Label for Genuine Photographs

[Q.G.]

There is only one person to answer that question: yourself.
Read GPO's statement and decide if you would agree with it or not.

Why, are you not able to say whether it conforms to your (!) creed or not?!

You should really come out of hiding. Hinding behind things like the above.
If you can't explain what genuine and not-genuine photographs are, you are not doing much.

Reading the above, the word "genuine" on the label might as well read "bacon flavoured", for all you care.

Or can you explain why it should read "genuine"? If you do not want to explain to other photographers, then tell us how you explain what a "genuine" photograph is to yourself?

 

[phritz phantom]

Right!
Gursky isn't a photographer...

sorry, but this is exactly what makes this discussion so ridiculous.

 

[Edward_S]

What if I create a photo-realistic image in Photoshop, and then photograph it. Is that a genuine photograph, or do you also make the implicit assumption that any photograph has to be of a "genuine subject"?

 

[JBrunner]

There is only one person to answer that question: yourself.
Read GPO's statement and decide if you would agree with it or not.

If I agree or not is irrelevant to the question. I am not the person setting this particular standard. If I am the person who is to set my standard, a personal standard, there seems to be some beef missing from the premise of having one in the first place.

I have a certain appreciation for the effort here, but in all candor it seems to me half baked. By the criteria set forth it seems that in order to wear the label it must be in the vein of editorial, journalism or street photography by any medium. That makes the additional exclusion of non-analog capricious, or at the very least, arbitrary.

The real issue here is not what is genuine or not. That is problematic at best because it sets up a can of worms called "non-genuine", and by that definition it is the standard setter that must be able to define my traditional analog photographs as "non-genuine" or genuine". An unwillingness to do so is an evasion of the standard setters own premise. My own opinion, as an unwitting participant in the "genuine" or "non-genuine" standard carries no weight whatsoever, as I have not publicly undertaken to set a division of genuine vs. non-genuine. That fact renders my own opinion on this standard as it applies to my work moot.

The real issue and what we should all be concerned with:

Provenance

The most basic and actually definable criteria for any form of finite visual pattern is the provenance. This is the area where clear speaking is lacking concerning the current state of affairs, and it is the only place where the rubber meets the road with a clear objective. It is in my opinion folly to try to define something by including a statement implied (as in this case) or otherwise that attempts to say by inclusion: "genuine", -real, what something else is not: "non-genuine "-fake.


Provenance is precisely definable. What is it? This sets up a paradigm for truth that needs meet no arbitrary standard of inclusion or exclusion, and gives all the participants actual information concerning the artifact.

Attempting to enforce what constitutes a "photograph" in the language of a layperson is simply bailing against the tide. The best example in disparate subject is the coercion of the word "theory" by creationists, who clearly don't know what constitutes a theory, and confuse the lay definition of theory (speculation) with the actual definition of a theory (a hypothesis that has been proven to the point where it can be assumed to be fact barring new information to the contrary).

Insisting on clear provenance of work presented, while admittedly difficult these days, at least carries a clarity that is not easily weaseled out of by those who seem ashamed to clearly identify their artifacts.

The droves of amateur "photographers" calling inkjet prints "giclees" need not concern the professional working in any medium, including ink. If someone doesn't know what a "giclee" really is, or feels the need to call their inkjets so, they aren't generally relevant to a genuine or non-genuine photographer or his/her work.

IMO "Genuine Photograph" is as much an affectation as "giclee".

"J Brunner-Toned cyanotype on Arches Platine" or "J Brunner-genuine photograph". Which would you buy?

Accuracy or truthiness?

 

[mono]

To me it´s a dispute about nothing!
Go out and take photographs!

 

[Nick Hermanns]

sorry, but this is exactly what makes this discussion so ridiculous.

Why?

Assembling a dozen of different shots to a composition of a motif which did not exist in reality does not meet my definition of a photograph. It's a composite. Period.
That has nothing to do with the question if it's art, or if it's good work or if it's worth 3 Millions... (my personal answers would be: it's not, it's not, it's not - but this is only my unimportant opinion).

