Label for Genuine Photographs

[Rolleigraf]

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.

As being one of the founders of GPO (genuine-photograph.org), let me say a word about this:

You are right Q.G., we are (at least implicite) giving a definition for manipulation - the one, which is used by us in the context of our project. This definition is surely not universally valid - but it expresses our understanding of manipulation in the context of photography. Others may have a different opinion on this. When you read our statement, you will see that we chose to distinguish between alteration (allowed for Genuine Photographs in the sense of GPO) and manipulation (not allowed for Genuine Photographs). These reason for making these definitions is simply convenience - as it is for all definitions ever been made.

This leads me to another thing, which seems to be misunderstood by many of the readers here: We are not giving a definition, what genuine photography is. We are defining, what Genuine Photography is (again) in the context of our project, i.e., what it means if you use the label shown on the first page of this thread (ok, I mean the label shown in Ulrich´s post, not the ones in the replys ;-)).

Regarding the use of the word "genuine": Of course it is provocative. IMHO, we have to be provocatibe, to catch people´s attention. But in fact, the thing is not about "genuine" photography and "non-genuine" or "fake" photography:
"genuine photography" - the combination itself - is almost a pleonasm, like "free gift", "tuna fish" and many others (honestly, I looked up these ones at Wikipedia, since the ones I know are all in German). Of course there is nothing like non-genuine photography. Photography can be roughly translated with light-painting.
So if we are talking about photography, it should be clear that we are talking about pictures which are being made by recording light on a light-sensitive medium. If everyone sticked to this definition, we would have no problem. But the fact is that computer artists use this term for their composites/photo manipulations/photo look-a-likes. So, to make clear that we are talking about the real photography, the one which is done with light-sensitive media and by pressing the shutter of a camera and not by hitting drag&drop in Photoshop, we have to say "genuine photography", to make a distinction between those photography-based images and the images, which we consider as photography. Its sad, but we are more or less forced to do so. See also our website on this.

We are aware of the fact that every photograph always is a subjective, biased image of the physical reality. Of course it is being influenced by the choice of the recording medium and processing, so one could say it is always "manipulated". But it is an image of the physical reality - not an imitation of the physical reality, and not an image of an artificial reality.

And finally, let me explain our reasons to create this project GPO and the label for Genuine Photography (although it´s difficult for me to explain it in English):
The purpose of this label is not to increase our images' "worth", or even to mark other images as less worthy. But we want to inform the viewer, which methods of operation underlie our images - especially that we do not use postproduction "tricks" to create our images.
With all the differences in mind, I think we three have one thing in common:
We try to show in our images that everyday things, circumstances or scenes can be fascinating, aesthetically appealing, perturbing (is this the right word?), daunting, breathtaking, stunning, and so on. We are proud of our traditional, non-manipulative (in our sense, see above) working method, which significantly supports our works´ intention.

Let me end with a quote by Garry Winogrand, which at least for me maybe describes best, what is the driving force behind my engagement for GPO and photography in general: "Photography is not about the thing photographed. It is about how that thing looks photographed."

Regards,
Jan

 

[chriscrawfordphoto]

In the nearly twenty years that my work has been exhibited in galleries and museums no one has ever asked me if I used film or a digital camera, or if my print was a silver-based print or a digital print. Nor could they tell the difference (I shot digital for a few years then went back to film; my early prints are from the darkroom, my later ones from scanned negs) The simple fact is that

NO ONE CARES

The narrow mindedness of some of the people here is sickening. Maybe its because I graduated from a university art program that exposed me to all forms of art and to the history of art and photography. Photography is now nearly 200 years old. The silver-gelatin print process that so many of you worship like some silly idol is only about 100 years old. There are hundreds of different chemical processes for capturing an image and printing it and several digital processes, not to mention the hybrid processes that have evolved. There is no such thing as a 'genuine photograph'. Photography, like painting and like sculpture, is a term that embraces a number of diverse mediums and methods of working. Painters, for example, can choose watercolor, oil, acrylic, egg tempera, fresco, or alkyd. Oil pastels and dry pastels are often referred to as painting media as well, though they also share much with drawing. No one gets nasty about choice of painting media in the world of painting. Why do photographers so often act so stupid and prejudiced? The type of print or choice of film or digital is something that truly means very little; your work will be judged by the image not the process.

