Comments on Today's LensWork Blog

I have to strongly disagree, and I don't care what analog process you use, photography is defined as exposure to light sensitized material, be it film or paper.

The process of digital imagaing, has no basis in light sensitized material, the chip used for capture is not a light sensitized chip, it is an engergized chip, the papers used in the print making process are not light sensitized, but built based on absorbtion standards for a color pigmented ink to penetrait the subsurface and create the image, in other words, it lays on the surface of the paper.

I don't care what method you use to do your images, but do care, when digital imaging trys to claim that they are one in the same with analog photography.

It seems, even many here seem to gloss over what the accepted definition of photography is, like I said, I am not condeming, or condoning, but don't agree that the digital process is the same, with just a different medium to capture it on.

And after several years of using both analog photography for my livelyhood and owning and operating a digital imaging company as well, I don't remember the analog portion of the business's I work in, ever try to gain acceptance in the newer digital imagers

In other words, I could really care less what they do, as long as they don't care what I do.

I am a photographer, and a digital imager.

Dave

chuck94022 said:

Other industries have faced similar issues, and to address them, form industry organizations which define and set standards for products or processes they wish to protect. -chuck

Click to expand...

Isn't the French wine industry regulated in this way, especially in regard to Champagne? It doesn't seem to stop others from marketing sparkling wines with that label (except, of course, in France). Even when the proper appelation of 'sparkling wine' is used, people buy such beverages to serve as 'champagne' anyway. So too are 'Scotch' tape, 'Xerox' copies, 'Kleenex' tissues, and, although not so much any more, 'Frigidaire' refrigerators spoken of generically even though those labels are Trade Mark brands.

Only the willingness of gallerys and others who sell photographs and who wish to preserve the distinction between handmade and machine printed images can make this goal a reality. Since profit tugs so tenaciously at the souls of those who would be the guardians of puity of labeling, however, I don't have much faith that there's even a prayer of avoiding the blurring of lines.

mark said:

What about this organization? Having never been a member of an organization of this type, how do they get atarted? The name could not be Analogue Photographers Union. APU carries to many simpsons jokes.

Click to expand...

Well, a not for profit association could be formed by someone with enough time to make it happen. The founding members would define a charter, perhaps collaborate together and with a community (APUG seems like a good starter community to me) to define key photographic processes. The organization would need to market itself in some way. Magazines might give it some initial publicity for free by publishing an article written by the association.

Somehow I believe you'd want galleries to participate, to lend validity to the certification process. There would be a question of how galleries are reached. Perhaps some well known, influential galleries would be a good starting point.

I would imagine the association would want to define levels of participation - from individual photographers who want their work to carry a certification; to corporate sponsors who want to sell supplies to this community; and to Galleries who want the benefit of a certification program.

Of course, this sort of thing could get large, and would probably eventually require a small staff - an executive director, an office staff. It would probably want to produce a regular communication - perhaps web-based.

First and foremost it would require a group of people who have the time and experience to make it happen; followed by sponsors who are willing to invest some money to fund its establishment.

I'd be willing to help, but at this point I'm not sure how much time I could commit. But I would be happy to help get something started. I don't think I have the credentials to lead it (I've run a business before, and have been an executive in tech companies, so I have the basic organizational skills, but I think this needs to be run by someone with a photography reputation, preferably national, in this community. Someone with industry connections who can do basic things like raise money and influence businesses).

Anyway, those are my thoughts.

-chuck

jovo said:

Isn't the French wine industry regulated in this way, especially in regard to Champagne? It doesn't seem to stop others from marketing sparkling wines with that label (except, of course, in France). Even when the proper appelation of 'sparkling wine' is used, people buy such beverages to serve as 'champagne' anyway. So too are 'Scotch' tape, 'Xerox' copies, 'Kleenex' tissues, and, although not so much any more, 'Frigidaire' refrigerators spoken of generically even though those labels are Trade Mark brands.

Only the willingness of gallerys and others who sell photographs and who wish to preserve the distinction between handmade and machine printed images can make this goal a reality. Since profit tugs so tenaciously at the souls of those who would be the guardians of puity of labeling, however, I don't have much faith that there's even a prayer of avoiding the blurring of lines.

Click to expand...

Granted infringement does happen, but in the case of French wines, have you not noticed how much more folks are willing to pay for a French Champagne, and how much cachet it carries at the table?

Private trademarks are a different matter entirely, IMO. Colloquial usage of terms like Xerox and Scotch Tape do dilute the power of the mark, and private companies work to deal with that.

But in this case we are talking about more than just preserving words - we are talking about creating a true certification process, so that when a photographer says they have produced, for example, a hand processed, platinum print, they can show a certification that provides the buyer with an assurance that it is authentic and conforms to minimum standards that are recognised to add true value to the result. Certainly they can be assured that this is not an inkjet print toned in Photoshop and created with inks that look like platinum.

I do believe this craft has reached a turning point where such an organization could add value. The question is whether there is sufficient desire or energy within the community to take this on.

