ADD, DDA, ADA etc Using SPARS for photography?

[RogerHyam]

I'll be amazed if nobody has proposed this before and the fact isn't pointed out in the first comment but I couldn't find it in my personal Google search bubble so here goes ....

Remember the good old days when CDs came out (1980/90s) and they had a three letter code on them to say how the audio had been produced? They would be something like ADD for analogue recording, digital mixing and digital master. These were the SPARS (Society of Professional Audio Recording Services) codes.

It occurred to me recently it would be really useful if people used these for their photos. I look at images (especially on Instagram) and someone will have tagged them as, for example, a cyanotype and I'll think that looks like it was made from a digital original i.e. Digital capture, Digital processing, Analogue output [DDA] and is a totally different thing from something captured on a large format negative, developed to the right gamma and then cyanotype printed [AAA]. Not a better or worse thing but a different thing. But it could also have been captured on 35mm film and scanned to produce a digital neg to print [ADA] or an analogue interneg could have been made [AAA]. It is hard to tell and, for me, it effects my enjoyment of the image.

Personally I'm making dry plates at the moment, scanning them and then ink jet printing [ADD] but sometimes I do argyrotypes or cyanotypes from them [AAA]. Sometimes I just take digital photos [DDD]. All are fun but very different and I'd like a consistent way of expressing what I've done.

So my proposal is we start tagging our photos using these three letter SPARS codes for clarity.

Code	Meaning
DDD	Digital capture, processed through Photoshop or in camera and digitally output (e.g. inkjet)
ADD	Analogue capture (film etc), scanned or photographed and digitally output (inkjet)
AAD	Doesn't exit?
AAA	Analogue capture (film etc), Developed, enlarged, chemically toned etc ,Analogue print
DDA	Digital capture, digital manipulation (getting gamma right) and output to digital neg, final analogue print.
DAA	Doesn't exit?

To get that final A there has to be a physical intermediate between the computer and the medium, e.g. a negative. Printing presses and LightJet output is all digital output in my book.

The idea is these would apply to what the photographer considers the final product. So if you make a wonderful silver gelatine print [AAA] and show a picture of it on-line then it doesn't become a AAAD or anything crazy. The on-line representation is just a facsimile of the finished thing that exists in the world. There are edge cases. I've made tintypes, scanned them, enhanced them and ink jet printed them [ADD]. If on the other hand I'd taken the same tintype and just put a picture of it on-line (with minimal messing) to show people the tintype I made that is [AAA]. There is an element of intention there.

Anyhow just thought I'd put it out there. What do you think? Perhaps I've just had too much coffee today.

 

[MattKing]

DAA would describe a Film Recorder, with a print being made from the resulting negative.
And yes, that does exist.

 

[ic-racer]

Why not just use the terms "Photography" and "Computer Graphics."

 

[Truzi]

I kind of like the idea, though I'm trying to figure out if an AAD could technically be possible.

What about the people who make a digital inter-negative for alternate processes, could that be ADA? Or would we then be invoking tooth x-rays?

 

[RogerHyam]

I kind of like the idea, though I'm trying to figure out if an AAD could technically be possible.

What about the people who make a digital inter-negative for alternate processes, could that be ADA? Or would we then be invoking tooth x-rays?

You're right. I used [ADA] in the description then forgot to add it to the table.

 

[RogerHyam]

DAA would describe a Film Recorder, with a print being made from the resulting negative.
And yes, that does exist.

That is a good point. I wonder they exist any more though. I'll added to the table.

 

[RogerHyam]

Updated version of the table.

Code	Meaning
DDD	Digital capture, processed through Photoshop or in camera and digitally output (e.g. inkjet)
ADD	Analogue capture (film etc), scanned or photographed and digitally output (inkjet)
AAD	May not exist
ADA	Analogue capture, digital manipulation, Analog output. e.g. film photo scanned then digital negative printed used to make a salt print.
AAA	Analogue capture (film etc), Developed, enlarged, chemically toned etc ,Analogue print
DDA	Digital capture, digital manipulation (getting gamma right) and output to digital neg, final analogue print.
DAA	Film recorder (does this exist anymore) where digital info is written direct to analogue media.
DAD	Probably unlikely! Digital capture, analogue manipulation (digital neg is printed) perhaps rescan and inkjet.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Why not just use the terms "Photography" and "Computer Graphics."

I agree. Not all of cultures are full of aberrations. And not all of those who are into photography to deal with technicalities around technicalities. In fact, it is in the opposite.

 

[MattKing]

DAA would describe a Film Recorder, with a print being made from the resulting negative.
And yes, that does exist.

That is a good point. I wonder they exist any more though. I'll added to the table.

I don't know about new ones, but existing ones are what the motion picture industry uses to make the digital intermediates from movies shot on film.
I have friends who actually own one of these. Prior to Covid they were using it to do some contract work for others.

 

[Truzi]

Probably off-topic from capture, but I thought of something that may work as AAD.

Digital restoration of an old print... but now we're talking of existing photos.

 

[eddie]

Wouldn't AAD be shot on film, developed in darkroom, then scanned for internet use?

 

[Truzi]

Wouldn't AAD be shot on film, developed in darkroom, then scanned for internet use?

The first A is the exposure and development, or digital capture.
The second letter is manipulation process, optical or digital.
The third letter is the final physical or digital product, but it assumes some sort of print, either optical or digital.
A fourth letter isn't needed on a forum as it is understood to be digital.

The idea is these would apply to what the photographer considers the final product. So if you make a wonderful silver gelatine print [AAA] and show a picture of it on-line then it doesn't become a AAAD or anything crazy. The on-line representation is just a facsimile of the finished thing that exists in the world.

