F#@%ing Fakes

[Vaughn]

BetterSense just made sense to me...

 

[Wayne]

I try to make it a point to bring this up with gallery owners and exhibit directors, and I suggest others do likewise. Ask for truth and some specificity in labeling. "Photograph" is not sufficient.

 

[sly]

A print of mine was just hung in the hospital lobby by the coffe bar. When I submitted it I labeled it "Lith Print from Medium Format Negative" It carries a label that says "photograph". They change the display every 3 months. I won't make a fuss, I think. If I submit again in the spring I will insist that the label to more specific.

 

[hpulley]

The reverse is even worse. I am sometimes told that my stuff has excellent photographic effects. Bloody hell, it is a photograph!

 

[bblhed]

There is something that really gets me about people faking Cyanotypes in whatever software, and that is that even if your shooting D you can still make an actual Cyanotype from a D negative that you can make easily with a printer and clear printer sheets. I know for purists that is just wrong, but bear with me a minute. We all know that an actual Cyanotype made on good quality paper using chemicals will last over 100 years with proper care like being framed and hung on a wall out of direct sunlight. Something like that might have a certain appeal even for the D shooter, especially because they can do the whole process at home by only spending about $30 on materials and equipment to make 15 Cyanotypes using the ready to print SunArt kits. Once they see just how easy it is to make a real Cyanotype form an digital negative, they may want to take the next step and try it with film, and we all know where that type of thing can lead.

Still, it gets me that people will go through a lot of effort to fake a process that literary be done in less time than it takes to print a photo on an inkjet printer, providing you have the negative in hand.

Yes, it does suck that there is a generation that thinks that every photo taken in the last 20 years is digital, and came out of a computer printer, but if we don't accept them and help them understand what it is that we do and how we do it the skills that we have that were built on over 150 years of experience could be lost.

We should teach them our ways, and then sway them to the Darkroom side, reminding them that we have cookies might help.

Dead Link Removed

 

[lxdude]

The reverse is even worse. I am sometimes told that my stuff has excellent photographic effects. Bloody hell, it is a photograph!

No doubt, the world has gone mad!

 

[DWThomas]

This stuff is getting uglier all the time as ink jet technology improves. In 2008 there was a controversy involving a national show put on by the American Watercolor Society where an artist claimed she used microscopic brushes to apply dots of color in creating her painting. The painting won an award, but more than a few were convinced it was an inkjet print. The final undoing was a revelation that the painting was created from two stock photographs not taken by the artist, which is a definite violation of the entry requirements. Ultimately the artist was forced to return the award and was barred from future shows, but one wonders how many may be getting away with such misrepresentation.

I think ultimately the situation demands a sort of "truth in labeling approach," but enforcement is a problem as small organizations will have no affordable way to definitively analyze submitted work. In shows put on by a group I belong to we have some boiler plate against "computer art" which is perhaps too vague, but we have had some problems in the past with pieces that we suspect were inkjet printed on canvas and diddled a bit with acrylic paint afterward. The artist claimed it took months to do the painting but seemed a bit evasive when questioned. The difficulty of proving or disproving such stuff is more or less impossible, so we end up hoping our judges will reject such a piece or at least ignore it for awards, if naught more than on suspicion, which unfortunately may occasionally hurt some incredibly skilled realistic painter.

This is an ongoing discussion topic in our group which so far seems insoluble. As such, I have been looking at exhibition prospectuses from other organizations for new ideas, and also how we might define "computer art" to reject or create a category for it. Recently I saw a prospectus for a show that accepted computer art -- "not created from a photograph" -- an interesting idea, but again, it's not difficult to envision enforcement headaches.

Years back, I knew a woman who made lithographic prints, the old traditional method involving wax resists on stone slabs and inking by hand with rollers or pounces, sometimes using multiple slabs for color work. She had joined an organization that was trying to force a standardized labeling that would differentiate between "prints" that were photo reproduced and "original prints" that were hand pulled off the litho slabs through considerable work and skill. The latter would seemingly be more "artistic" and should receive higher prices and the former should not be passed off as the same sort of print.

