F#@%ing Fakes

[Sirius Glass]

Gang, I hate to say it, but I sarted out several years ago with a digital in my hand. It was a first generation Kodak DC265. At one point in time, I also tried to reproduce the look of the old image. The years went by, and I gave myself the education I needed to roll myself into analog. To make a long story even longer, I no longer even own a digital camera. I have just recently purchased my first 8x10, and im killing myself trying to perfect the calotype. The moral of the story......keep doing what you do, and educate the public. I am one of the people that you have educated, and I thank you all for it. One year ago, I joined a camera club, and I was the only person in the club shooting analog. After winning most of the monthly photo contests, I now have another member joining my ranks. Keep sharing your talent, and keep the processes alive. By the way, I hand grind my coffee, and love it perked. Cheers.

Welcome to the dark side!

Steve

 

[Ektagraphic]

Wouldn't an APUG magazine be nice?

 

[alexhill]

Honestly, I can not be upset by a digital photographer who is willing to create convincing whatever-o-types. I only get upset if they mislabel the prints when trying to sell/show. Being deliberately misleading is wrong (even with art). Despite how wrong is sounds for those who have made a real cyanotype, a 'digital cyanotype' is probably the best name that kind of forgery can have.

Same thing for Giclée Its a stupid stupid evil word! Just say archival inkjet. I just graduated with a degree in fine art photography, and nearly everyone labels their prints as Giclée. I even saw a 'fine art Giclée once'. (I happen to love my inkjet prints, and anyone who says its not as involving as a darkroom print is daft or ignorant)

My teachers were very well informed in alternative processes and would never let a student label their digital print as a 'carbon print'. Haha

 

[alexhill]

Welcome to the dark side!

Steve

You sure you don't mean dark slide?

 

[AgentX]

Honestly, I can not be upset by a digital photographer who is willing to create convincing whatever-o-types. I only get upset if they mislabel the prints when trying to sell/show. Being deliberately misleading is wrong (even with art). Despite how wrong is sounds for those who have made a real cyanotype, a 'digital cyanotype' is probably the best name that kind of forgery can have.

Same thing for Giclée Its a stupid stupid evil word! Just say archival inkjet. I just graduated with a degree in fine art photography, and nearly everyone labels their prints as Giclée. I even saw a 'fine art Giclée once'. (I happen to love my inkjet prints, and anyone who says its not as involving as a darkroom print is daft or ignorant)

My teachers were very well informed in alternative processes and would never let a student label their digital print as a 'carbon print'. Haha

Oddly, I find "digital cyanotype" highly misleading, as if a digital negative was involved with making a cyanotype, instead of it being a stylized inkjet in blue. But I find "giclée" to be a harmless and commonly-understood (if somewhat giggle-inducing for the Francophone crowd) term. "Carbon print" applied to an inkjet is outright wrong.

 

[BetterSense]

I find "digital cyanotype" highly misleading

I think it's just silly. It's an inkjet that looks like a cyanotype. So it's an inkjet. Calling it a 'digital cyanotype' would be like calling a B&W inkjet a "digital silver print". It's stupid.

 

[fotch]

Like sex with a digital partner!

 

[MaximusM3]

Oddly, I find "digital cyanotype" highly misleading, as if a digital negative was involved with making a cyanotype, instead of it being a stylized inkjet in blue. But I find "giclée" to be a harmless and commonly-understood (if somewhat giggle-inducing for the Francophone crowd) term. "Carbon print" applied to an inkjet is outright wrong.

It depends...I call my Piezography prints exactly this, with full disclosure, and it is completely accurate and truthful "Piezography carbon pigment print (inkjet)"

 

[AgentX]

Well, but you're not calling it a "Carbon Print," then...which is a specific thing unto itself. You're calling it exactly what it is. Which is the perfect thing to do.

 

[lxdude]

Could you explain what you mean by provenance? Provenance is typically defined as the history of ownership of an object or original location of an object, the object being a piece of art or photograph.

Provenance can also be described as origin.

 

[Hexavalent]

Be careful with the use of Piezo! Not all inkjets are piezoelectronic - some purists might get upset with a thermal print masquerading as genuine piezo.

 

[Colin Graham]

I can't find a link to the article in the OP. Did anyone ever post a link to it? Or at least say which magazine it was?

 

[Sirius Glass]

You sure you don't mean dark slide?

If I meant that I would have said that, although it does apply.

 

[rbergeman]

i believe that most of the mislabeling of medium is from ignorance, rather than from intent to deceive ..... anyone who has juried or curated an invitational photo exhibit realizes that many photographers have no clue what to put down when asked for the 'medium' of their work -- you get everything from simply 'photography' or even the simply stupid 'color photograph' (like, what, i'm blind?), to the brand names of the inkjet paper used, as in 'silver rag print' ..... but you can't blame them for being confused, because the issue of photographic media has been turned in its head in recent years ..... i think the solution is to advocate a complete identification of process when prints are exhibited or otherwise presented, from the genesis of the image to the final artifact ..... for example: 'silver gelatin print from film' ..... or 'inkjet print from film' ......or 'inkjet print from digital image' ....... or 'platinum/palladium print from digital negative' ...... or even 'platinum/palladium print from scanned film negative' ...... i've even used 'platinum/palladium print from pinhole camera negative', tho i suppose that's getting a bit too anal ....... anyway, there are so many ways to make a print these days, i think that how you got there is useful and honest info to provide the viewer

rich

 

[andrewkirkby]

Be careful with the use of Piezo! Not all inkjets are piezoelectronic - some purists might get upset with a thermal print masquerading as genuine piezo.

Epson use piezo, Canon and others use heat.

 

[dwross]

i believe that most of the mislabeling of medium is from ignorance, rather than from intent to deceive ..... anyone who has juried or curated an invitational photo exhibit realizes that many photographers have no clue what to put down when asked for the 'medium' of their work -- you get everything from simply 'photography' or even the simply stupid 'color photograph' (like, what, i'm blind?), to the brand names of the inkjet paper used, as in 'silver rag print' ..... but you can't blame them for being confused, because the issue of photographic media has been turned in its head in recent years ..... i think the solution is to advocate a complete identification of process when prints are exhibited or otherwise presented, from the genesis of the image to the final artifact ..... for example: 'silver gelatin print from film' ..... or 'inkjet print from film' ......or 'inkjet print from digital image' ....... or 'platinum/palladium print from digital negative' ...... or even 'platinum/palladium print from scanned film negative' ...... i've even used 'platinum/palladium print from pinhole camera negative', tho i suppose that's getting a bit too anal ....... anyway, there are so many ways to make a print these days, i think that how you got there is useful and honest info to provide the viewer

rich

rich,

I agree with every sentiment in your post -- with one exception: "tho i suppose that's getting a bit too anal..." I don't think it's possible to give too much information. You nailed it with the observation about how many ways a 'photograph' can be made. Little by little the general public is figuring that out, but they could use a lot more help from us. I volunteer at the gallery of my local public arts center. The people who take the time to come in almost always are truly interested in art and the details of process. I think most of them would be delighted to read a full description of how a piece was made if it were displayed alongside the art. Unless the artist feels his or her technique is somehow 'proprietary', I can't imagine a downside to spilling our guts .

d

 

[Sjixxxy]

I don't think it's possible to give too much information.

I once saw a photo on display that listed out the digital camera's body make/model, the lenses make/model/focal length AND the equivalent focal length on 35mm film. Al this aside from the details tech specs on the print. The whole thing was about two paragraphs long.

IMHO, that was too much unnecessary information.

 

[dwross]

I once saw a photo on display that listed out the digital camera's body make/model, the lenses make/model/focal length AND the equivalent focal length on 35mm film. Al this aside from the details tech specs on the print. The whole thing was about two paragraphs long.