If I interpret the OP correctly, your suggestion might end up as AA_D - but the fourth D is always assumed in electronic media, so should not be needed.

So, I think you found a flaw in the original idea...
The second letter is manipulation, ether optical or digital. However, if the image is supposed to stay in digital form (not printed), then there would be no third letter. Perhaps a bit of refinement is in order to keep the lettering consistent.

 

[RogerHyam]

The first A is the exposure and development, or digital capture.
The second letter is manipulation process, optical or digital.
The third letter is the final physical or digital product, but it assumes some sort of print, either optical or digital.
A fourth letter isn't needed on a forum as it is understood to be digital.

If I interpret the OP correctly, your suggestion might end up as AA_D - but the fourth D is always assumed in electronic media, so should not be needed.

So, I think you found a flaw in the original idea...
The second letter is manipulation, ether optical or digital. However, if the image is supposed to stay in digital form (not printed), then there would be no third letter. Perhaps a bit of refinement is in order to keep the lettering consistent.

I think intent has to be taken into account.

film -> darkroom print -> digital image

If photographer considers the darkroom print the finished product then it is AAA. The middle A would be any dodging and burning etc. The final A is the print. The online representation is just a facsimile of the finish object. If you destroy the print then you destroy the art work and only have a picture of it.

If the photographer considers the digital image the finished product and the darkroom print was just a way to get there then it is AAD. The artwork is the digital file and the darkroom print could be discarded without destroying the art work.

I suppose we ask three questions

1. How was this captured from the world?
2. How was it processed? Essential did it involve digitisation. (An E6 slide doesn't have a manipulation process but would get an A for manipulation because it never becomes digital)
3. What is the final product? Digital file, digital print (computer drawing) or some analogue print (wet process)?

 

[ChristopherCoy]

I suppose we ask three questions

1. How was this captured from the world?
2. How was it processed? Essential did it involve digitisation. (An E6 slide doesn't have a manipulation process but would get an A for manipulation because it never becomes digital)
3. What is the final product? Digital file, digital print (computer drawing) or some analogue print (wet process)?

All three of which can be answered with one line... why does it matter? If you're looking at art for arts sake, it doesn't. If you're looking at art for technical aspects, a three letter code is only going to tell you general, useless information anyway. And then there's the insurmountable task of educating the photographic world and getting them to first accept it, and then actually use it. Never going to happen.

 

[removed account4]

Roger
there is a thread around here somewhere that suggests
there should be a governing board that authenticates things
to be what they claim to be, sorry I can't find it.



I'm not really interested in such stuff
but its good some of you are on top of it
because eventually all of our work is going
to be turned into a meme so it'll be super important
to know its origin story.

meme good luck with your project
John

 

[RogerHyam]

All three of which can be answered with one line... why does it matter? If you're looking at art for arts sake, it doesn't. If you're looking at art for technical aspects, a three letter code is only going to tell you general, useless information anyway. And then there's the insurmountable task of educating the photographic world and getting them to first accept it, and then actually use it. Never going to happen.

Thanks for sharing your opinion. I can see where you are coming from.

 

[mmerig]

Thanks for sharing your opinion. I can see where you are coming from.

All three of which can be answered with one line... why does it matter? If you're looking at art for arts sake, it doesn't. If you're looking at art for technical aspects, a three letter code is only going to tell you general, useless information anyway. And then there's the insurmountable task of educating the photographic world and getting them to first accept it, and then actually use it. Never going to happen.

This matters to people at archives etc. For example, I am working with the George Eastman Museum, and they are very particular about how their material is used, and must be denoted as such in publications that use their material. If the three-letter code is defined, than it is not useless information.
I think the three-letter code is a great idea for keeping track of how I produced something. For example, a scan of a totally analog print would look good, but a scan of a darkroom print from a digital negative would have to be de-screened, and it would be better to just print it from the file. A strong magnifying glass would indicate which one it was, but having it documented somewhere would be helpful. This is not theoretical, as I have an ongoing project that includes AAA and ADA material, and matching of the look is very important, so I use the same paper in the darkroom for all of them.

Photography is not only an art form, and provenance matters in some situations, e.g., when authenticity is important, as in the sciences, or forensics.

 

[mshchem]

I think this is interesting. I remember the audio labels clearly. Not sure if it's simply too late.

 

[Truzi]

I think intent has to be taken into account.

film -> darkroom print -> digital image

If photographer considers the darkroom print the finished product then it is AAA. The middle A would be any dodging and burning etc. The final A is the print. The online representation is just a facsimile of the finish object. If you destroy the print then you destroy the art work and only have a picture of it.

If the photographer considers the digital image the finished product and the darkroom print was just a way to get there then it is AAD. The artwork is the digital file and the darkroom print could be discarded without destroying the art work.

I suppose we ask three questions

1. How was this captured from the world?
2. How was it processed? Essential did it involve digitisation. (An E6 slide doesn't have a manipulation process but would get an A for manipulation because it never becomes digital)
3. What is the final product? Digital file, digital print (computer drawing) or some analogue print (wet process)?

Okay, that works. I was conflating the 3rd letter with the implied web representation - the non-existant fourth D that everything on the web would have.
If the final product is a digital file, it may be much higher resolution than a web representation, so the "representation" aspect remains the same.

I don't think this should be mandatory or anything, I just think it is a cool idea conceptually. A lot of people will ask these things of a posted photo, and this would be a quick-and-dirty way to put that information there.

Of course, people also ask what film, camera, angle of the sun, what house the moon is in... so an idea like this could go way too far, lol.