Label for Genuine Photographs

Ray Rogers · Feb 21, 2010

Ulrich Drolshagen said:
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

Not quite true.

We use fuzzy language all the time!

Sometimes ideas and things become clearer after "entertaining" or using them for a while.

markbarendt · Feb 21, 2010

Ulrich Drolshagen said:
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

The "set" is not empty, it is simply huge; the possible uses of photography and the content a photo can portray are nearly limitless.

There are many large subsets of photography that would fit nicely as subsets of what you want, "Straight Found Content". News, aeronautical tests, and police work for example.

There are many others that don't fit like portraiture and weddings. IMO the best portraits and wedding work is highly contrived or at least well directed.

Studio work by definition is never "found", it is "fully contrived" in the same way a diorama at a museum is fully contrived. This brings up a good point, even in science, a studio setting can be valuable in isolating the subject from the environment it was found in.

Dave Pritchard · Feb 21, 2010

This thread is not pointless, just tedious. I commend all who have posted thus far. Developing good terminology is always hard to do. Jason mentioned provenance. Here are some obvious categories of images and photographs:
1. Photograph, traditional analog film, developer, and photographic paper, no overt darkroom manipulation.
2. Computer-generated graphic.
3. Art item, paint and tint on photographic media, with applied decorations.
4. Photograph, traditional black-and-white analog film, developer, and photographic paper. Negative retouched using a pencil (to lighten up skin blemishes).
5. Digital photograph, adjustments made using PS for color correction, gamma, brightness, with the intention of making the finished print as much like the photographer's memory of the actual scene in front of the camera.

Get back to me when you come up with a good, catchy phrase set which differentiates between these commonly-used methods and finished items.
This is not a joke, by the way. I have traditionalist friends who like certain brands of film because the negatives are easy to retouch with a "lead" pencil. I also have had friends who took analog photos, printed them in the darkroom, and used them to make visual art complete with applied paint, masks, and ribbons.

Q.G. · Feb 21, 2010

Greg Davis said:
An oil painting made by looking at and copying a photograph is still made by applying oil paint to a substrate. Thus an oil painting.

True.
But an oil print is not a painting. Still uses oil paints. And still is a form of applying that paint to a substrate.
So also not a photograph?

Q.G. · Feb 21, 2010

A potassium dichromate print coloured using pigments suspended in oil.
The oil paint is applied using rollers or brushes.

Ray Rogers · Feb 21, 2010

I don't know what Q G has in mind, but there are probably several PRINTING methods that can be made to apply oils or inks... to paper... and are PRINTED by applcation to part A (created photographically) followed by transfer to paper to complete the PRINTing. If regular painter's oils can be used, I don't know... but I guess it depends on how you define regular

Some of them are very nice...

Ah, just saw his post... yes those are "gum prints" or "Gum-Bichromate Prints"
but there are others, even one called "Oil Print" or "Oil Process" IIRC

Q.G. · Feb 21, 2010

That's a more precise concise description than i managed to come up with. Thanks!

Q.G. · Feb 21, 2010

I'm not referring to the type of image being displayed.
I was pointing out that looking at the materials used is not a definitive way to decide whether something is a photograph or not.

An oil print is not a gum print. It's also not what is (or was?) known as a dye transfer print.

Q.G. · Feb 21, 2010

Greg Davis said:
I'm not going to argue if it is a photograph or not. If it's labeled as "oil on canvas" or something similar, I'm not going to stare at it and wonder, "is that a photograph or not?" It's oil on canvas.

You make a photograph with photographic paper and developer. You make an inkjet print with ink, from an inkjet printer onto [etc.]

So for you, only a silverbromide print is a photograph.
Fair enough.

How about people who only produce slides? Not photographers then?
And how about... [i'll keep it short, so cut to "etc." rightaway]?
Where is the defining line, dividing that which is not a photograph or photographic from what is?

Ray Rogers · Feb 21, 2010

"Where is the defining line, dividing that which is not a photograph or photographic from what is?"

Photography is a very complex discovery that encompasses many different systems and processes...The ONLY thing that ties them together... is the necessity of having a light sensitive surface... upon which actinic light plays the role of an artist...
In all truth, we photographers are little more than "enablers".

Light is the Master.

If the image was created by the "Master", it's a photograph.
If there is another artist involved... it becomes more.
If light plays no essential role, it is not a photograph.

Ray Rogers · Feb 21, 2010

Unfortunately... there are still some very grey areas...

Consider the claim by some to be able to "project" images
onto photographic materials... by pure thought !