Note that such an association could embrace Digital techniques as well, with some sort of certification process for digital image products - though what they would do in that realm is not clear to me. But no sense starting out an alienating part of an industry base.

Perhaps this could become not the Analog Photographer's Union, but more simply the Photographer's Union - well, how about we lend it some weight by calling it the International Photographer's Union. Then again, "Union" might alienate folks of certain political stripes, so perhaps the International Photographer's Guild.

(It actually surprises me that no such organization exists today. Or does it?)

Do I hear the sound of volunteers crashing down my door to get this thing started?

-chuck

By the way, googling "International Photographer's Guild" returns a lot of hits, so it sounds like there is some organization out there, but its purpose is not clear to me.

-chuck

Chuck,

on this particular issue, I would be happy to lend, both myself and my companies name to helping establish a set of standards to ensure that the customer is in fact purchasing what the artist, says they are selling.

This sounds like a very good idea to me, and I am sure a great number of other companies would be willing to help in the estabilishment of such and organization.

Dave Parker
Satin Snow Ground Glass

I'ld voluteer to do what i could.

To produce native American Art and call it Native American Art the creator must be a registered member of a federally recognized tribal entity. Those are pretty simple standards to enforce.

I doubt this would be that simple to enforce, and credibility would always be an issue. With so much of the color work being produced on Chromira or light jet machines you would pretty much be excluding all but a select few color photographers who do darkroom work. basically you take out a huge chunk of the promonant color photographers. I cannot see folks like Dykinga, Muench and many of our community members taking such an organization seriously. If this organization were solely limited to monochrome photography it would make more sense but would, in my opinion encompass a very limited view of what traditional chemical based photography is. This would have to be worked out. I hope this makes sense.

Can we make this it's own thread? It is on page 6 of an unrelated thread and a lot of folks may not see it. I, for one, would like to hear a lot more opinions on this.

mark said:

Can we make this it's own thread? It is on page 6 of an unrelated thread and a lot of folks may not see it. I, for one, would like to hear a lot more opinions on this.

Click to expand...

I agree 100%, this is an important subject that could have great implications in the future of analog photography.

It belongs in its own thread base.

Dave

I PMed Sean about moving these comments to a thread of their own.

mark said:

I'ld voluteer to do what i could.

To produce native American Art and call it Native American Art the creator must be a registered member of a federally recognized tribal entity. Those are pretty simple standards to enforce.

I doubt this would be that simple to enforce, and credibility would always be an issue. With so much of the color work being produced on Chromira or light jet machines you would pretty much be excluding all but a select few color photographers who do darkroom work. basically you take out a huge chunk of the promonant color photographers. I cannot see folks like Dykinga, Muench and many of our community members taking such an organization seriously. If this organization were solely limited to monochrome photography it would make more sense but would, in my opinion encompass a very limited view of what traditional chemical based photography is. This would have to be worked out. I hope this makes sense.

Click to expand...

I think to make such a thing work, the organization would produce certificates that would be presented with the object. A member artist would be registered as a practitioner of a particular style that would be recognized by the organization. That member would be able to self certify their own work.

Regarding light jet output, I see no reason why the association wouldn't have a certification for, say, a traditionally (wet) processed, digitally exposed photograph. As a purchaser of a print, I think I'd find value in knowing that the item was produced this way, rather than from, say, an inkjet. Especially if the work was produced by a recognised master printing outfit - that would give me comfort that they did things right, so that it really is archival.

This doesn't mean that the photographer that produces such work cannot be a member of the Guild, or whatever it is. They would just be recognised as an artist known to produce such works, and could self certify their works against this process.

I think this would have to be somewhat of a trust based organization, with the ability to remove someone who makes false representations about their work.

I think the organization could also be an information clearinghouse, providing information for consumers on various processes, what goes into them, their archival qualities, practitioners, galleries who offer this kind of art, etc. For the photographer, the organization could match up pratitioners, perhaps identify instructors, workshops, materials suppliers, etc.

-chuck

Have something similar to what was once used by the recording industry

A=Analog
D= Digital

So a film photograph that is scanned anfor a digital neg and contact printed would be: ADA

A Film Photo that is all traditional would be AAA

A digital capture output on a lightjet would be DDA or inkjet DDD

So some one who uses film scans it and inkjets it would Have ADD Sorry, education humor at the end of a long painful day in the trenches of public education

mrcallow said:

Have something similar to what was once used by the recording industry

A=Analog
D= Digital

So a film photograph that is scanned anfor a digital neg and contact printed would be: ADA

A Film Photo that is all traditional would be AAA

A digital capture output on a lightjet would be DDA or inkjet DDD

Click to expand...

Sounds like you are describing bra sizes

Aggie said:

Sounds like you are describing bra sizes

Click to expand...

Beavis and Butthead moment

huh DDD,Huh huh

Chuck,
what you are talking about makes a lot of sense but sounds like a huge undertaking. Does anyone even know what the first step would be?

I get it. So if I just can't concentrate while scanning pictures taken in a film camera to be printed on an inkjet printer, it would be ADDADD.