 

[Nick Hermanns]

Ask the guy who bought his photograph for over $3 million if he thinks it is genuine or not.

I'm pretty sure collectors who paid 3 Millions don't give a f*** if it is a photograph or not. as long as it's "art"... and as long as the bubble does not burst.

 

[Nick Hermanns]

Jason, give me a liitle bit of time to answer... my english is coming to the limit with your post. It would be much easier to answer in german...

Best,
Nick

 

[JBrunner]

Jason, give me a liitle bit of time to answer... my english is coming to the limit with your post. It would be much easier to answer in german...

Best,
Nick

Understood and appreciated.

 

[Ulrich Drolshagen]

I take my 8x10 (as I'm wont to do on occasion) and I make a black and white negative. I use a red filter, making the sky dark, when in fact it is in "reality" (my persoal visual reality in the spectrum I see in) much lighter. I develop the negative for expansion, rendering an altered and somewhat greater apparent tonal range than was discernible, or would be readily discernible in a true to life snapshot with whatever. I contact print the negative, pulling a dodge all the way across to even the density from what really went on the neg, and selenium tone the print long enough make the blacks black. Hand made from beginning to end, using 50 to 80 year old equipment made mostly of wood and leather, no batteries, no enlarger, even the timer is a metronome, using one of the oldest and most traditional of workflows. The photograph bear only a passing resemblance to the reality.

Does my photograph qualify as "real" ?

What about wetplate, that sees only blue-green?

What about this toned cyanotype I painted with light in a pitch black room? Certainly not "reality" not even close. Does it qualify as genuine photograph?

I'm genuinely curious because I really want to be a photographer.

All right Jason, just to please you, let's check it:

>>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<<

passed

>>There are no objects removed, added, changed in their relative position or altered in their proportions<<

passed

>>The textures of the subject elements were not altered<<

passed

>>As far as color pictures are concerned the colors of all parts of the subject were not basically altered. “Basically” here means that an object which is blue is not made red. It is not meant that there is an identity with colors of the recorded real world object<<

passed

So you my use the label

But you and all others missed the crucial point. You may call your picture whatever you like, including "genuine photograph" anyway. Just don't use the label if you have, let's say photoshopped in a little red devil in the lower left corner.
The label serves to let beholders of our pictures know, what we have *not* done to our pictures. In *not* doing these particular things to *our* pictures they obviously preserve the (not exclusive) property of being genuine. The label just tells: "Hey, we have avoided particular things in editing our pictures. And you may have to expect that pictures not carrying *our* label may have not. " So it is *not* about what other pictures are but about what *we* consider *our* pictures to be.

Ulrich

 

[JBrunner]

All right Jason, just to please you, let's check it:

>>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<<

passed

>>There are no objects removed, added, changed in their relative position or altered in their proportions<<

passed

>>The textures of the subject elements were not altered<<

passed

>>As far as color pictures are concerned the colors of all parts of the subject were not basically altered. “Basically” here means that an object which is blue is not made red. It is not meant that there is an identity with colors of the recorded real world object<<

passed

So you my use the label

But you and all others missed the crucial point. You may call your picture whatever you like, including "genuine photograph" anyway. Just don't use the label if you have, let's say photoshopped in a little red devil in the lower left corner.
The label serves to let beholders of our pictures know, what we have *not* done to our pictures. In *not* doing these particular things to *our* pictures they obviously preserve the (not exclusive) property of being genuine. The label just tells: "Hey, we have avoided particular things in editing our pictures. And you may have to expect that pictures not carrying *our* label may have not. " So it is *not* about what other pictures are but about what *we* consider *our* pictures to be.

