An APUG.org Oath/Certification?

[MurrayMinchin]

Do you put anything on the back of your prints or mounts to let people know how your images are made? Do you say "100% analog"? Do you say "100% hand made"? Do you say "non-digital"? Do you use some other terminology? Do you say nothing? Why? How will people in the future know?

I ask this because, historically speaking, photography is obviously in a period of transition. New photographic imaging methods will appear and disappear as technology advances in the future...how do we seperate ourselves from the thundering herd? Todays digital technology may be yesterdays 8-track-equivilant. We need to somehow distinguish ourselves (and this is my best, feable analogy) because there will always be those that prefer a hand stiched quilt to one made by sewing machine even though on first cursory glance they may appear to be identical.

Lost in the mists of time (and in the kazillion posts I've read on APUG in the last six months) someone here said they would rather tell people what their images *are* rather than what they aren't. I like that idea.

What do you think of the idea that Sean makes an archival "APUG.org Oath/Certification" sticker that could be applied to the back of a finished work which states unequivocally that the image was created, by hand, through 100% analog means? I really believe APUG could take a leadership role in this. We are a growing Earth encircling force of like minded photographers...there is power in that. Do you think this is a good idea? How would APUG protect itself from fraud? What penalties for lying?

Should the sticker state in as few words as possible what a 100% analog photographic image is? Can you give a definition? Should it simply be a logo with a link to "The Oath" on APUG.org? Is this possible?

Murray

 

[Tom Duffy]

Either the work stands on its own as crafted in traditional materials or it doesn't. Handmade black and white is obviously what it is to anyone who cares. So is digital. Where is the issue?

 

[thedarkroomstudios]

Those collectors who care will know... just like a collector of fine fabrics can tell the hand-stitch from the machine stitch and a patterned tatting from a unique one, a photographic collector will tell the difference between a silver gelatin or platinum/palladian print from a gicleeeeeee or ultrachorme and dye subs.
-Brad

 

[MurrayMinchin]

We need to somehow distinguish ourselves (and this is my best, feable analogy) because there will always be those that prefer a hand stiched quilt to one made by sewing machine even though on first cursory glance they may appear to be identical.

Murray

P.S. (added later) thedarkroomstudios - you scooped me! This was meant to appear under Tom Duffy's.

 

[thedarkroomstudios]

I don't believe in catering to the lowest common denominator... if they can't tell then they either don't care or are simply following the lemmings to the cliff.

 

[Bruce Osgood]

Boy, this is really not an issue as far as I can tell. And I'm sure not going to put a sticky label on an OBVIOUSLY hand crafted print as a certificate of authanticity. If someone looking at a print of mine needs to ask if it is digital or analog, then they shouldn't be looking at photographs.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[MurrayMinchin]

Boy, this is really not an issue as far as I can tell. And I'm sure not going to put a sticky label on an OBVIOUSLY hand crafted print as a certificate of authanticity. If someone looking at a print of mine needs to ask if it is digital or analog, then they shouldn't be looking at photographs.

Just my 2 cents.

You say this now based on todays digital images...what of those in 50 years? I think there is good reason to have some sort of confirmation my images are *hand made*.

Murray

 

[Bruce Osgood]

You say this now based on todays digital images...what of those in 50 years? I think there is good reason to have some sort of conformation my images are *hand made*.

Murray

Fine, put your labels on you photographs. Maybe something embossed with glitter to reflect a sparkle.

 

[Dave Parker]

I have seen a great many fine art prints from the past, that have certificates of authentisity on the back of them, in fact I just bought an Adams the other day that had one, I don't know that a sticker is the way to go, but as we discussed a few months ago, I do think that in the future, it will be quite wise to have something to designate a true silver print, as opposed to what ever new technology comes along.

Just my opinon.

Dave

 

[removed account4]

i'd be careful ... "sticker-glue" will bleed into the print ...

i'd make a stencil and use a "soft" leaded pencil,
or put a piece of cellophane with words to burn them into the print

 

[Mateo]

Oh man! That reminds me, I need to start puting my DNA on the back of my prints like that "painter of light" guy. I'm going low tech though...just gonna tape a hair off my head to the back of the mounting board.

 

[thedarkroomstudios]

Just like in the antique world... a COA is only as good as the next forger. True, many fine artists do provide them with their work, but it is rare to see one physically attached to the piece. On the mount or in an envelope attached to the back of a frame is the most typical.

 

[Ed Sukach]

I have seen a great many fine art prints from the past, that have certificates of authentisity on the back of them, in fact I just bought an Adams the other day that had one, I don't know that a sticker is the way to go, but as we discussed a few months ago, I do think that in the future, it will be quite wise to have something to designate a true silver print, as opposed to what ever new technology comes along.
Just my opinon.
Dave

I agree. A certification to establish/ determine authenticity is to me, a good idea .. and I really cannot see any "downside" to applying one to the back of a print. Why on earth would I want to hide the fact that I made the work? Isn't it a prime sin to not take pride in one's work?

I have bad memories of felt-tip marking bleeding through and ruining prints. Possibly there could be some non-invasive, non-removable label stock (like price sticker/ calibration labels) that would be appropriate.