IMHO, that was too much unnecessary information.

It's only unnecessary if you aren't interested. It's easy enough to not-read something.

I understand, though. Many of us have been in the situation where we feel almost interrogated by a viewer who seems to think that if they only had all our equipment they could make something 'just as good'. In a situation like that it can be a challenge to stay friendly and open. But, I think that's a habit from the pre-anything goes days. Today, we all have to decide individually if educating our public is worth it (and you can probably guess that for me the answer is "Yes!")

What I'd like to see is a change in the philosophy of hanging a show that still prevails in so many galleries. The whole 'minimalism' thing. If an artist wants to display extensive information next to a piece of art, they should feel welcome to do so.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I once saw a photo on display that listed out the digital camera's body make/model, the lenses make/model/focal length AND the equivalent focal length on 35mm film. Al this aside from the details tech specs on the print. The whole thing was about two paragraphs long.

IMHO, that was too much unnecessary information.

If there is enough technical data, it can make up for the lack of compositional skill.

 

[AgentX]

I don't think anyone should necessarily be compelled by rigid convention to reveal the technique used to make any image. It's the artist's/photographer's choice. But if someone chooses to, most especially in the context of selling the image, it must be accurate; otherwise, it's fraud.

 

[michaelbsc]

I don't think anyone should necessarily be compelled by rigid convention to reveal the technique used to make any image. ... But if someone chooses to ... in the context of selling the image, it must be accurate; otherwise, it's fraud.

This is the crux of it all.

 

[MaximusM3]

I don't think anyone should necessarily be compelled by rigid convention to reveal the technique used to make any image. It's the artist's/photographer's choice. But if someone chooses to, most especially in the context of selling the image, it must be accurate; otherwise, it's fraud.

That really wraps this up. Misrepresentation is the issue. As long as there is full disclosure as to how the image was printed, it is indeed up to the photographer to add any of the fluff (camera, film used, apertures, developer, etc). Some people care to read/know that and most do not.

 

[dwross]

That really wraps this up. Misrepresentation is the issue. As long as there is full disclosure as to how the image was printed, it is indeed up to the photographer to add any of the fluff (camera, film used, apertures, developer, etc). Some people care to read/know that and most do not.

Not quite a wrap yet. There's still a devil lurking in the details (my opinion, of course).

The statements, "As long as there is full disclosure as to how the image was printed..." and, "I don't think anyone should necessarily be compelled by rigid convention to reveal the technique used to make any image" seem to be at odds.

How much technique revelation counts as 'full disclosure'? I'm not trying to imply that the question can be, or even should be, answered here, but I think it's a question that will be cropping up more and more.

 

[AgentX]

All I'm saying is that if you're going to talk about how it was made, you need to be honest. As an issue of integrity, perhaps, in and of itself, but also as a legal issue regarding proper representation of goods being sold.

But if you don't want to talk about it at all, that's your business. If someone doesn't want to buy it because of that, or discounts your work because of it, that's their business.

I can imagine some art contexts where ambiguity in the production of the image might, in fact, be the conceptual point of the work. Such work probably isn't everyone's cup of tea.

 

[redrockcoulee]

My wife is a printmaker and even before the digital revolution she had to explain to people the difference between her original prints (etchings, serigraphs, woodcuts etc) and the so called limited edition prints which are merely reproduction of other pieces of art.
The problem with mislabeling the process is that it de-educates the public. Is there not a difference between a hand pulled or processed print, a fine crafted digital ink-jet output and a mass produced offset litho production? Can the first two artist compete in price with the latter?
I cannot print an image in the darkroom on RC paper and sell it as a platinum print or carbon transfer or whatever else I want to call it. We humans label things for a reason, so people know what we mean. Co opting an existing label is bound to confuse the public, dilute the name and result in definitions becoming meaningless. There are filters and programs that can turn your image into a painting but try selling your photograph as an oil painting or water colour. There must be new names coined.