[Edit] Oops. Sorry Mark, My mind must have wandered while I was typing my reply, you beat me

mark said:

So some one who uses film scans it and inkjets it would Have ADD Sorry, education humor at the end of a long painful day in the trenches of public education

Click to expand...

ADD = Analog(ue) Deficit Disorder, right?

and DDD = Dreaded Digital Disease?

Lee

mrcallow said:

Have something similar to what was once used by the recording industry

A=Analog
D= Digital

So a film photograph that is scanned anfor a digital neg and contact printed would be: ADA

A Film Photo that is all traditional would be AAA

A digital capture output on a lightjet would be DDA or inkjet DDD

Click to expand...

This has got to be the smartest idea that I've heard yet about the analog/digital debate! Hurry... Make your millions off it before someone else does!

joe

mark said:

Chuck,
what you are talking about makes a lot of sense but sounds like a huge undertaking. Does anyone even know what the first step would be?

Click to expand...

It would be a full time effort for someone willing to pull it together. The basic process I believe is that someone with the commitment would need to create a not for profit entity (not too difficult, just a legal thing); develop a charter and a vision for the thing; attract some influential photographers to endorse the effort; attract some financially generous sponsors (product suppliers, galleries, well heeled individuals like, say, Aggie, Blansky, Kevin Bjorke, Nichole Boenig-McGrade <ok, just kidding, guys - I know I promised never to reveal that you guys were multi-millionaires>) who would be willing to help defray the initial expenses until membership revenues and sponsorships kicked in; build a board of advisors (one way to attract benefactors); get some publicity (friendly magazines, well traveled discussion boards, industry forums); build a staff.

There you go. It would be a full time effort just to kick it off, but certainly possible. You'd want to find someone ideally who has done this kind of thing before to be the executive director.

The upside for someone who took it on would be that, if successful they would have lots of visibility in this community, would get to meet the best and brightest, would get invited to shack out on Sean's couch when down under, etc., etc.. I mean, the fringe benefits are endless...

-chuck

If I may; according to Webster's New World Dictionary, digital photography is not a specialized form of photography. It is a different animal altogether.

pho-tog-ra-phy n. The art or process of producing images of objects upon a photosensitive surface (as film in a camera) by the chemical action of light or other radiant energy.

Key words here: "photosensitive", "chemical action"

Digital receptors are interpreters, not the end result. They operate by way of interpreting color response into strings of 0's and 1's. There are something on the order of a 8 layers of separation from the final image and the light source. In other words, digital imaging is not even remotely close to actual photography, which has no separation from the original light source.

Scott Edwards said:

If I may; according to Webster's New World Dictionary, digital photography is not a specialized form of photography. It is a different animal altogether.

pho-tog-ra-phy n. The art or process of producing images of objects upon a photosensitive surface (as film in a camera) by the chemical action of light or other radiant energy.

Key words here: "photosensitive", "chemical action"

Digital receptors are interpreters, not the end result. They operate by way of interpreting color response into strings of 0's and 1's. There are something on the order of a 8 layers of separation from the final image and the light source. In other words, digital imaging is not even remotely close to actual photography, which has no separation from the original light source.

Click to expand...

With all due respect, Scott, it doesn't matter what Webster says. I can assure you that the next time they revise that dictionary they'll have an updated definition to include digital photography. Webster's Dictionary is not some binding document for the world. Besides, I can certainly make a strong technical argument that CCDs are indeed photosensitive -they react to photons quite readily.

And, by the way, your print has a couple of degress of separation from the original light source, especially if you use transparencies. To wit: original exposure produces a latent image in the film. But during development, that image is chemically treated with a reversal process, so that the image produced at the end comes from a chemical reversal process, not from the original light - that image was lost during processing. So you are now a degree away.

This image is used in an enlarger with a different light source, or contact printed with a different light source, to produce a print. That print is now two degrees from the original light source.

A developed image is a chemical interpretation of the original image by virtue of development control. Pushing, pulling, and chemistry choices all play a part in the interpretaton of the original exposure and separate the original from the processed result.

Add lith masking, etc., and you have an image pretty well removed from the original light source.

However, with all that said, the processes are certainly different, and the introduction of digital steps at any point along the way has the potential to devalue the result, because digital processes are so readily automated and perfectly reproduced.

If, in the proposed nomenclature (which I like), an image is DDD, then its value to an investor has got to be nearly zero, because it can be reproduced like a Big Mac.

On the other hand, if the image is AAA, (and the image is of high quality, of course), there is significantly higher intrinsic value to the investor because, presumeably, the image is a hand made original. Of course, even in the AAA realm, it is possible to produce a large number of identical analog images that could reduce the value of an individual instance.


By the way, I would add one element to the nomenclature: H, for hybrid, or a mix of digital and analog techniques. In processing, for example, someone may do a contact print with a digital negative. I might suggest that be designated a Hybrid process. Thus a platinum print might be designated AAA or AHA.

-chuck

Yes, I stand corrected.