 

[Nick Hermanns]

Chris,
everything you wrote matches my opinion - but: it has nothing to do with the idea of "Genuine Photograph".
I don't care eather if a photograph has been shot by chip oder film. I also do scan my negs and print them.
The topic we're talking about is: is a photoshopped composite a "real" photograph or something different?
I think it's something different.

Best,

Nick

 

[Rolleigraf]

In the nearly twenty years that my work has been exhibited in galleries and museums no one has ever asked me if I used film or a digital camera, or if my print was a silver-based print or a digital print. Nor could they tell the difference (I shot digital for a few years then went back to film; my early prints are from the darkroom, my later ones from scanned negs) The simple fact is that

NO ONE CARES

The narrow mindedness of some of the people here is sickening. Maybe its because I graduated from a university art program that exposed me to all forms of art and to the history of art and photography. Photography is now nearly 200 years old. The silver-gelatin print process that so many of you worship like some silly idol is only about 100 years old. There are hundreds of different chemical processes for capturing an image and printing it and several digital processes, not to mention the hybrid processes that have evolved. There is no such thing as a 'genuine photograph'. Photography, like painting and like sculpture, is a term that embraces a number of diverse mediums and methods of working. Painters, for example, can choose watercolor, oil, acrylic, egg tempera, fresco, or alkyd. Oil pastels and dry pastels are often referred to as painting media as well, though they also share much with drawing. No one gets nasty about choice of painting media in the world of painting. Why do photographers so often act so stupid and prejudiced? The type of print or choice of film or digital is something that truly means very little; your work will be judged by the image not the process.

Chris,

sorry, but I think we have a misunderstanding here - again.

We do not favor any photographic (!) technique.
We do not say film is better than digital or what else.
We don´t judge if some artistic technique (i.e. photography) is better than another kind of artistic technique (i.e. painting, digital art, ...).

But we do not want our chosen artistic technique (i.e. photography, which we chose for a special reason) to be confused with another artistic technique (for example digital art). The danger of confusion exists, as we explained above.
A painter would not want his oil paintings be confused with, for example, prints. Imagine a printer which is capable of producing 100% oilpainting-look-prints. This painter would probably say that he did not print his work, but paint it by his own hands. So do we communicate, that we did not compose our images in a computer, but did record them using film, a sensor, or another light-sensitive medium.

Regards,
Jan

 

[bill schwab]

Blah, blah... blah.

Such mental masturbation. I can't believe anyone is giving time to this circle jerk.

 

[Rolleigraf]

At least you seem to do, Bill ;-)

 

[keithwms]

Blah, blah... blah.

Such mental masturbation. I can't believe anyone is giving time to this circle jerk.

No, see, there is a fundamental difference: that has a well defined end, when everybody is done. This just goes on ad nauseum

 

[Q.G.]

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."

So when you look at an image, where is the deception? Do you then not look at an image?

Now if you would start to imagine things, things like that what you see is a real part of a real world, or an imaginary part of a real world, or a real part of an imaginary world, or... [you fill in whatever you like - you already have done so, reading more into the thing you called udder craap. ]
Then you may find that deception might cross your way. All your fault.

But when you are looking at an image, you're looking at an image. Something to look at.

 

[SilverGlow]

Blah, blah... blah.

Such mental masturbation. I can't believe anyone is giving time to this circle jerk.

Hey, speak for yourself! The rhthym of his words really gets me off... the cadance, the inflection of the sentences...wow...somebody get me a cigarette and NOW!!

 

[SilverGlow]

Chris,

sorry, but I think we have a misunderstanding here - again.

We do not favor any photographic (!) technique.
We do not say film is better than digital or what else.
We don´t judge if some artistic technique (i.e. photography) is better than another kind of artistic technique (i.e. painting, digital art, ...).

But we do not want our chosen artistic technique (i.e. photography, which we chose for a special reason) to be confused with another artistic technique (for example digital art). The danger of confusion exists, as we explained above.
A painter would not want his oil paintings be confused with, for example, prints. Imagine a printer which is capable of producing 100% oilpainting-look-prints. This painter would probably say that he did not print his work, but paint it by his own hands. So do we communicate, that we did not compose our images in a computer, but did record them using film, a sensor, or another light-sensitive medium.