And, yes ... I would be happy to include some reference to my involvement in APUG while I was at it.

 

[photomc]

Oh man! That reminds me, I need to start puting my DNA on the back of my prints like that "painter of light" guy. I'm going low tech though...just gonna tape a hair off my head to the back of the mounting board.

Just be carefull..don't want to make to many prints or you will go bald....

 

[Jorge]

Boy, this is really not an issue as far as I can tell. And I'm sure not going to put a sticky label on an OBVIOUSLY hand crafted print as a certificate of authanticity. If someone looking at a print of mine needs to ask if it is digital or analog, then they shouldn't be looking at photographs.

Just my 2 cents.

Well, see the problem is that it is not so obvious anymore. I recently bought a print on E bay and it is obviously a digital print, but the reason I say "obviously" was because of the blue tint the print had and the paper that it was printed on. It looks like a Dye sub print and I am thinking it will fade in a few years, but let me tell you, if this print had a more neutral color and I was unable to handle it I would not have been able to tell it was a digital print.

I also have a digital print by Brian, it is a silver print from a digital file made with a lambda. You cannot tell this print from a print made with a negative, it is fiber base paper and there is absolutely no digital artifacts on the print.

The only prints that are obviously digital are those made by ink jet. By their peculiar look one can tell right away, but let me tell you, some of the hibrid processes out there are getting to be very hard to tell apart. I suspect many of us dismiss this because we get to see only ink jet print, and many of those not very good at that, but those doing excpetional work with hibrid processes are making it very hard to tell.

In the final analysis does it really matter? Hard to tell, on one hand I think if one is out there long enough people will beguin to recognize and know how one prefers to work, otoh, I would have liked to be told the print I bought was a dye sub print or an ink jet print, even if I only paid $20 dollars for it...but then I guess the price should have been an indication.

 

[rogueish]

If I was to put a CoA on my prints, it would be to prove that it's mine, not whether it's analog or digital.
Perhaps one day a print with my name might actually mean something. (better hang on to those exchange prints)

 

[MurrayMinchin]

Just be carefull..don't want to make to many prints or you will go bald....

Good point...what do you do after the curly ones are gone? I said "sticker" because it would be a lot less complicated than a stamp...

Murray

 

[Dave Parker]

If I was to put a CoA on my prints, it would be to prove that it's mine, not whether it's analog or digital.
Perhaps one day a print with my name might actually mean something. (better hang on to those exchange prints)

Part of the COA would be the process that the print was done in and by who..

Dave

 

[lee]

I use a stamp on the back of the mat that tells the neg file # the name of the print copywright and date and it has a place for me to sign it.

lee\c

 

[thedarkroomstudios]

I actually do sign and title on the back of the mount in the center. I also will sign in lower right corner below the print on th emount so that if the person framing wishes my sig to be visible it can be. Had a stamp made when I 1st started and discovered it would never dry so gave it up. You don't happen to have a link to the company that made your stamp do you lee?

 

[Aggie]

Oh man! That reminds me, I need to start puting my DNA on the back of my prints like that "painter of light" guy. I'm going low tech though...just gonna tape a hair off my head to the back of the mounting board.

Why take off the top, what grows wild, (and renewable) in other places?

 

[Flotsam]

I'm going to hanging a show soon and I am definitely making sure that every piece of publicity and the brochures make it absoutely clear that everything on the walls will be analog. First, I want casual viewers to recognise that there is a distinction and appreciate the difference and second, I'd like those who already recognise the distinction to know that if they come to see it, they are not going to arrive at a photography show only to find a room full of inkjet prints of Photoshopped computer image files. I've certainly been disappointed that way in the past and wished that I hadn't wasted my time.

 

[MurrayMinchin]

OK - bear with me as I'm such a computer rookie, hope this works...mrcallow is trying to find a definition of what an anolog photographic image is for the APUG Conference 5K Print Competition, here;

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

There are obviously too many ways to define what an analog photograph is. Perhaps we should say...

"Analog photographic images are made with materials/methods/equipment available before, and or, are analogous to materials/methods/equipment used prior to (insert date when digital imaging technololgy were first introduced). Any introduction of digital technologies on an image taken prior to or after this date, in any aspect of the imaging making process, voids said image of being considered analog".

Can the many lawyers on APUG jump in to help?

Murray

 

[roteague]

I include a tri-fold brochure with all my mounted and framed prints. I design the brochure in Microsoft Publisher and it spells out how the image was made (camera, film), how the print is made (Fuji Crystal Archive), how it is mounted (Nielsen & Bainbridge Artcare™ Archival System), how it is framed, type of glass used in the framing, and tips on hanging and caring for the print. I print these out on my genuine Epson ink jet printer (see they are good for something). Yes, it takes a bit of extra work, but, I am striving to present an image of quality.

 

[MurrayMinchin]

We need a definition of analog - this is what I dredged up from www.wikipedia.org :

"An analog (American English spelling) or analogue (British English spelling) signal is any continuously variable signal. It differs from a digital signal in that small fluctuations in the signal are meaningful".

Techno-speak in the support of art...LOVE IT!!!

Murray