Label for Genuine Photographs

Sonatas XII-55 (Life)

A
Sonatas XII-55 (Life)

  • 0
  • 1
  • 132
Rain supreme

D
Rain supreme

  • 2
  • 0
  • 207
Coffee Shop

Coffee Shop

  • 3
  • 1
  • 699
Lots of Rope

H
Lots of Rope

  • 1
  • 0
  • 786

Recent Classifieds

Forum statistics

Threads
199,813
Messages
2,797,011
Members
100,043
Latest member
Julian T
Recent bookmarks
0

Ray Rogers

Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
1,543
Location
Earth
Format
Multi Format
Ah okay. Well I will politely excuse myself from the thread then, sorry :wink:

But I still think that a signature says more than any other label ever can.

Yes, but not if they want recognition now.

They cannot convey their message with an unknown name (w/no meaning)... A label is a short cut.

OTOH, once they are recognized, the name could do it very well.
 
OP
OP

Ulrich Drolshagen

Subscriber
Joined
Mar 14, 2005
Messages
532
Location
Germany
Format
Medium Format
@phritz phantom
>>what's the german word you're using instead of the english "genuine"? the german "genuin"?<<
wesensmäßig, wirklich, eigentlich, richtig. Für eine Website hätten wir möglicherweise die Bezeichnung "richtige Fotos" gewählt. Einen deutschsprachigen Namen haben wir aber eigentlich nie in Erwägung gezogen.

@Ray Rogers
>>I did not think you had "Ausland" in mind...<<
I used the term "foreign" in the sense of "not my own". I learn a lot of English at present :smile:

@all
I much appreciate your input but I presently feel overburdened to reply to all your posts. I would much like to settle the issue with the term "genuine".
I now know that this term is differently understood than we have interpreted it ourselves and that there will be no way to come together on this. I don't stick to the term. As far as I am concerned we must not discuss this any further.
But our concern does not depend on that term it is not settled by dropping it.
I have learned from this thread that there is seemingly no way to rescue the essence of the term "photography" as a way of capturing pictures of an instant and preserve their close link to reality.
But I still hope that there will be a way to come to a common understanding on what a photograph is to us. Otherwise it would become a wrap which can be filled with arbitrary content. There must be a reason why we use some sort of camera rather than a brush or a pencil to make pictures. I would much like to discuss this a little bit further.
I have noticed, that the term "photograph" is used for exposed light sensitive substrate, namely paper no matter what the source of the picture is. In German there is the terms "Negativ" for a picture out of a camera (with certain kind of cameras it would be a raw file of cause), "Fotogramm" for a picture on a light sensitive substrate if there is no camera involved and "Abzug" if the picture is made from a "Negativ" by using an enlarger. For a picture made from a "Negativ" without an enlarger, the term "Kontaktkopie" (contact print) is used. There are "Diapositive" (slides/transparencies) of cause too.
Besides that the term photograph is colloquially used for every picture which resembles a realistic representation of a (seemingly) real scene no matter whether it is shown in a magazine, in a book, on a computer monitor, as an inkjet print or any other way.
Our concern is with that thoughtless colloquial use of the term "photograph" for those made up pictures which masquerade as representations of a captured instant of reality. Our goal is indeed to discriminate these from any other incarnation of the medium. May be you convince me that this is impossible and we have indeed lost the credibility for capturing an instant of a "found" scene for ever.

Ulrich
 

Q.G.

Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2007
Messages
5,535
Location
Netherlands
Format
Medium Format
@phritz phantom
>>what's the german word you're using instead of the english "genuine"? the german "genuin"?<<
wesensmäßig, wirklich, eigentlich, richtig. Für eine Website hätten wir möglicherweise die Bezeichnung "richtige Fotos" gewählt. Einen deutschsprachigen Namen haben wir aber eigentlich nie in Erwägung gezogen.

A good english translation of "richtig" would be "true"; you would be calling those thingies "true photographs".

But "genuine" is indeed another good translation. It is not the word that lies at the root of the problems the idea ran into.
 

Ray Rogers

Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
1,543
Location
Earth
Format
Multi Format
Our concern is with that thoughtless colloquial use of the term "photograph" for those made up pictures which masquerade as representations of a captured instant of reality. Our goal is indeed to discriminate these from any other incarnation of the medium. May be you convince me that this is impossible and we have indeed lost the credibility for capturing an instant of a "found" scene for ever.

Ulrich

A good and noble cause.

Don't give up.

Humm...

From Wiki:
Documentary photography usually refers to a type of professional photojournalism, but it may also be an amateur, artistic, or student pursuit. The photographer attempts to produce truthful, objective, and usually candid photography of a particular subject, most often pictures of people.
 
Joined
Sep 20, 2002
Messages
440
Location
Los Angeles,
Format
4x5 Format
This kind of thing is typical of European Bureaucrats. The Brussells bureaucracy wanted to regulate the amount of bend allowed in bananas.

