Ah okay. Well I will politely excuse myself from the thread then, sorry
But I still think that a signature says more than any other label ever can.
@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.
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
This kind of thing is typical of European Bureaucrats. The Brussells bureaucracy wanted to regulate the amount of bend allowed in bananas.
...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.
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.
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.
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
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
Is this a photograph in the colloquial sense the word is commonly used in?
The only difference between the photo you used as an example and the example in this post, is the artistic style.
... And the way they were created.
Absolutely.
Would you call it a photo?
I don't know about Q. G., but as far as the earlier (biker) image... I am thinking... no.
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.
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.
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.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
I just wish to have a manageable definition of the term "photograph" here.
but;Otherwise it would become a wrap which can be filled with arbitrary content.
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.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.
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
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?