It appears as though there will always be people out there trying to take advantage of others by blurring the provenance of artwork.

 

[chriscrawfordphoto]

This stuff is getting uglier all the time as ink jet technology improves. In 2008 there was a controversy involving a national show put on by the American Watercolor Society where an artist claimed she used microscopic brushes to apply dots of color in creating her painting. The painting won an award, but more than a few were convinced it was an inkjet print. The final undoing was a revelation that the painting was created from two stock photographs not taken by the artist, which is a definite violation of the entry requirements. Ultimately the artist was forced to return the award and was barred from future shows, but one wonders how many may be getting away with such misrepresentation.

I think ultimately the situation demands a sort of "truth in labeling approach," but enforcement is a problem as small organizations will have no affordable way to definitively analyze submitted work. In shows put on by a group I belong to we have some boiler plate against "computer art" which is perhaps too vague, but we have had some problems in the past with pieces that we suspect were inkjet printed on canvas and diddled a bit with acrylic paint afterward. The artist claimed it took months to do the painting but seemed a bit evasive when questioned. The difficulty of proving or disproving such stuff is more or less impossible, so we end up hoping our judges will reject such a piece or at least ignore it for awards, if naught more than on suspicion, which unfortunately may occasionally hurt some incredibly skilled realistic painter.

This is an ongoing discussion topic in our group which so far seems insoluble. As such, I have been looking at exhibition prospectuses from other organizations for new ideas, and also how we might define "computer art" to reject or create a category for it. Recently I saw a prospectus for a show that accepted computer art -- "not created from a photograph" -- an interesting idea, but again, it's not difficult to envision enforcement headaches.

Years back, I knew a woman who made lithographic prints, the old traditional method involving wax resists on stone slabs and inking by hand with rollers or pounces, sometimes using multiple slabs for color work. She had joined an organization that was trying to force a standardized labeling that would differentiate between "prints" that were photo reproduced and "original prints" that were hand pulled off the litho slabs through considerable work and skill. The latter would seemingly be more "artistic" and should receive higher prices and the former should not be passed off as the same sort of print.

It appears as though there will always be people out there trying to take advantage of others by blurring the provenance of artwork.

Its not hard to prove a print is an inkjet. Look at it through a magnifier, you can see the tiny dots.

The reason some shows of computer art or digital art say they want work that is "not created from a photograph" is because they do not want normal photography that happens to be printed digitally from being passed off as computer art. What they want is something drawn on the computer, not a photo that went through Photoshop for normal 'darkroom' stuff like contrast, density, color, dodge & burn, etc.

Regarding pricing: In the art world we are not rewarded for hard work in creating the pieces we sell. We're rewarded, for better or worse, for the hard work we do in establishing a reputation by convincing people that our names are worth something. High art prices are not driven by the quality of the art, but by the artist's persona (which is stupid, but that's the way it is).

 

[MaximusM3]

I showed some of my lith prints to a couple of friends a few days ago. After 20 min of explaining the process, one of them said..."I really love the post-processing on this one". Even after the explaining, they still had no clue that there was nothing digital about it. That's the reality of things.

 

[MaximusM3]

Regarding pricing: In the art world we are not rewarded for hard work in creating the pieces we sell. We're rewarded, for better or worse, for the hard work we do in establishing a reputation by convincing people that our names are worth something. High art prices are not driven by the quality of the art, but by the artist's persona (which is stupid, but that's the way it is).

You nailed it right on the head there, Chris.

 

[chriscrawfordphoto]

I think you are confusing ink jet with half tone. That method won't prove something is an ink jet--btw, I just tired your suggestion on a couple of our 100" prints with an 8x loupe. That does not mean you can't see tiny dots on some ink jet prints, but you cannot apply that to all ink jets.

The problems in this thread is not about process, but honesty. How do you stop people from trying to deceive others? Personally, I find when the artist stresses the process(real or imagined), the work is not that great. The process certainly brings attributes to a work, but it will not save a weak image. And I am not that bothered if someone is less than honest--I find it rare that one process can be duplicated by another and it always leaves an identifiable fingerprint.