Just as an information Europe is not a country but a continent. All those names such as Finland, Germany, Belgium, Luxemburg, Italy, Spain, etc etc. are indicative of different countries with a separate history, government, traditions and even languages.
Moreover, as an European, rather an Italian living in Los Angeles, I abhor stepping into a Ralph or Alberstson market because I know I am going to see displays of perfectly shaped, tasteless waxed (?) tomatoes, pointless apples that could enter beauty contests and just like bimbos have no substance.
Do you want genuine? Go to Italy.
 

Ray Rogers

Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
1,543
Location
Earth
Format
Multi Format
...as an European, rather an Italian living in Los Angeles, I abhor stepping into a Ralph or Alberstson market because I know I am going to see displays of perfectly shaped, tasteless waxed (?) tomatoes, pointless apples that could enter beauty contests and just like bimbos have no substance.

Was Alan talking about real bannas?
I thought it was a euphemism!
:D

Ciao!
 

PKM-25

Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2004
Messages
1,980
Location
Enroute
Format
Multi Format
Our concern is with that thoughtless colloquial use of the term "photograph" for those made up pictures which masquerade as representations of a captured instant of reality. Our goal is indeed to discriminate these from any other incarnation of the medium. May be you convince me that this is impossible and we have indeed lost the credibility for capturing an instant of a "found" scene for ever.

Don't despair, young people are already well over all the hype and fake having been rammed down their throats since birth. It takes talent to show the real scene brilliantly. People still believe in it, I believe in it, that is what I strive for.
 

markbarendt

Member
Joined
May 18, 2008
Messages
9,422
Location
Beaverton, OR
Format
Multi Format
I have learned from this thread that there is seemingly no way to rescue the essence of the term "photography" as a way of capturing pictures of an instant and preserve their close link to reality.

I believe you are correct.

But I still hope that there will be a way to come to a common understanding on what a photograph is to us. Otherwise it would become a wrap which can be filled with arbitrary content.

Arbitrary content is freedom, arbitrary content is fun, arbitrary content is good.

I like JBrunner's definition.

There must be a reason why we use some sort of camera rather than a brush or a pencil to make pictures. I would much like to discuss this a little bit further.

It's fast, it's easy by comparison.

I have used brush and pencil, still do some.

Photography for me is a fun way of drawing a picture.

Our concern is with that thoughtless colloquial use of the term "photograph" for those made up pictures which masquerade as representations of a captured instant of reality. Our goal is indeed to discriminate these from any other incarnation of the medium. May be you convince me that this is impossible and we have indeed lost the credibility for capturing an instant of a "found" scene for ever.

Ulrich

I think it is possible to discriminate between the subsets you suggest.

Photography is more than just those subsets.
 
OP
OP

Ulrich Drolshagen

Subscriber
Joined
Mar 14, 2005
Messages
532
Location
Germany
Format
Medium Format
Just an addendum to my previous post: Is this a photograph in the colloquial sense the word is commonly used in?

Dead Link Removed

Ad if not: What makes it being not a photograph?
BTW: the picture is by G.J. Herrmann

Ulrich
 

Ray Rogers

Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
1,543
Location
Earth
Format
Multi Format
Just an addendum to my previous post: Is this a photograph in the colloquial sense the word is commonly used in?

Dead Link Removed

Ad if not: What makes it being not a photograph?
BTW: the picture is by G.J. Herrmann

Ulrich

How was it made?
(Is this an airbrush print?)

At this point all that can be said is that it is a picture, or an image.

Some may use the word "photo" to mean "image" and not many people may object...

However, even if they might have thought it was a photograph orginally and point to the image on the screen and say "that photograph"...
they would in truth, be wrong... correct?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

markbarendt

Member
Joined
May 18, 2008
Messages
9,422
Location
Beaverton, OR
Format
Multi Format
Is this a photograph in the colloquial sense the word is commonly used in?

In the colloquial sense the word is commonly used in, is this a photograph?

Sure.

If someone tossed this (http://www.flickr.com/photos/halophoto/2775853329/) down in front of an average person would they call it a photo?

My bet is yes and the next thing they would say is "wow, that's great!"

Does it portray a found single scene? No.

Does it portray a memory of visiting a single place or a single holiday trip? Sure.

Are memories real, genuine? Yes.

Are both photos honest with the viewer? Yes.

The only difference between the photo you used as an example and the example in this post, is the artistic style.
 

Ray Rogers

Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
1,543
Location
Earth
Format
Multi Format

Q.G.

Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2007
Messages
5,535
Location
Netherlands
Format
Medium Format
I don't know about Q. G., but as far as the earlier (biker) image... I am thinking... no.