Ulrich

The artifact at hand was shot with a Canon D1s. The image was dodged and burned in PS, inverted, manipulated to match the curve of my emulsion, and printed as a physical negative with an inkjet printer. The negative was then physically distressed. At that point an emulsion was hand brushed onto paper, and the negative contact printed onto the paper in an arc burner, and chemically developed and toned. It is a one of a kind, and can never be precisely duplicated. The physical artifact was absolutely created using "chemical rays of light". What is it now? Most certainly it is still a toned cyanotype on Arches Platine, but is it genuine? I'm not arguing that it is or is not. I would point out that it is not something easily made by a "non-genuine" photographer, and requires a truly photographic skill set not in the arsenal of the average street or journalist photographer (not to disparage those disciplines) whose photographs might rise to the "genuine" standard. By definition it seems to make my mom's (processed by Walmart) snapshot of my son with his birthday cake "real" and my toned cyanotype on Arches that took hours of darkroom work "fake".

 

[Ulrich Drolshagen]

The artifact at hand was shot with a Canon D1s. The image was dodged and burned in PS, inverted, manipulated to match the curve of my emulsion, and printed as a physical negative with an inkjet printer. The negative was then physically distressed. At that point an emulsion was hand brushed onto paper, and the negative contact printed onto the paper in an arc burner, and chemically developed and toned. It is a one of a kind, and can never be precisely duplicated. The physical artifact was absolutely created using "chemical rays of light". What is it now? Most certainly it is still a toned cyanotype on Arches Platine, but is it genuine? I'm not arguing that it is or is not. I would point out that it is not something easily made by a "non-genuine" photographer, and requires a truly photographic skill set not in the arsenal of the average street or journalist photographer (not to disparage those disciplines) whose photographs might rise to the "genuine" standard. By definition it seems to make my mom's (processed by Walmart) snapshot of my son with his birthday cake "real" and my toned cyanotype on Arches that took hours of darkroom work "fake".

Have you done one of the four mentioned operations to your picture? If "yes", call it what you like, just don't put our label on it (I know, you wouldn't anyway ). If "no", you're ok then.

Ulrich

 

[Rolleigraf]

Guys, as said before we are currently re-working our texts. And, to be honest, this discussion here is the reason for that - we became aware of the fact, that our rather short (yes, rather short) explanations were the reason for many misunderstandings. Please give us some time, especially for translating it in English. If you do not want to wait, I can send you a draft in German, you may of course translate it on your own ;-)

This work is the reason for my answers being not very explicit, and I want to say sorry that I definitely am not able now to answer all your questions.

But I noticed one thing: Many of you make the assumption (against our explicit assertion) that we are judging whether a photograph is genuine or not. Please note the difference: We are in fact judging whether an image maybe called Genuine Photograph in the context of our website or not. Not more, not less.

Saying "bacon flavored photography", by the way, would also work for us. As I mentioned before (several times, I think), this rather works as an eyecatcher.
But of course, "Genuine Photograph" works better - why? Because there somehow DOES exist fake photography now, if you are asking me. A digitally rendered image is a fake photograph, It is not a "light painting" - but people call it a photograph (because they don´t see the difference, don´t know it, or dont want the difference to be known). A composite maybe based on a photograph, but - strictly seen - is not a photograph. And if digital artists continue to call their works "photograph", it becomes more and more important to speak about real photography, you know, the genuine one, the one which is coming from a camera, not from a computer.

I do not know if you have ever come across the problem that your image is being doubted to be a "real" photograph, simply because people are used to be being confrontated with photomanipulations and composites which look 100% "real". People do assume that you are faking - and obviously, people do care if a photograph is "fake" in this sense or not. Art collectors may not care. Artists do not care. But I do, and the common man may do also.

 

[Rolleigraf]

What if I create a photo-realistic image in Photoshop, and then photograph it. Is that a genuine photograph, or do you also make the implicit assumption that any photograph has to be of a "genuine subject"?

Edward, according to our statement your image (the photographed one) of course would be a Genuine Photograph (why not?). We do not make implicit assumptions. But most of you are.