Besides, it is not my lie. I feel sorry for those who need that kind of validation. It seldom brings happiness.

No, I know the difference between inkjet and halftone. I do some graphic design work, so I'm familiar with halftoning and I print a lot of my photos on an inkjet. The last time I looked at an inkjet print through a magnifier, I could see the dots. They're not in a regularized pattern like a halftone screen. That printer was an old one though, an Epson 2200 that I have not had in a long time. I'll have to look at a more recent print; the newer printers are supposed to have smaller dots so you're probably right about them being invisible now.

 

[Vaughn]

You nailed it right on the head there, Chris.

I am going to go all pollyanna on you here and say that one way artists work hard to create a name/reputation for themselves is by working hard on their art and by giving a lot of themselves by helping (teaching) others who strive to do good work.

Vaughn

 

[michaelbsc]

You nailed it right on the head there, Chris.

I am going to go all pollyanna on you here and say that one way artists work hard to create a name/reputation for themselves is by working hard on their art and by giving a lot of themselves by helping (teaching) others who strive to do good work.

Vaughn

Vaughn,

We love you. I'm glad you recognize that's a Pollyanna outlook. I'm more cynical, but I can't claim to be as happy as Pollyanna was.

Michael

 

[Wayne]

" Quote Originally Posted by Hikari View Post

The problems in this thread is not about process, but honesty. How do you stop people from trying to deceive others? Personally, I find when the artist stresses the process(real or imagined), the work is not that great. The process certainly brings attributes to a work, but it will not save a weak image. And I am not that bothered if someone is less than honest--I find it rare that one process can be duplicated by another and it always leaves an identifiable fingerprint.

Besides, it is not my lie. I feel sorry for those who need that kind of validation. It seldom brings happiness."


Interesting. This Hikari account seems to have been wiped clean. He/she does bring up a good point, that too much focus on process is seldom good for the end product. Personally I hate pretentious labels and the need to use them that is brought about by the obfuscation of others.

 

[Diapositivo]

In response to Michael Andersen, the Original Poster, I would say that if one reacts with a sincere will to explain the differences between the traditional and the digital processes, one might educate a person and maybe, or probably, even arouse in him the curiosity to know some traditional techniques. We are all photographers, and we are united by the same passion. Mon semblable, mon frère, as a Poet said.

If instead one reacts showing antipathy and hostility for the uninitiated and assumes an "us and them" attitude, the final result will be more religion wars, and less practitioners of the analogue techniques. In the long run we will find ourselves more and more inside our small Fort Alamo with plenty of Mexicans around playing the deguello.

In response to Thebes, I do understand that the problem here is not strictly the possible confusion between "carbon pigment print", an ink-jet printing technique, and "carbon transfer print", a traditional darkroom printing technique, the problem is that when asked about whether the print in question was obtained with a traditional "darkroom" printing technique the answer was that it was and, if it is a print obtained with an ink-jet printer, it certainly is not a darkroom print.

Even if the print is actually an ink-jet print I would not jump to conclusions about the bad faith of the gallery owner. Maybe she was not competent enough to perceive the difference between the two kind of prints (I would not as well) and was induced in mistake by the similarity in the names of the processes, so she was honestly told "carbon pigment print" and linked it in her mind to the darkroom technique. Misunderstandings happen.

So again I think that clarifying the point to her would be beneficial to her gallery and to everybody.

In my view, I see in this thread an excess of "confrontative" attitude toward people who probably do not understand the old techniques and speak in good faith, using the terms that, however ambiguous, are common in their circles and do not carry any suspect of ambiguity in there. I think an "evangelic" attitude toward the "blasphemous" would be in the long run more rewarding for analogue photography than a "religion war" attitude.

Fabrizio

 

[JBrunner]

I agree completely. The idea that we should let the masses, rather than the experts, dictate terminology and in fact dictate our artistic direction by affecting the way we value different media is rubbish. It's basically just lowest-common-denominator philosophy. It's perfectly natural and normal for photographers and serious art collectors to make distinctions that are lost on laypeople. The fact that the distinctions are lost on laypeople is not a justification for ignoring the distinctions; on the contrary it should be further justification for preserving them.

