Label for Genuine Photographs

[removed account4]

:rolleyes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippe_Halsman

There is actually surprisingly little "composition" here...

i LOVE surrealism !

 

[Joe VanCleave]

To me, the concept of "genuine photographs" being viewed on websites is, well, oxymoronic, if we use the OP's definition.

Consider that one's color space/gamut and monitor calibration effects the end result; as does the (hidden) process of converting the "genuine" photographic print to a JPEG image. What's left that's genuine?

That said, there is an element of the OP's idea that I think deserves some credit, which is a purposeful distinguishing of graphic arts from photography; software has indeed blurred that traditional distinction.

~Joe

 

[Q.G.]

@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.
<<

To judge by your words, you didn't bother to read our statement. May be I should have copy and pasted into my opening post to your convenience but I thought it being too long. To answer your question in short here: It does not matter what you do with your picture as long as you respect four things:

- 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.

That doesn't work, Ulrich. You can't brush away objections by not dealing with what they are, assuming the things they are objections too are not known instead.

I have read your definition. And it does not work.

For instance: the texture of the subject, for instance, is altered by choice of film, processing, paper, paper grade, processing, etc.
Filters on the lens?
There is no way you can't.

Colours? Exactly the same.

Your making a very strange decision, being that it is o.k. to do whatever the craft allows upto and including the moment the print is dry, but that you're not allowed to do anything after.
There is no magic in that moment, that would change manipulation, from something part of the legitimate process, into something that is the biggest evil known to the craft/art.

 

[nick mulder]

Henry Peach Robinson

1890 or so... Genuine Photograph ?

 

[viridari]

Henry Peach Robinson

1890 or so... Genuine Photograph ?

At only 310x400 pixels, that's a silly challenge to issue.

 

[DLawson]

I do. I wouldn't buy the world's greatest inkjet print if it were personally autographed by Jesus Christ.

I might, but it would affect what I was willing to pay.

I have two framed Ansel Adams posters -- no doubt called "prints" by whoever sold them. I'm glad I have them. I like them. but I wouldn't pay $200 for them, much less whatever the current rate is for an AA print.

They're just different things.

For me, I'd be less inclined to buy inkjet work than posters, since I don't expect any ink out gassing problems with posters (of course, they're not behind real glass either).

 

[nick mulder]

At only 310x400 pixels, that's a silly challenge to issue.

Shot circa 1890, without information pertaining to its physical dimension, but taking a guess at somewhere between 1/4 and whole plate even at the low res as it is presented here it still has enough information to give us a hint that the DOF is uncanny - this is achieved via means of a composite.

Looks like a photograph, smells like a photograph ...

Not a 'genuine' photograph as defined.

Its an example of probably thousands of photographs from that period - a part of our history, well before 0s & 1's were conceived

 

[DLawson]

:rolleyes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippe_Halsman

There is actually surprisingly little "composition" here...

I can see how maybe they got ahold of the cats for the second attempt. But it is beyond by belief that they could be picked up for attempts 3 through 28.

 

[Ray Rogers]

Disclaimer:I have not read any links! I promise to get around to it eventually....

I think, however, that what is being aimed for is some sort of affirmation that the pictures represent truth or "reality". What a can of surreal worms you have opened! I actually welcome the idea! I dislike being deceived... I want to know that the image is real as depicted... mind you, I enjoy all sorts of images, but I want to know "the rest of the story" behind an image. I love both the Halsmann's Dali and the Robinson's Peach, but I have lived long enough to conclude they are not likely to be representing the reality I often eagerly regret comming back to. OTOH, Some images actually pose as things that are not true. They are in fact Lies! Advertising Photgraphy uses many tricks... make a small compact car look spacious? FAKE! Make it look like your sitter is happy? Most sitters want to get it over with and go back to their own world. So where do you draw the line? Everytime we maniuplate the image, we create something that is not quite like "reality"; not once have I seen a woman with quite the same tone as those I have had my way with on my enlarger's baseboard! Our Black and White world is not reality... Yet, I certainly think B&W pictures, as well as ordinary level controls should be acceptable... what about all the portrait photographs that have been retouched... remove one pimple and it's not genuine anymore?!! We used to call those images "altered" and even today, some altered photos are allowed for passports... as long as the "main features" are not lost... so does the US government allow fake photographs on passports? Not really. Altered? Yes. Fake? No. And, What about super-real paintings that "look" like they might be a genuine photograph? Unrelated- but I think it speaks to the underlying issue here. Well, in all honesty I have not followed your links yet... So yea, I could be singing out of tune. Despite that possibilty, I think I actually welcome your idea, especially if you are able to find a more robust term and defniton. The world has a right not to be deceived....But often, lying is simply accepted. Good Luck!