Regards,
Jan

Jan,

Why do you care so much what other people think? Does their perception of a photograph, right or wrong, change your work? Change anything? No, no it does not.

You worry too much about things that don't matter. I sense control issues in your life...if you and your buddies would instead get together and go on a shoot and make art, that would be better then having a circle jerk filled with such concern about a tempiss in a teapot...let it go....it don't matter.

This reminds me of a really stupid movement here in the USA, many years ago: HarleyDavidson motorcycle owners tried to sell this BS that only Harleys are real "motorcycles" and all the other makes are not....they emotionally pushed this kakaa for decades and in the end it didn't matter one bit. See what I mean?

Make some photographs, real or fake, and post them so we can share the joy you must have over the making of a nice picture.

 

[SilverGlow]

So when you look at an image, where is the deception? Do you then not look at an image?

Now if you would start to imagine things, things like that what you see is a real part of a real world, or an imaginary part of a real world, or a real part of an imaginary world, or... [you fill in whatever you like - you already have done so, reading more into the thing you called udder craap. ]
Then you may find that deception might cross your way. All your fault.

But when you are looking at an image, you're looking at an image. Something to look at.

The difference between how the scene REALLY is and your rendition of it (your picture). THAT is the deception....not a bad thing either...and I say this with no complaint.

 

[SilverGlow]

In the nearly twenty years that my work has been exhibited in galleries and museums no one has ever asked me if I used film or a digital camera, or if my print was a silver-based print or a digital print. Nor could they tell the difference (I shot digital for a few years then went back to film; my early prints are from the darkroom, my later ones from scanned negs) The simple fact is that

NO ONE CARES

The narrow mindedness of some of the people here is sickening. Maybe its because I graduated from a university art program that exposed me to all forms of art and to the history of art and photography. Photography is now nearly 200 years old. The silver-gelatin print process that so many of you worship like some silly idol is only about 100 years old. There are hundreds of different chemical processes for capturing an image and printing it and several digital processes, not to mention the hybrid processes that have evolved. There is no such thing as a 'genuine photograph'. Photography, like painting and like sculpture, is a term that embraces a number of diverse mediums and methods of working. Painters, for example, can choose watercolor, oil, acrylic, egg tempera, fresco, or alkyd. Oil pastels and dry pastels are often referred to as painting media as well, though they also share much with drawing. No one gets nasty about choice of painting media in the world of painting. Why do photographers so often act so stupid and prejudiced? The type of print or choice of film or digital is something that truly means very little; your work will be judged by the image not the process.

AMEN TIMES 5,000,000!

 

[Chazzy]

In the nearly twenty years that my work has been exhibited in galleries and museums no one has ever asked me if I used film or a digital camera, or if my print was a silver-based print or a digital print. Nor could they tell the difference (I shot digital for a few years then went back to film; my early prints are from the darkroom, my later ones from scanned negs) The simple fact is that

NO ONE CARES

I care. So you'll have to modify your statement to "almost no one cares."

 

[Q.G.]

The difference between how the scene REALLY is and your rendition of it (your picture). THAT is the deception....not a bad thing either...and I say this with no complaint.

That's only a deception if you expect that there is no such difference.
And then you're not deceived by the picture, but you're deceiving yourself.

 

[chriscrawfordphoto]

Chris,
everything you wrote matches my opinion - but: it has nothing to do with the idea of "Genuine Photograph".
I don't care eather if a photograph has been shot by chip oder film. I also do scan my negs and print them.
The topic we're talking about is: is a photoshopped composite a "real" photograph or something different?
I think it's something different.

Best,

Nick

So what about Jerry Uelsmann? His work is 100% silver based, done in the darkroom, no computer involved. He's been doing his composites since the 1960s and is still at it. He's one of the most famous photographers in the world and no one who matters has ever accused his work of not being 'genuine photographs'. The computer is just a modern way to do that kind of work and I suspect that J.R. would use it if he were a young man starting today. Its another tool and compositing pictures is a technique that has been used since the beginning of photography's existence.

 

[Chazzy]

So what about Jerry Uelsmann? His work is 100% silver based, done in the darkroom, no computer involved. He's been doing his composites since the 1960s and is still at it. He's one of the most famous photographers in the world and no one who matters has ever accused his work of not being 'genuine photographs'. The computer is just a modern way to do that kind of work and I suspect that J.R. would use it if he were a young man starting today. Its another tool and compositing pictures is a technique that has been used since the beginning of photography's existence.

I heard second-hand information that he is a pixel-pusher now. But in any case, I agree: combination printing is authentic, genuine, a real photograph, or whatever you want to call it.

 

[2F/2F]

NO ONE CARES

Just had to check back in, and came across this gem. IMNSHO, it is the only thing in the thread that has been worth reading.

 

[Nick Hermanns]

So what about Jerry Uelsmann? His work is 100% silver based, done in the darkroom, no computer involved. He's been doing his composites since the 1960s and is still at it. He's one of the most famous photographers in the world and no one who matters has ever accused his work of not being 'genuine photographs'. The computer is just a modern way to do that kind of work and I suspect that J.R. would use it if he were a young man starting today. Its another tool and compositing pictures is a technique that has been used since the beginning of photography's existence.

Good example! His work is indeed not photoshopped composites - it's darkroom-created composites. It maybe is - or is not... - a piece of art. But: for me it does not match my defintion of photography. But Uelsmann is good example for that kind of composites that can't be confused with "real" photographs because it is completely surreal on first sight. His pictures do not pretend to be "real".

 

[phritz phantom]

what about darkening the sky through red filters, adding contrast and dodging burning? according to your definition, it would allowed and be considered "genuine", i guess. but in reality i've hardly ever come across an ansel adams sky and i'd estimate that vast majority of all drama skies in photography did not really look like that to human eyes at the moment of taking the picture.and are a product of darkroom manipulation. why is that allowed and other things not?
my guess is, because you would like it to be allowed. the relation between photography and reality is a difficult one and a slippery slope. trying to come up with a final definition is rather futile.

 

[Ray Heath]

so when I press genuine photographs on your site i see 1 image, is that right?

and wasn't Herschel wrong? don't light rays have more to do with electrons than chemicals?

 

[Q.G.]

Good example! His work is indeed not photoshopped composites - it's darkroom-created composites. It maybe is - or is not... - a piece of art. But: for me it does not match my defintion of photography. But Uelsmann is good example for that kind of composites that can't be confused with "real" photographs because it is completely surreal on first sight. His pictures do not pretend to be "real".

They do not need to pretend, because they are real.
They may not conform to someones expectations (yours, for instance), but how does that make them not real, how else are they not real?

 

[Q.G.]

what about darkening the sky through red filters, adding contrast and dodging burning? according to your definition, it would allowed and be considered "genuine", i guess. but in reality i've hardly ever come across an ansel adams sky and i'd estimate that vast majority of all drama skies in photography did not really look like that to human eyes and are a product of darkroom manipulation. why is that allowed and other things not?
my guess is, because you would like it to be allowed. the relation between photography and reality is a difficult one and a slippery slope. trying to come up with a final definition is rather futile.

I have the impression that this "genuine photography" idea is exactly like that religious bunch who reject technology, but only that thechnology that didn't exist yet when the man saying that they should reject technology was born.

But i do understand the basic tenet, and it is not about rejecting new technology, but rather what you (can) do with it.
Does it make a difference? I don't think so.

 

[Nick Hermanns]

They do not need to pretend, because they are real.
They may not conform to someones expectations (yours, for instance), but how does that make them not real, how else are they not real?

I didn't say exactly what I mean: of couse the pictures are real (how could a picture not be real?). But they do not pretend to show reality. For me (just for me!) this is not photography but painting by using the tools of photography.

 

[nick mulder]

I'm out of this one ...

toodle pip

 

[Ray Rogers]

I didn't say exactly what I mean: of couse the pictures are real (how could a picture not be real?). But they do not pretend to show reality. For me (just for me!) this is not photography but painting by using the tools of photography.

Not just for you!

Ray