As should be apparant by now, i don't believe in the concept of a "true" or "genuine" photograph.
I believe in the images we make. We use certain techniques, amongst which those involving light hitting something that is able to record, 'fix', the way light did that. But also others, that influence the way the final result will look.

Some of these techniques impart a certain look to the image, particular to the way (or what they use) to work.
Some people like that look, and emulate it using different image making techniques (by either using those techniques people would recognize as photographic, to create something as a starting point for, or something to incorporate into their intended final work, or by using completely 'foreign' techniques). A clue is often given in the names applied to the type of work, like being called "photorealism".

In all that, it will be - i'm convinced - impossible to identify something that would be a "genuine" photograph.
The closest you can get to it is by holding on to the light-hitting-a-surface-that-is-able-to-record-it thing.
But we have to use additional techniques (chemical or electronic) to make that visible, to change it from something 'latent' into an actual image. We can do that in many different ways, which without fail puts us well and truly on the road away from "genuine" photographs.
There are no such things as genuine photographs in the strict sense the manifesto wants to embrace and promote.
 
OP
OP

Ulrich Drolshagen

Subscriber
Joined
Mar 14, 2005
Messages
532
Location
Germany
Format
Medium Format
Please forget about the term "genuine". I have already realized that its use was not one of our best ideas. I just wish to have a manageable definition of the term "photograph" here.
Of cause the picture I have presented is not a photograph. It is an oil painting based on an initial photograph. But why is this so obviously not a photograph? And what makes it different from an inkjet print?

Ulrich
 

Ray Rogers

Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
1,543
Location
Earth
Format
Multi Format
Should one differientiate between a photograph and a "trick painting" that looks identical to a photograph?

Why or Why not?
 

Q.G.

Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2007
Messages
5,535
Location
Netherlands
Format
Medium Format
Please forget about the term "genuine". I have already realized that its use was not one of our best ideas. I just wish to have a manageable definition of the term "photograph" here.

But how is defining what a photograph is different from wanting to know when to call a photograph a true or genuine photograph?

It isn't.
That's why this thread has gone the way it has, isn't it?
 

Q.G.

Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2007
Messages
5,535
Location
Netherlands
Format
Medium Format
A photograph uses photographic materials, an oil painting uses oil paints, even if the detail is good enough to fool the eye into looking like a photograph. A watercolor uses watercolor, pencil on paper is, you guessed it, pencil on paper.

That's not a manageable definition. Photographs are created using many different materials, many of which can also be used to create other things. Things like, for instance, an oil painting.
 

Alan Johnson

Subscriber
Joined
Nov 16, 2004
Messages
3,309
Please forget about the term "genuine". I have already realized that its use was not one of our best ideas. I just wish to have a manageable definition of the term "photograph" here.
Of cause the picture I have presented is not a photograph. It is an oil painting based on an initial photograph. But why is this so obviously not a photograph? And what makes it different from an inkjet print?

Ulrich
Yes, the term "genuine" as defined did exclude work by a top landscape and a top fashion photographer that I admire.Maybe you mean not excessive post-capture manipulation? Fashion/beauty photographs always were retouched/airbrushed/photoshopped. If you don't want to exclude them some manipulation must be allowed or there is just a half-finished result IMO.
 

markbarendt

Member
Joined
May 18, 2008
Messages
9,422
Location
Beaverton, OR
Format
Multi Format
I just wish to have a manageable definition of the term "photograph" here.

I understand that this is how you feel
Otherwise it would become a wrap which can be filled with arbitrary content.
but;

The content/subject matter in a photograph is totally and absolutely irrelevant to the definition of what a "photograph" is.

You can, at best, define and describe and label "your style" as a subset of photography as a whole; we all struggle to do this.
 
OP
OP

Ulrich Drolshagen

Subscriber
Joined
Mar 14, 2005
Messages
532
Location
Germany
Format
Medium Format
You can, at best, define and describe and label "your style" as a subset of photography as a whole; we all struggle to do this.
Seems to be a "hole in the bucket" kind of thing. I can only describe a subset if I know what the set is. Defining a subset of an empty set is meaningless.

Ulrich
 

Ray Rogers

Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
1,543
Location
Earth
Format
Multi Format
I just wish to have a manageable definition of the term "photograph" here.
... the picture I have presented is not a photograph. It is an oil painting based on an initial photograph. But why is this so obviously not a photograph? And what makes it different from an inkjet print?

Ulrich

I don't think it was all that obvious...
I noticed however, that there were too few facial imperfections... the tone was too uniform... to be a straight shot.

But looking like a photograph and being a photograph are different things.

The examples you cite are different because...
(No Surprise!) they are not the same... they have a different history.
Also, they smell and taste differently!
 
Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links.
To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here.

PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Ilford ADOX Freestyle Photographic Stearman Press Weldon Color Lab Blue Moon Camera & Machine
Top Bottom