 

[Q.G.]

Photography is a visual medium. The aim is to produce images to show.
There can be no deception: if you see an image, you see an image.

The rest is in your beliefs, hopes, expectations, likes and dislikes, in short: in you.
So perhaps a label that says you are qualified to watch and appreciate images?

 

[Ian David]

Photography is a visual medium. The aim is to produce images to show.
There can be no deception: if you see an image, you see an image.

The rest is in your beliefs, hopes, expectations, likes and dislikes, in short: in you.
So perhaps a label that says you are qualified to watch and appreciate images?

Actually, the rest is sometimes in the context: ie not in you.

 

[Kirk Keyes]

Back when digital was taking off in the mid 90's - after the Art Wolfe zebra scandal, some people came up with the idea of "FoundView" as a way to identify images that had been made with standard photographic techniques and without using composites. I thought it was a good idea then, and I still do. But there are many problems with implementing these sorts of systems and I'm not sure there will ever be a way to do it. I suppose when all media is delivered electronically and metadata can be imbedded in the electronically transmitted photos, then we can include a label with all our images letting the viewer know what "special" properties of our photos have.

Here's a archive of the FoundView info:
http://www.vad1.com/photo/foundview/

 

[Kirk Keyes]

I see FoundView has been replaced with TrustImage:
Dead Link Removed

That site is about a year out of date...

 

[lxdude]

I can see how maybe they got ahold of the cats for the second attempt. But it is beyond by belief that they could be picked up for attempts 3 through 28.

Assistants were a dime a dozen. When they got ripped up too badly, bring in some more.

 

[bill schwab]

That site is about a year out of date...

Which is exactly where "GenuinePhotograph.org" will be in a year.

Less labels, more photography.

 

[Ray Rogers]

One strange thing-
This drive to want to know a photograph represents truth, seems to derrive from the fact that they look quite real... and the illusion that they are merely being "recorded" rather than being "created".... Art historians correct me if I err, but I don't think painters ever had to face this problem... infact, they can paint a picture of Jesus, (or even God perhaps) and no one asks if it's real.

Do that with a camera and see the reaction you get.

In literature, we take care of the problem by classification... fiction/nonfiction/documentary etc...
Why can't we do that in photography?

Ray

 

[cowanw]

One strange thing-
This drive to want to know a photograph represents truth, seems to derrive from the fact that they look real... Art historians correct me if I err, but I don't think painters ever had to face this problem... infact, they can paint a picture of Jesus, (or even God perhaps) and no one asks if it's real.

Do that with a camera and see the reaction you get.

In literature, we take care of the problem by classification... fiction/nonfiction/documentary etc...
Why can't we do that in photography?

Ray

Reminds me of F. Holland Day when he posed as Christ: not a good reception with the critics of the day:rolleyes:

 

[jon koss]

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"...

Ah, Grasshopper, might the term not also imply the existence of a class of objects made up of "genuine non-photographs"? And it is not with this class that our humble OP has rightly concerned himself? Think on this Grasshopper, while you look around the house for the dictionary to help with your spelling!

 

[clay]

Don't forget non-genuine, non-photographs. i.e. politicians.

Ah, Grasshopper, might the term not also imply the existence of a class of objects made up of "genuine non-photographs"? And it is not with this class that our humble OP has rightly concerned himself? Think on this Grasshopper, while you look around the house for the dictionary to help with your spelling!

 

[Ulrich Drolshagen]

Hi all,

sorry about being absent so long but my job stood in the way. So I'm back again to confront your raised objections since my previous post. I am somewhat irritated by the amount of noise. As far as I could see there were two objections concerning the previous post. One from Q.G. and one from Sanders (rolleiflexible) which, to be honest, gave us some concern.

>>
Ulrich, I think the disconnect comes not from
us ignoring the .org suffix, but, rather, your
decision to use the word "genuine." In English,
it sets up the dichotomy with "fake" and it
suggests that only photographs that meet
your criteria are entitled to be considered
"photographs" and all others are false, and,
by necessary implication to an English ear,
lesser works.
<<

Before I sat down to write this reply I had some tee to calm down a little and get a clear mind. Our tea is from Darjeeling in India and is labeled "Fair Trade". Dead Link Removed
The box of the cookies I had with the tee says, that 52% of the ingredients are from "Fair Trade". Oops, what about the other 48%? Must be obviously from unfair trade! The term "fair" sets up the dichotomy with "unfair". Does it really?
There are lots of products which are traded unlabeled so to say. The potatoes I bought on the market last Saturday direct from the farmer for instance. Labeling this deal as "Fair Trade" simply doesn't make sense but it is with no doubt fair. In fact as far as I know only about 1.5% of all food products traded in Germany are "Fair Trade". The other 98.5% include obviously unfair traded products (most of the bananas and most of the coffee for instance) but most of it is just trade.