I don't know anything about horticulture; but my sister does. Although she is very serious about it, it's natural that I don't understand the distinction between X variant of sunflowers and Y variant of sunflowers. They are all sunflowers to me. But it doesn't bother me that people that take horticulture seriously DO know the distinction, make an effort to understand it, and preserve it. If I want to learn more about sunflowers, I have someone to ask. I would never, ever expect them to "dumb it down" for me and pretend that there is no distinction, because "I'll never notice the difference anyway". The very idea offends me. If I ever get into sunflower collecting, I would expect to have to learn something about sunflowers.

I still maintain that only optical prints are properly labeled "photographs". An inkjet print is more accurately labeled a painting than a photograph. It's evidently a mechanical painting, but there isn't even any light used to produce it. The image might represent some past photograph, but the print itself is not a photograph. I'm making no value judgments on the respective merits of photographs and inkjet prints, or digital art by making these statements. These distinctions may be lost on laypeople, but it is the duty of the art world to observe, understand, and maintain them, in the spirit of integrity and excellence.

This is the best take on the whole thing IMO.

 

[Wayne]

Its easy to heap confrontational attitude where it wasnt deserved, this is true. People who are deliberate in their obfuscation (I'm sorry, even that term sounds confrontational, but it is deserved) deserve it (though it probably does no good), whereas gallery owners and the public certainly dont deserve it. I think there is a productive middle ground between the apathy I see too much of around here (if not US, then who?) and "confrontation", and that is simply educating and informing. I'm the first to admit I'm not the best at it, either, and I tend to take a more confrontational approach that I probably should'nt.

 

[ann]

Am adding this to the discussion as the term has come up

This is from Jack Duganne who was replying to a request from a friend

I coined the term Giclée back in 1989 and used it to describe a print for an
artist who was having her first show of ink jet prints done on an IRIS
printer. She had asked for a term and I developed the word based upon the
French word for "nozzle", which is gicleur. I 'created' that word because
I thought that it should apply not only to just the IRIS prints, but also to
other prints done on other printers in the future of digital printmaking. I
assumed that all printers would have to incorporate a nozzle in the printing
process for transferring the ink to the paper or substrate. The word giclée
technically means "that which is sprayed by a nozzle". I created the term
to be used specifically to separate fine art digital prints (or prints
determined to be fine art by the artist in that they intended to sign them)
from non-art digital prints. That is much the way the word "serigraph" is
used to separate commercial non-art silk screen prints from those intended
to be art by the artists themselves.



Beyond that, there was no other intention or agenda offered nor claimed.
Copyright was not possible because it was a new generic term and as such was
available for all to use and employ. It created a fire storm of
interpretation and meaning by others. It is embedded in the global culture
and economy at this point and all other discussion is moot. For better or
worse, it was a word and nothing more. It had a beginning in the simple
attempt to describe what I thought might be a contribution to the great
lexicon of printmaking nomenclature. I have never deviated from that
original purpose.




When I show a digital print it is identified as such. When i take a digital file beyond what I have determined as photograph i use the term digital art. Who knows what others do, but it is my guide line. Just as when i make a vandyke print, or silver, or whatever, it is called by it's process name.

 

[Vaughn]

Vaughn,

We love you. I'm glad you recognize that's a Pollyanna outlook. I'm more cynical, but I can't claim to be as happy as Pollyanna was.

Michael

If one was to draw a line halfway between pollyanna and a total cynic, I would be somewhere, perhaps halfway again from the mid-line, on the pollyanna side of things. I can get cynical, but not for long. Just my nature...not much I can do about it.

 

[Zergling Rusher]

I know I'm posting four months too late, but I want to put a young perspective on it.

As a 17 year old aspiring photographer it has taken me literally five years before I found out that film was STILL USED (so sad) much less far superior to their digital counterparts.