(see: "Thought Photography")

donbga · Feb 21, 2010

I think it's worth noting in this thread that Adobe Photoshop celebrates it's 20th anniversary this year.

For details visit:

http://www.photoshop20anniversary.com/?trackingid=FCRYK&lang=NA

SilverGlow · Feb 22, 2010

Ray Rogers said:
"Where is the defining line, dividing that which is not a photograph or photographic from what is?"

Photography is a very complex discovery that encompasses many different systems and processes...The ONLY thing that ties them together... is the necessity of having a light sensitive surface... upon which actinic light plays the role of an artist...
In all truth, we photographers are little more than "enablers".

Light is the Master.

If the image was created by the "Master", it's a photograph.
If there is another artist involved... it becomes more.
If light plays no essential role, it is not a photograph.

Light is not the "Master".

The Master is the photographer.

Light is just a river of photons that the master captures, creating a rendition of, an instance of that light, on a photograph.

nolanr66 · Feb 22, 2010

I say just live and let live. You cannot regulate how much a person uses photoshop. It's like athletes and steriods. They are guilty of using them until their blood work proves they are not and then you still may not know the truth.

Ray Rogers · Feb 22, 2010

Are Photographs Prisons for Light?

SilverGlow said:
Light is not the "Master".

The Master is the photographer.

Light is just a river of photons that the master captures, creating a rendition of, an instance of that light, on a photograph.

The photographer never really CAPTURES that river.
He just guides it along.
Sort of like...
the person who sets up an arranged marriage.

Frankly, you've got me!
My understanding of physics has ended...
I do not really know what happens to those photons once they have knocked those electrons out of orbit around their halogen enemies.

Do they die?
Where do they go?
Where do they come to rest?

???

markbarendt · Feb 22, 2010

nolanr66 said:
I say just live and let live. You cannot regulate how much a person uses photoshop. It's like athletes and steriods. They are guilty of using them until their blood work proves they are not and then you still may not know the truth.

I don't believe that that was ever the intent.

IMO the intent was to differentiate contrived content from found content.

Ray Rogers · Feb 22, 2010

Where Have All The Photons Gone?

My understanding of physics has ended...
I do not really know what happens to those photons once they have knocked those electrons out of orbit around their halogen enemies.

Where DO the photons go?
Do they die?
Where do they go?
Do they find Peace?

While pondering this question about the fate of light for a moment,
my mind turned towards the music...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tjy2HCdV6BA

And, in fun memory of Mary and other flowers everywhere...
I started humming this little song:

(sorry for the length!)

Where have all the photons gone?

Where have all the photons gone?
Long time passing
Where have all the photons gone?
Long time ago
Where have all the photons gone?
Entrapped in cameras every one

Oh when will they ever learn?
Oh when will they ever learn?

Where have all the cameras gone?
Long time passing
Where have all the cameras gone?
Long time ago
Where have all the cameras gone?
Turned to cell phones every one

Oh when will they ever learn?
Oh when will they ever learn?

Where have all the cell phones gone?
Long time passing
Where have all the cell phones gone?
Long time ago
Where have all the cell phones gone?
Gone for implants every one

Oh when will they ever learn?
Oh when will they ever learn?

Where have all the implants gone?
Long time passing
Where have all the implants gone?
Long time ago
Where have all the implants gone?
Gone to genomes every one

Oh when will they ever learn?
Oh when will they ever learn?

And where have all the genomes gone?
Long time passing
Where have all the genomes gone?
Long time ago
Where have all the genomes gone?
Back to photons every one

Oh when will they ever learn?
Oh when will they ever learn?

Where have all the photons gone?
Long time passing
Where have all the photons gone?
Long time ago
Where have all the photons gone?
Entrapped in boxes every one

Oh when will they ever learn?
Oh when will they ever learn?

Rolleiflexible · Feb 22, 2010

Now that this topic appears to have reached
a denouement of sorts, I will add for those
still reading that by the proposed "genuine
photograph" standard, the works of one of
my favorite photographers, Don Hong Oai,
would not qualify as genuine photographs.
A Chinese photographer, Don Hong Oai used
multiple negatives to make toned gelatin prints
that evoke traditional ink-on-paper Chinese
landscapes:

http://www.photoeye.com/gallery/for...oor=51&Portfolio=Portfolio4&Gallery=0&Page=72

Spectacular photography, obviously nonrepresentational,
but photography none the less.

Ray Rogers · Feb 22, 2010

markbarendt said:
I don't believe that that was ever the intent.

IMO the intent was to differentiate contrived content from found content.

I agree.

(Perhaps the OP was thinking more in terms of d...... but that is just a sign of the times.)