Your objection gave us some headache. We in fact weren't aware of the problem. In German the term "genuine" exists as well (without the ending "e" of cause) and does mean: aufrichtig (truthful), authentisch (authentic), wahr (true), echt (real), original (original). What the opposite meaning is depends on the context it is used in and surely includes "Fälschung" (fake) as well but also "Kopie" (copy), "ähnlich" (similar), "abgeleitet (derived), "verbessert"(advanced), "erweitert" (enhaced) or "verfeinert" (refined). So not being genuine does not mean a depreciation per se in German. If this is really different in English we will have to reconsider our position.


>>
I was the one who offered up Halsmann's
Dali as an example. It might be a photograph
made by a composite process, but I am certain
that Halsmann would have been shocked to
hear that his photograph was not in fact a
photograph, much less a "genuine" photograph.
<<

First I really thought you got me here. Marco B. fortunately did know better. But nevertheless you will easily find an appropriate example. Not the picture by Henry Peach Robinson but I suggest looking at Man Ray's. I think Robinsons picture must have been taken in the studio in a coulisse with a painted background. In the late 19th century with the then usual long exposures it was impossible to take such picture in nature. And every contemporary knew that. Here are other experts who may now better but if I am right of cause it would comply with our label.
What about pictures by Man Ray now? Some simply would not comply with the label as do some by Gursky and many others. You may call them whatever you like. Including genuine photographs. Just don't put our label on. So what?

@ Ray Rogers
>>
I think I actually welcome your idea, especially if you are able to find a more robust term and defniton.
<<

The core of our idea is that we are not seeking for some bullet proof definition of genuine photographs. We just put up some restrictions and show with the label that we comply with these restrictions. We have tried to find terms which embrace all and every photographic technique traditionally used by photographers (no matter what kind of sensor is used to record the picture, mind you) and even some new -stitching for instance. In fact, if we could find viable terms we even would embrace composites that don't try to appear as if they were not. Not the least out of sympathy for the work of Man Ray, Gursky and many others. Our target are composites which try to appear as unaltered photographs without being such. We must draw the line somewhere so unfortunately some pictures which have all our appreciation must do without label. But does that matter?

@Q.G.
>>
That doesn't work, Ulrich. You can't brush away objections by not dealing with what they are, assuming the things they are objections too are not known instead.
<<

Thanks to apug my English has improved a lot in the last years. But this sentence ist too much for me.

>>
I have read your definition. And it does not work.
For instance: the texture of the subject, for instance, is altered by choice of film, processing, paper, paper grade, processing, etc.
Filters on the lens?
There is no way you can't.
Colours? Exactly the same.
<<

Granted, without the rest of our statement, the sentence "the colors of all parts of the subject were not basically altered" is mistakable. In the explanatory part of the text we make clear that with "basically" we mean "not in a way that a red car is made blue in the final picture". We admit, that whether this part is necessary is disputable.

>>
Your making a very strange decision, being that it is o.k. to do whatever the craft allows upto and including the moment the print is dry, but that you're not allowed to do anything after.
There is no magic in that moment, that would change manipulation, from something part of the legitimate process, into something that is the biggest evil known to the craft/art.
<<

Here you pin pointed exactly the problem where all attempts to define manipulation have been overthrown.
Our approach is different. We do not even try to define what manipulation is. We know already that all attempts failed and must fail, as manipulation is inherently to photography. We only say what not has to be done to carry our label. What a manipulation is, is not the least our concern.

>>
One strange thing-
This drive to want to know a photograph represents truth, seems to derrive from the fact that they look quite real... and the illusion that they are merely being "recorded" rather than being "created".... Art historians correct me if I err, but I don't think painters ever had to face this problem... infact, they can paint a picture of Jesus, (or even God perhaps) and no one asks if it's real.

Do that with a camera and see the reaction you get.

