Label for Genuine Photographs

[Ulrich Drolshagen]

Hi all,

together with two friends I have created a label to mark pictures on the web and elsewhere as genuine photographs



Our goal is to give to all photographers a means to show that their pictures are created with a camera and not on a computer. We will in future mark all our pictures as genuine photographs to show all beholders what they get. On the related web site genuine-photograph.org we explain what to us is a 'genuine photograph' .
It is important to emphasize that we do not have any objection against photoshop created pictures of which many may be considered as art. But we think that this kind of graphics should not be associated with the term 'photograph'. Our effort is not about analog vs digital. It is about photography vs photoshop-art.
Please read our statement and if you sympathize with our goals help to spread our label. Our dream is that in future every picture in a magazine or on the internet not carrying the label is questioned by the beholder whether it may be an offspring of photoshop.
Additionally we plan to publish interesting essays and articles related to our topic. We begin with an article by Maris Rusis found here on apug.org about the misleading English term 'print' for photographs. An anglicism which is increasingly made use of in my own language German (I must admit even by me) too.

Thank you all for taking the time

Ulrich

 

[Maris]

There is a difficulty in nomenclature when one uses the appelation "genuine photograph". It implies the existence of a class of objects made up of "non-genuine photographs".

Any logician would point out that the set of "non-genuine photographs" is an empty set. There is no such thing as a "non-genuine photograph" although there are plenty of pictures that are routinely mistaken for or misrepresented as photographs.

The problem is not down to Ulrich Drolshagen or me or APUG. I'm pretty sure that every one here knows a photograph when they see it. And they know why it is a photograph rather than something else. The difficulty lies with our need to be understood in a world that is largely naive about photography. Plus we need to use a language that has not yet evolved consistent nouns for distinctive picture making processes. That's why anything that looks superficially like a photograph tends to get called one kind of photograph or another.

Other cumbersome expressions like "analog photography", "digital photography", and "Kirlian photography" (to name a few) get foisted on us by our need to communicate rather than stay mute. There really is only "photography" and everything else is something else that needs a different name. Perhaps we should be aggressively assertive, say the word "photograph" with pride and confront, without cringing, such swindles as "digital photograph" or "giclee photograph".

I think "genuine photograph" is a step in the right direction but it needs more. That extra step could be to name the actual light sensitive process used. For example, "genuine gelatin-silver photograph", "genuine photograph - cyanotype process", or " platinotype-genuine photograph".

Once the "genuine photograph" business is sorted out we could consider the "genuine photographer" concept. At present it seems difficult to distinguish between those who do only camera work (camera play?) and those who actually make photographs. But that could be another rant entirely.

 

[keithwms]

Ulrich, my first thought was: wait, you want me to photoshop in this label so that people will know that my photograph is genuine?

Nevertheless, I am with you in spirit!

Underlying much of the tension regarding authenticity of digitally reworked images, there is an ever increasing separation between the viewer and the photographer. These days, a commercially successful photographer may never even make a print.... much less sign one or exhibit it in an actual, physical gallery. Instead, a lot of work goes directly to the web or is scanned, and that may well be its final destination. There also seem to be fewer magazine willing to reproduce fine art photographs with the kind of individual care that represents them fairly. And with all the information in a digital photograph encoded in a file that can be printed any number of times, some people have reasonable doubts about the value of what they see, as a collectible piece.

Given all of those things, it is hardly surprising how distant the relationship now is, between the photographer and the viewer.

One solution? Print and show your work. Talk to people about it... in person. Take them inside your thinking and your technique. Teach those who want to be taught. When they understand what you did to create a photograph, they will see that it is genuine.

Anyway, it's an interesting idea, Ulrich, good luck with it. It harkens back to the "f/64" label though; some will think this is good, and others will object strenuously to any haughty limits on art....

 

[Ektagraphic]

Great idea. Will this go on non-photoshopped digital prints or will it be for analog only? It would be awesome if it was only for photos of analog (film) origin.

 

[2F/2F]

Holy moly, man.......This should get good! I am just going to preemptively hit the ignore thread button.

 

[keithwms]

Holy moly, man.......This should get good! I am just going to preemptively hit the ignore thread button.

No you're not! You're going to watch it closely, like a rubbernecker on the highway

 

[Ian David]

Nice idea, but seems misconceived to me...
Ask the French - they have long had problems trying to stifle the evolution of language.

 

[clay]

I think this is sheer genius. I have a bunch of photos I did a while back that are black and white silver gelatin prints contact printed from 8x10 negatives that I am unsure what to do with. Most of them are of rocks, trees and peeling paint on the side of white churches in New England. I would like to show them, but I want people to only buy them if they understand what I really put into their creation. So I have borrowed your idea, and will stick this label on the back of every print:

 

[removed account4]

who is to say that someone who is making ungenuine images
isn't going to suggest that the images are genuine ?

people lie all the time ..

is there some sort of governing body that will make sure
people are telling the truth ... and in the end, after an image is made
numeric it isn't an authentic genuine analog image anymore is it ?
in order for it to look normal, some apr has to be done to it
( apr - analog photoshoppery resuscitation ) ...

just wonderin'

 

[Barry S]

My own private label covers analog, digital, and literally anything I create.

 

[flatulent1]

Barry, I like it. May I borrow this for my own artistic expression?

 

[SilverGlow]

So what does the OP define as a genuine photograph?

What is his definition?

And is the definition universally accepted?

To me, a photograph is made by using light to create an image, and not about how that light was captured, nor on what medium that light effected an image.