Regards,
Jan

P.S.: Greg, of course this is also true for your image! I hereby declare that thou may use the tag "GENUINE PHOTOGRAPH IN THE SENSE OF GENUINE-PHOTOGRAPH.ORG" for your image!

 

[nick mulder]

Hey Jason !

You're OK !

 

[Rolleigraf]

I doubt the problem is people not reading your statement.

You just can't invent and promote a label, and then say it is not invented to distinguish some sort of something from another sort of something.

So yes, you are indeed judging.
By calling your own photographs "genuine" you are at least implying that other photographs are not.

That, or your statement above should read that all photographs are "genuine". Then we don't need such an empty label.

So if you really believe that some photographs are not "genuine" photographs, you just have to explain why. You must be able to answer, for instance, J. Brunner's questions and explain why his examples are not "genuine".
You can't shrug that off, saying things of the nature of "to each his own", or "we're just saying".




Rather now, i hope.
Again, that "difference" thing, right? "Special" even.

Sorry for my probably badly chosen words. But if your are insisting to split hairs (do you say so in English?), go ahead. But I´d rather prefer to answer in German then. This would equalize our positions, I think

Regarding your other thoughts, see my above post.

Greetings,
Jan

 

[Q.G.]

But I noticed one thing: Many of you make the assumption (against our explicit assertion) that we are judging whether a photograph is genuine or not. Please note the difference: We are in fact judging whether an image maybe called Genuine Photograph in the context of our website or not. Not more, not less.

No difference. You are judging whether a photograph is genuine or not.

That you want to haul a completely obscure context (which you obviously still have to fabricate, after having tried and failed to construct one before) into the proceeding is neither here nor there.

Saying "bacon flavored photography", by the way, would also work for us. As I mentioned before (several times, I think), this rather works as an eyecatcher.

And if we would taste our photographs, and they don't taste anything like bacon? If we taste yours and they too don't taste anything like bacon?

You (apparently) will still say that they are bacon-flavoured, because all you are interested in is creating an "eyecatcher".

Pardon me, is anyone really supposed to take this label serious? After all that too?
Cannot possibly be.


So i propose a new manifesto, and label to go with it.
The manifesto is short: Anyone who wants to, and thinks it appropriate, can attach my label to his or her work, be it a photograph, a steam locomotive, or last wednesday's laundry.
As will be manifest when reading this manifesto, it itself is not clear at all about whatever you think the manifesto covers. Nor does it want to be. Quite the contrary. So interpret it to mean whatever you like.
But you can ask me whether what you think is covered by it is indeed covered by it. The answer, this manifesto hereby solemnly promises, will be completely incomprehensible.

The label you have to design yourself. It may say "Out to lunch" (rather conveniently, since you can get such labels ready made), or anything else you like. As long as it makes you happy. Or not. Who cares...

 

[Q.G.]

Sorry for my probably badly chosen words. But if your are insisting to split hairs (do you say so in English?), go ahead. But I´d rather prefer to answer in German then. This would equalize our positions, I think

Regarding your other thoughts, see my above post.

Greetings,
Jan

Na, Jan. Auf Deutsch wäre mir auch ganz recht.

But even in English it must be quite obvious to you that you cannot claim not to want to attach labels while proposing a label and setting out the ground rules for when it may and may not be attached.

 

[keithwms]

The label you have to design yourself.

Yup, but I still don't see why this is any better than simply signing it, as I mentioned previously A signature is what signifies authenticity of the photograph, it says that the photograph is as genuine as the person who made it. What can be more genuine than that!

Again, if the motive of Ulrich et al is/were more along the lines of f/64 then I'd understand that motive.

If it were a marketing gimmick, I'd understand that motive too!

If the goal is to paint oneself in a box and paint many other photographers out, well that's fine too, just bear in mind the social consequences of doing so. We are a community, after all... and word of mouth does count for something.

Obvious the term 'genuine' is a big, red herring and it's not really worth restating that for many more pages but I am sure it will be restated, nevertheless...