In literature, we take care of the problem by classification... fiction/nonfiction/documentary etc...
Why can't we do that in photography?
<<

You got it. Of cause everyone who gets his holiday pictures from the lab knows that photographs do not show reality. The gras is greener than it really was the sky is not so blue as it was and so on. But everything is there, husband Harry in his deck chair, the sea, the grass and everything. Half a year later they are divorced, husband Harry is photoshopped out and lover Louis is photoshopped in. Shall it still be a genuine photograph? The sky is not so blue as it really was and the grass greener anyway so lover Louis doesn't add any significant? This is not the concept of a photograph the broad public does have. Photography has a reputation of a close link between the moment the shutter was tripped and what it shows in the picture. And some sort of graphic exploits this reputation. That is our concern.


I am out until Monday. So please do not expect any reaction from me on your posts until Tuesday.


Ulrich

 

[nick mulder]

...Not the picture by Henry Peach Robinson but I suggest looking at Man Ray's. I think Robinsons picture must have been taken in the studio in a coulisse with a painted background. In the late 19th century with the then usual long exposures it was impossible to take such picture in nature. ...
Ulrich

While its true re. film speed and I'd need to research it a bit more I am still not sure about the 'must' you have concluded on here. I am still reasonably sure it is a composite - it is used as an example of a composite along with more of his works in 'The Keepers of Light' for instance...

By the by anyway, in trying somewhat to emulate the visual effects of painting I think a fair chunk of Pictorialism wouldn't pass your grade - its true that even at the time photographers were reactionary to the style (f64). But what other art history class does pictorialism really belong in other than photography ? Ask anyone in a gallery looking at an example 'is this a genuine photograph' ? If they were aware of the technicalities or not what do you expect the answer to be ? (perhaps filter out some of that 'irritating noise' to help make the mental simulation run smoother).

I'll admit that Pictorialism is my current fascination, still learning and it may be that I'm bagging on about it too much (?) - only way to progress is to get in the mix huh ...

 

[SilverGlow]

Photography is a visual medium. The aim is to produce images to show.
There can be no deception: if you see an image, you see an image.

The rest is in your beliefs, hopes, expectations, likes and dislikes, in short: in you.
So perhaps a label that says you are qualified to watch and appreciate images?

This is udder craap, sorry.

Ansel Adams use to say about photography, that it was a big fat LIE.

People would point to his compositions and say "wow, that place is beautiful" and he would respond something like "no, not so much...my picture greatly improved that scene".

Photography is a lie because the DR is narrower then our human vision, and there are about a million things one can do in post processing to skew that reality. In photography we often make the subject/scene look a certain way, and most often then not, that way is not how it really is. We can make the subject look better, worse, the landscape look better, worse, brighter, darker, and this is often the case.

Photography, film and digital, is a big fat lie, and this is not a bad thing.

I find it exceedingly laughable when people point to film and say "this captures truth"...what a load! Of course I can say this for any and all meduims too, including digital.

 

[Q.G.]

This is udder craap, sorry.

Ansel Adams use to say about photography, that it was a big fat LIE.

People would point to his compositions and say "wow, that place is beautiful" and he would respond something like "no, not so much...my picture greatly improved that scene".

Photography is a lie because the DR is narrower then our human vision, and there are about a million things one can do in post processing to skew that reality. In photography we often make the subject/scene look a certain way, and most often then not, that way is not how it really is. We can make the subject look better, worse, the landscape look better, worse, brighter, darker, and this is often the case.

Photography, film and digital, is a big fat lie, and this is not a bad thing.

I find it exceedingly laughable when people point to film and say "this captures truth"...what a load! Of course I can say this for any and all meduims too, including digital.

This too is "udder craap".

Yes, it is!
Because it is exactly what i'm saying...

 

[SilverGlow]

This too is "udder craap".

Yes, it is!
Because it is exactly what i'm saying...

Not true, because you wrote:

"Photography is a visual medium. The aim is to produce images to show.
There can be no deception: if you see an image, you see an image."

 

[Q.G.]

Here you pin pointed exactly the problem where all attempts to define manipulation have been overthrown.
Our approach is different. We do not even try to define what manipulation is. We know already that all attempts failed and must fail, as manipulation is inherently to photography. We only say what not has to be done to carry our label. What a manipulation is, is not the least our concern.

Then you should perhaps remove all use of the term.
It is at the core of your statement: not manipulated.

And you do indeed try to 'define' it. You list what 'manipulations' are allowed without affecting the "genuine" status ("What are the tolerable postprocessing steps [...]"), and what would be too much.
Completely arbitrarily: what you do not define indeed is where exactly you draw the line, and - more importantly - how and why.
As it is, it would be impossible to know what a "genuine" photograph would be. Impossible to know when to use the label and/or why.