Ray

Ray Rogers · Feb 22, 2010

Rolleiflexible said:
A Chinese photographer, Don Hong Oai used
multiple negatives to make toned gelatin prints
that evoke traditional ink-on-paper Chinese
landscapes:

http://www.photoeye.com/gallery/for...oor=51&Portfolio=Portfolio4&Gallery=0&Page=72

Spectacular photography, obviously nonrepresentational,
but photography none the less.

Thank you for posting this...
I had come across what I think was his work once before due to a post somewhere
(perhaps not APUG) and I do like this style. I had forgotten his name. My images share some of the same elements I think....

I had been trying to recall his name...

Yes this is definately what I saw before... I had read "Vietnam" and somehow thought he was Vietnamese.

Thanks !

Multiple negatives? Too bad. Someone else probably could have actually found those scenes.

nolanr66 · Feb 22, 2010

Well what would your picture be if it's not a genuine photograph. Is it a snapshot, a fake photograph or how about an imitation photograph? I guess I would rather my pictures were imitation photographs instead of fake photographs. Not sure why exactly but I will ask my wife. She knows everything..

Ray Rogers · Feb 22, 2010

nolanr66 said:
Not sure why exactly but I will ask my wife. She knows everything..

Thats funny, so does mine!

JBrunner · Feb 27, 2010

Q.G. said:
I'm not referring to the type of image being displayed.
I was pointing out that looking at the materials used is not a definitive way to decide whether something is a photograph or not.

An oil print is not a gum print. It's also not what is (or was?) known as a dye transfer print.

Actually the materials are the only criteria that can be objectively defined. Anything else is subjective.
Light hitting a sensor or film does not create a photograph, it creates a latent image or in the case of a sensor it creates an analog signature that through other means, analog or digital, can be interpreted as an image. One can create an analog image through entirely electronic means. I used to do it every day. At no point did anybody lucid ever consider those electronic analog images to be photographs, even though the images were both originated with light and entirely analog. An image is not a photograph. An image can be used to create many things, including a photograph, but the information contained in a negative or file isn't a photograph. It doesn't matter one iota about where light was involved prior to the creation of the artifact called a photograph. Light and the interpretation of light is always involved in anything visual, painting, sculpture, or whatnot. A photograph is a physical object, a print is a description of a type of physical object that can include a photograph, inkjet, gum print, etc. A photograph is not in the strictest sense a print, just as a gum print is not in the strictest sense a photograph. Inkjet prints however, are quite clearly prints because "printing" simply describes a mechanical creation or replication of an image, something the creation of an inkjet print has in abundance, while conversely at no point does the creation of an inkjet print involve light. Witness an inkjet print that contains only text or CGI for reference. I or anybody else can easily make an inkjet print without light, all I need is information, and the printer cares not a bit how it was originated, manipulated or organised. I can not on the other hand make a photograph without light, no matter how my information is originated, manipulated or organized. Photographs are and always will be physical artifacts that are contain information inscribed by light on a substrate thereby rendering a visible image, except of course to the word crafter or ignoramus, or perhaps those with a misguided and thoroughly vested self interest.

In the Q.G. world the definition of "photograph" is, by necessity, broad (what it does, not what it is). If an inkjet print behaves in some way like a photograph, it must be one, and that interpretation serves to make him right. In that same world, the definition of a lens is very narrow (what it is, not what it does). In that case even if a pinhole behaves as a lens, it isn't. In the case of a pinhole a narrow interpretation is what serves to make him right. Seems the wind on that world blows from where it needs to.

Q.G. · Feb 27, 2010

JBrunner said:
In the Q.G. world the definition of "photograph" is, by necessity, broad (what it does, not what it is). If an inkjet print behaves in some way like a photograph, it must be one, and that interpretation serves to make him right. In that same world, the definition of a lens is very narrow (what it is, not what it does). In that case even if a pinhole behaves as a lens, it isn't. In the case of a pinhole a narrow interpretation is what serves to make him right. Seems the wind on that world blows from where it needs to.

I'm glad to see that, even if it took a while, you have found a way to believe that.
We all need something to cling on to in insecure times, so good for you!

Ian David · Feb 27, 2010

JBrunner said:
An image can be used to create many things, including a photograph, but the information contained in a negative or file isn't a photograph. It doesn't matter one iota about where light was involved prior to the creation of the artifact called a photograph.

Does this mean that all those famous photographers that don't print their own work are not photographers after all?
And that those printers who never leave the darkroom to see the world through their own eyes are in fact (the only) photographers?

Label for Genuine Photographs

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency