An APUG.org Oath/Certification?

[gareth harper]

"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? "

Are you serious? I think people would ask, "what the heck's analog?".
At the end of the day a crap hand printed film based photo, is well a crap hand printed film based photo.
The quality is in the final result, let your photographs speak for themselves, if people want to know about your technique or process they will ask.

 

[gareth harper]

"An analog (American English spelling) or analogue (British English spelling) signal is any continuously variable signal. "


Don't you mean (American English spelling) and (English spelling)?

I've never liked the description 'analogue photography', and I'd never heard of it before I came across APUG. Prefer film based photography, or traditional photography.

 

[Christopher Colley]

I thought you people might be interested in seeing this gallery of the work of the photographer Frank Sadorus, he wrote his process on the back of his images.....

the idea that people would know what the process used was years later might be true, but nothing beats seeing it writen by the photographer

Dead Link Removed

Dead Link Removed

 

[SuzanneR]

Great link!

I usually just write in pencil on the back the type of print... usually silver gelatin, and whether it's been toned, plus my name and the year. Or, if it's mattted, I'll write it on the back of the mat board. Seems like enough...

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

The Polish painter, photographer, writer, and dramatist, S. I. Witkiewicz ("Witkacy") would write the combination of drugs he was taking on the front of his portraits (not photographs--usually in pastel). I think this would be the most scientifically and archivally sound way of preserving this information.

 

[lee]

You don't happen to have a link to the company that made your stamp do you lee?

The company is Thomas Rubberstamp in Ft Worth, TX. I dont know if there is a link to an online presents. Now, I only use this stamp on Matt Board not on the actual photos. on the actual photo I generally only place a title and circle C and a date with my signature.

lee\c

 

[jd callow]

"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".

and...

"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".

Murry these are great! Could I use them for the conference?

 

[Carol]

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.

I've been disappointed in this way too. I dragged my husband from show to show at an art festival down here recently, only to find that EVERY black & white exhibition consisted of digital prints (on archival paper?). There was nothing in the advertising or on the prints to indicate the fact they were dig. just on a stray piece of blurb I happened to pick up.

 

[geraldatwork]

I've been disappointed in this way too. I dragged my husband from show to show at an art festival down here recently, only to find that EVERY black & white exhibition consisted of digital prints (on archival paper?). There was nothing in the advertising or on the prints to indicate the fact they were dig. just on a stray piece of blurb I happened to pick up.

I would think people that shoot and print digitally know that their method is inferior and don't want to advertise the fact.

 

[Ed Sukach]

We recently had a photographer exhibiting here, selling (or trying to) INK JET prints - 8" x 10" and 11" x 14" - really wonderfully matted and framed, for $400 - $600 each. All were misty - foggy scenes of the marshes. The only way I learned they were ink jet prints was that I had assumed they were analog - seemed reasonable, considering their prices - and had asked about who was dong the processing, what chemistry was used. etc. Finally she broke down and admitted they were ink jet prints, done on a (more or less) "cheapie" home printer.

I think there is already a sense that analog - wet chemistry -- whatever the hell it is that we do - work is intrinsically more valuable than those d*****lly produced.
Collectors - of any stripe - out there must be aware of the differences in value, by now, of the two media. While "certification" by the photographer is NOT infallible, it is an indication of the media, and will be linked to the reputation of the photographer - as it is now in the oil painting/ whatever community.

Can there be forgeries? Of course. Anyone who invents a non-forgery-able method of identification will probably find a far more profitable occupation to be in than Fine Art Photography.

I recently read of a non-washable ball point pen, created expressly for writing checks. The ink penetrates the paper - a lot - and can only be removed with great difficulty. The use of this pen, fragile labels, and the inclusion of our signatures (leave determination of authenticity of the signature to the handwriting experts) seems to be a good - and desirable - way to go.

 

[jjstafford]

Is there a way to quickly identify an inked print by examining it with a certain light, for example UV?

 

[Ed Sukach]

I just had a thought... (Yeah, I know -- "wise" voices in the background shouting, "Congratulations") --

What about an APUG Logo? - or do we have one now?

Those who subscribe here and PAY up to be current - and support the aims of APUG .. get the right to use the logo on their "certification", and their advertising for their exhibitions.

An indication of our dedication and direction... and good advertising for APUG.

 

[lee]

John said, "Is there a way to quickly identify an inked print by examining it with a certain light, for example UV?"

cant you tell just by looking at them? I have seen very few digital prints that I could not tell right away that they werent traditional

lee\c

 

[jd callow]

John said, "Is there a way to quickly identify an inked print by examining it with a certain light, for example UV?"

cant you tell just by looking at them? I have seen very few digital prints that I could not tell right away that they werent traditional

lee\c

Inkjets are very easy to spot, even under glass.


Digital RA is another story. Highlight detail or lack thereof is a dead giveaway -- indicative of no digital shoulder and bad image operator.

 

[lee]

Inkjets are very easy to spot, even under glass.


Digital RA is another story. Highlight detail or lack thereof is a dead giveaway -- indicative of no digital shoulder and bad image operator.

john I see most of the digital stuff is over sharpened and you can see the artifacts even in color

lee\c

 

[Flotsam]

I usually can spot that the show is digital as soon as I walk in the door. The prints look too sharpened (as opposed to sharp) and very "technicolor". The Pixelographer told all about all his formal digi training and how high end his equipment is so I assume that it was fairly state of the art digi, although I really have no idea. I recently went to a show of C prints and immediately found them much more satisfying to view. They were sharp without looking sharpened and the color was deep, bright and natural. I can't help think that there will be at least a moderate popular backlash against over-processed images.

 

[Carol]

John said, "Is there a way to quickly identify an inked print by examining it with a certain light, for example UV?"

cant you tell just by looking at them? I have seen very few digital prints that I could not tell right away that they werent traditional

lee\c

Lee I guess it depends how much access you've had to traditional photography. The prints I saw were beautifully done (I assume professionally) and I wouldn't be surprised if the general public, myself included, wouldn't have known they were digital. I think if you are spending several hundred dollars you should know what you are getting.

 

[lee]

Lee I guess it depends how much access you've had to traditional photography. The prints I saw were beautifully done (I assume professionally) and I wouldn't be surprised if the general public, myself included, wouldn't have known they were digital. I think if you are spending several hundred dollars you should know what you are getting.

Carol,

what you say is true. I have been look at and printing b/w for over 35 years now and there is no comparison. I have seen some prints where it was hard to tell but if you really get close and look hard you can see the difference.

lee\c

 

[Carol]

I guess that's the difference Lee. I'm a late starter at photography and unfortunately the only prints I get to see are my own paltry efforts. Hence my major disappointment at finding the one photography show within cooee of my home being mostly digital. The other thing that bothered me was the prints were said to be done on archival paper. What about the ink? On 2nd thoughts lets not go there eh!

 

[Claire Senft]

As far as telling if a print is an inkjet isn't it possible to see dots with a loupe?

 

[Andy K]

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?

Murray

Good idea, but stickers/stamps would be worthless if Sean/APUG have not actually seen the print.

... from www.wikipedia.org :

"... or analogue (British English spelling) ...".

In other words, the English spelling. There are only two kinds of English spelling in the world, they are:the original English and wrong.

 

[Carol]

Claire you're probably going to think I'm nuts, but I have to ask. I've seen the word "loupe" so many times and not known what it is. Is it just another name for a magnifying glass or is it something else entirely. :confused:

 

[Dave Parker]

Claire you're probably going to think I'm nuts, but I have to ask. I've seen the word "loupe" so many times and not known what it is. Is it just another name for a magnifying glass or is it something else entirely. :confused:

A loupe is what alot of us use to focus on the ground glass, and to also proof and examine our negatives and transparancies, yes it is another name for a magnifier, the ones normally used in photography are corrected for distortion and such.

Dave

 

[Carol]

Thank you Dave. I use a magnifier and a light box for my negs. These old eyes need all the help they can get.

Sorry I have taken you off topic so I'll get out of the way now. Cheers.

 

[Claire Senft]

Carol the question is already answered but I would add that asking a question to get information is far from being nuts. What is nuts is the tendency of us males when having gotten lost and refusing to ask for diections.

One of the brightest and nicest loupes to be had is to use a 50mm camera lens for 35mm with the front element facing the eye. The magnification will, I have been told, be about 7x. A 50mm 1.4 lens is hard to beat for brightness. A 50mm 2.8 enlarging lens works well also.