 

[phritz phantom]

Again, if the motive of Ulrich et al is/were more along the lines of f/64 then I'd understand that motive.

iirc (with my very little knowledge of art history) the f64 manifesto was written / the movement founded to promote straight photography against the hegemony of pictoralism in art photography. straight photography was not considered art before that.
since then it has long been established as a form of art. if something had to be done today, it would be the time to establish photo manipulation as a form of art against the dominance of straight photography.

 

[keithwms]

That's not quite what I was getting at, phritz. Pictorialism circa 1930 is tame compared to what people like Jill Greenberg get away with and sell for high dollar. To me, the f/64 'ethic' makes a lot more sense now than it did then. Not that I would choose to be limited by it, personally

 

[markbarendt]

If "f64" or the "Straight Photographers" were just marketing gimmicks... than you are right, Mark.
But the try to create credibility is better than not even to care about it.

Nick

Yes, absolutely, they were gimmicks designed to promote themselves BUT, as I understand it f64 brought together a group of already successful and credible photographers, same with Magnum. These groups, as I remember, had/have standards and weren't open to just anybody. Sure any old Joe could shoot like them and say they had the same style, so what.

Credibility in any market comes from people liking your work and telling others.

It takes work and time to prove yourself, no label or standard can fix or rush that.

As proof I offer up the absolute fact that there are a lot more really lousy photos out in the world that would meet the "genuine photograph" standard, than there are good ones.

People understand that fact.

 

[PKM-25]

Do you ever read news, watch movies, pay bills, buy books, search for recipes, fill out surveys, join Facebook groups, download pirated music, type letters, check stocks, send invoices, write, make digital movies, digital art, digital music, clone your old girl friend's face out of a family photo, ebay, twitter, blog, skype or email with your darkroom?

Didn't think so…

My life is fleeting, my life is a photographic life. And if there is one thing I don't need, it is photoshop to fully realize my ability as a passionate and talented photographer. What I saw is what you see in my images and would have seen had you been there and looked with my eyes, not trough my lens or monitor..

Life is too short to do everything on a computer...My life, my journey, my images are art but they are real.....and boy does this world need more that is real...

After using photoshop since 2.0 and digital since 1994, I have concluded that it is not what I consider photography and really want as little to do with it as possible.

But I am not sure I need to label it as such, I need to show great work, then answer those questions later..

But yeah man, I want nothing to do with computer generated photography if I can help it.

 

[Nick Hermanns]

iirc (with my very little knowledge of art history) the f64 manifesto was written / the movement founded to promote straight photography against the hegemony of pictoralism in art photography. straight photography was not considered art before that.
since then it has long been established as a form of art. if something had to be done today, it would be the time to establish photo manipulation as a form of art against the dominance of straight photography.

If that would happen – if all the photoshopped composites would carry a label "composite" – than we could forget that GPO idea (or anything similar) and be happy. But I guess there is a reason that the Photoshop artist don't want there work to be labeled...

 

[Leigh Youdale]

Yup, but I still don't see why this is any better than simply signing it, as I mentioned previously A signature is what signifies authenticity of the photograph, it says that the photograph is as genuine as the person who made it. What can be more genuine than that!/QUOTE]

I think that's about the only right answer. After all, it's only my signature on a cheque or a credit card slip or letter that is taken as the token of my authenticity - so why not on a photograph? And if the print has contact details on the back or mount and the viewer is interested in the process used rather more than the image, then I can explain personally if contacted. I've covered my corner and I don't have to worry about all the other "non-genuine" prints out there. Let the viewer decide. There's no way in the world you can set up a sustainable monitoring and control system that will be adhered to, no matter how emotionally satisfying it might be to the true believers.
It really is more about the image quality and the art involved than it is about how it was produced. We don't criticise the "Old Masters" because they reworked a painting that didn't satisfy them at first - and is probably now regarded as a masterpiece - so why do we worry so much about photographs? Just be true to yourself. Let others worry about what they do or don't do.