuitive and far from what we believe it is and yet, most of us insist that "pure photography" or truth is all about what we already know and expect, usually taken from a 5 foot 10 perspective, how boring.

I which I could have a peek at what "pure photography" would look like in 500, 5,000 or even 500,000 years.

spraynpray

Food for thought Pierre.

philippe

I don't care wether or not this is B***S***, if this helps NIKON to 'survive' the pressure of the actual economical 'situation', then I totally agree whit what they are doing. It has a lot to do about the survival of the fittest...

On the other hand, the true principles of Pure Photography aren't bad at all.
These principles are based on what has been true for about 100 years and lead to very fine and wonderful pictures, made by masters who rally understood Pure Photography.

The only thing what Nikon can be accused of is the possible misuse of these principles just for raw business sake…

But let's wait till we see what this camera really stands for, before judging.