I believe that methods of analog photography aren't shown enough to the public eye for our communities to believe that film still exists, much less flourishing.

If we want to change the view of aspiring photographers we need large companies to promote film photography to the general public again, not just to the masters of the trade. We need to show that a photographer must craft their image rather than the shoot-and-check methods of many digi-noobs.

The main reason for me coming to the dark(room) side is because digital is too easy. I hope more people will think like me and find a challenge and take it; only to find it is much more rewarding.

There needs to be a line drawn between digital-rendered arts and photography.

Daniel

 

[Wayne]

When I show a digital print it is identified as such. When i take a digital file beyond what I have determined as photograph i use the term digital art. Who knows what others do, but it is my guide line. Just as when i make a vandyke print, or silver, or whatever, it is called by it's process name.

That's all I'm asking for. Really doesn't seem to be too much to ask.

 

[Wayne]

I know I'm posting four months too late, but I want to put a young perspective on it.

As a 17 year old aspiring photographer it has taken me literally five years before I found out that film was STILL USED (so sad) much less far superior to their digital counterparts.

I believe that methods of analog photography aren't shown enough to the public eye for our communities to believe that film still exists, much less flourishing.

If we want to change the view of aspiring photographers we need large companies to promote film photography to the general public again, not just to the masters of the trade. We need to show that a photographer must craft their image rather than the shoot-and-check methods of many digi-noobs.

The main reason for me coming to the dark(room) side is because digital is too easy. I hope more people will think like me and find a challenge and take it; only to find it is much more rewarding.

There needs to be a line drawn between digital-rendered arts and photography.

Daniel

Love to see that passion for traditional methods and we want to educate and inform but we dont want to go insisting our way is better or theirs is inferior. That only reflects poorly on us. We just want truth and accuracy in labeling.

 

[JBrunner]

Am adding this to the discussion as the term has come up

This is from Jack Duganne who was replying to a request from a friend

I coined the term Giclée back in 1989 and used it to describe a print for an
artist who was having her first show of ink jet prints done on an IRIS
printer. She had asked for a term and I developed the word based upon the
French word for "nozzle", which is gicleur. I 'created' that word because
I thought that it should apply not only to just the IRIS prints, but also to
other prints done on other printers in the future of digital printmaking. I
assumed that all printers would have to incorporate a nozzle in the printing
process for transferring the ink to the paper or substrate. The word giclée
technically means "that which is sprayed by a nozzle". I created the term
to be used specifically to separate fine art digital prints (or prints
determined to be fine art by the artist in that they intended to sign them)
from non-art digital prints. That is much the way the word "serigraph" is
used to separate commercial non-art silk screen prints from those intended
to be art by the artists themselves.



Beyond that, there was no other intention or agenda offered nor claimed.
Copyright was not possible because it was a new generic term and as such was
available for all to use and employ. It created a fire storm of
interpretation and meaning by others. It is embedded in the global culture
and economy at this point and all other discussion is moot. For better or
worse, it was a word and nothing more. It had a beginning in the simple
attempt to describe what I thought might be a contribution to the great
lexicon of printmaking nomenclature. I have never deviated from that
original purpose.




When I show a digital print it is identified as such. When i take a digital file beyond what I have determined as photograph i use the term digital art. Who knows what others do, but it is my guide line. Just as when i make a vandyke print, or silver, or whatever, it is called by it's process name.

Giclee is also a term used for a certain obscenely biological occurrence in French XXX movies. I've been laughing to tears for years.

 

[ann]

j
yes, and i decided not to bring that point into the discussion.

Here is a problem, I am working on a project right now that is a homage to Edward Weston. I am scanning some seashells, including a split natuilus. So what is this called? A scanner is basiclly a camera, but few think of it as one. Seriously, what is it's classicalification? Or, does it just fall into my "digital art" frame. When i show these I am not sure what "label" should be attached.

Some may look at them and just think a basic photograph, as they are very straight forward, but are they?

 

[lxdude]

Giclee is also a term used for a certain obscenely biological occurrence in French XXX movies. I've been laughing to tears for years.

Gee, ya learn something every day here.