I realised today I may have muddied the waters slightly with my terminology, particularly in relation to the ideas about 'straight photography' and a 'fine print'. 'Straight photography' was a precursor to the 'Fine Print', the idea of a Fine Print is deeply entrenched in modernist ideas of what constitutes art. The fine print can be a means to an end, but isn't necessarily so for many artists. Emmet Gowin for example, makes sumptuous prints but his ideas and philosophy go beyond those of the object and far and beyond Ansel's ideas about art and photography.
I feel like I've opened a can of worms here, I'll see if I can dig up the abstract from my MA to help.
If I'm not back in a week send a search party!
Edit; well that didn't take so long after all. Download it and have a read if you are so inclined, please bear in mind that this is the summary, and the whole object needs to be seen t get a better idea of what I was on about. The finished piece, exists in the R.M.I.T. Library.
Yes, Gassan's definition is a telling one,
I'd still argue, that film is a better starting point 'outside' the studio anyway.
The conclusion is right:
We can do straight photography in the darkroom or on the computer now. More choices.
It's a crucial distinction--the one between straight photography' and a 'fine print'. One can do the former without buying into the latter. The latter is a sub group of the former.