I think one has to nail down the definition of a photograph before going forward with such an idea.

One more question: Why would one care to label their photograh genuine?

 

[ooze]

So what does the OP define as a genuine photograph?

What is his definition?

Go back to the OP and read the linked "Statement" where you will find the definition.

 

[Q.G.]

Go back to the OP and read the linked "Statement" where you will find the definition.

A definition.

 

[Metroman]

I'm going back to bed. I have obviously slipped in to the surreal, APUG parallel universe during the night!

 

[Q.G.]

There is a difficulty in nomenclature when one uses the appelation "genuine photograph". It implies the existence of a class of objects made up of "non-genuine photographs".

Any logician would point out that the set of "non-genuine photographs" is an empty set. There is no such thing as a "non-genuine photograph" although there are plenty of pictures that are routinely mistaken for or misrepresented as photographs.

Only logicians who are trying too hard. (And they would be wrong.)

The words "non-genuine" are not to be ignored. A false photograph is something posing as a photograph while it is not. The word "photograph" denotes what it poses as, not what it is. No problem with that.
It doesn't matter what that something it is, except for the succes it may hope to have posing as something it is not.
You know that, judging by the "although [..]" bit.

The set could be empty, but not because of some logical issues.

 

[Q.G.]

When is a photograph not manipulated?

Does pulling and pushing count? Development duration and contrast control? Choice of developer and/or film to influence grain? Filters used on the lens? The choice of paper grade? Spotting? Dodging and burning? 'Alternative processes'? Etcetera.

As it is, i think this a completely unusable, because empty, concept.

 

[Ulrich Drolshagen]

A definition.

No, and that may be the part causing all the confusion. It's only *our* definition. The crucial part is the dot org in our label. What's new is, that we the first time have means to tell our definition with every picture we show. For us it doesn't matter whether the picture was record by some silicon chip or by some silverhalide emulsion or what has happend to the picture afterwards as long in postprocessing a short list of manipulations have been avoided. With our label we only guarantee that we don't have used any of four listed operations:

* The photograph shows within its used crop all distinguishable objects of the subject which were part of it in the moment of tripping the shutter
* There are no objects removed, added, changed in their relative position or altered in their proportions
* The textures of the subject elements were not altered
* As far as color pictures are concerned the colors of all parts of the subject were not basically altered.

Thats all of it. We will not have to (and do not) argue the question whether photography in itself is so much manipulation that removing power lines, making models slimmer, their boobs larger or whatever does not add anything meaningful to the list any longer. Everyone can do what he wants with his/her pictures. We only tell with our pictures what we didn't have done with them.

I'm writing this during a break. May be I can give a more extended reply in the evening if required.

Ulrich

 

[Chazzy]

* There are no objects removed, added, changed in their relative position or altered in their proportions

How about genuine photographs which are printed from multiple negatives? A number of famous fine art photographers have done that. And how about the surrealists? They have sometimes altered the proportions.

I love the idea of claiming the label genuine photograph and shaming the purveyors of inkjet prints. But I suspect that they will only react with ridicule.

 

[Domenico Foschi]

But I suspect that they will only react with ridicule.

Rightly so.

 

[railwayman3]

I can see the OP's thinking, but also the problems of defining a "genuine photograph".

Perhaps the only viable and sensible option would be to label an original print as a "silver/gelatine print", "platinum print", or whatever process was used. Such labelling would actually means something to a buyer of a print?

 

[clay]

This is all pretty funny. Buried in here is the assumption that a single person or group can dictate the meaning of the phrase 'genuine photograph'. This is laughably naive. The cat is out of the bag. Go make good photographs, period. I have only heard of one instance in the last ten years where a buyer returned a photograph because he thought it was something it was not. In this particular instance, a print was returned because the buyer thought a silver gelatin print on matte paper had to be digitally printed. He was so clueless that he could not tell the difference. My thought is that somebody who all of a sudden decides that a print they formerly loved is now a piece of dreck because they think it is digital (which in this case, it was really not digital at all) has some seriously twisted and strange reasons for collecting prints.

Remember a few years back when a couple of people here at APUG determined that they had come up with the only way for photographs to be art: Only one print could be made from a negative. And because there was only a single print, it was therefore art. I somehow missed it when that idea took the art world by storm. Imagine how sad all the sculptors who did multiple copies of bronze statues must have felt when their entire life's work became kitschy garbage overnight. Oh wait, it didn't happen. Last I heard, the purists in question have given up photography completely and are watching birds or something.

You can make any definitions you want, but it is likely that only a handful of people will agree on it, and the vast majority will yawn, then giggle and move on to doing what they were going to do anyway.

 

[keithwms]

Ulrich, the way to get around these (reasonable) objections is to avoid the term "genuine" altogether. What you could do is form a group, something like f/64, and let that group's work speak for itself i.e. be known for adherence to a set of principles.

"Genuine" is, predictably, going to be a problem for many people... even those who know very well what you intend. It raises all kinds of questions, and I think you want your photographs to raise the questions, not the label on the photographs.

 

[bill schwab]

Good grief!!! So much time and effort wasted. Imagine if people just got off their behinds and took some pictures.

I'm with Clay... I've yawned, giggled and moved on.

BTW - I think this is really funny!!

 

[Chazzy]

I wish that the magazines would disclose what they are publishing for all photographs—a scan from a negative, a scan from a real print, or a digital photograph. It may not matter to everyone, but it matters to me.