Label for Genuine Photographs

[removed account4]

A digitally rendered image is a fake photograph ....

fake photos ??

numeric images ARE drawn with light ...
and if put onto paper via an enlarger, they are printed onto paper with light too.

maybe instead of genuine or fake you should
label it something else like straight unmanipulated photographic image
made from a historic process ... or straight, unmaipulated non digital / analog image ... ( no digital involved )

you folks sound too much like the gallery owners who i audienced with
who insisted my silver-photographs were not photographs because
they did not fit their criteria ...

 

[clay]

I find it interesting how the definition of 'genuine' tends to exactly coincide with the type of art being made by the person doing the defining. Weston, Adams, Stieglitz and Strand spring to mind as prime practitioners of this. I can't think of a single instance in the art world where somebody defined so-called proper art as something other than what they were already doing themselves. Same thing applies to most human endeavors, I suppose. It is really pretty funny when you take a couple of steps back and look at it.

 

[markbarendt]

I find it interesting how the definition of 'genuine' tends to exactly coincide with the type of art being made by the person doing the defining. Weston, Adams, Stieglitz and Strand spring to mind as prime practitioners of this. I can't think of a single instance in the art world where somebody defined so-called proper art as something other than what they were already doing themselves. Same thing applies to most human endeavors, I suppose. It is really pretty funny when you take a couple of steps back and look at it.

Yeah that.

 

[Wayne]

I think you are going about this backward. "Genuine" photograph has an air of snottiness about it and is ultimately as vague as the "photograph" that I see most digital imagers label their art with. Far better to push for an increased level of detail and truthfulness in the labeling of those, and corresponding use "silver-gelatin" (or whatever) for your own (as much as I hate that term).

 

[Wayne]

I think you are going about this backward. "Genuine" photograph has an air of snottiness about it and is ultimately as vague as the "photograph" that I see most digital imagers label their art with. Far better to push for an increased level of detail and truthfulness in the labeling of those, and corresponding use "silver-gelatin" (or whatever) for your own (as much as I hate that term).

O

OK I guess I just repeated what J said more eloquently, but it bears repeating. When I go to a gallery and see "photograph", I call and bitch at the director to do my part.

 

[Q.G.]

O

OK I guess I just repeated what J said more eloquently, but it bears repeating. When I go to a gallery and see "photograph", I call and bitch at the director to do my part.

But that's not what the Genuine Label is about.
It - as was said - doesn't care about the medium. Only about doing things that would 'falsify' the rendering of the scene.

And even though i think it 'bonkers', it's still much better than the "a digital photo isn't a photo, even though photons, distributed by lenses, were used to create it" silliness.

 

[Wayne]

I guess i wast interested enough to read the whole thing...in that case, even sillier....carry on...

 

[JBrunner]

But that's not what the Genuine Label is about.
It - as was said - doesn't care about the medium. Only about doing things that would 'falsify' the rendering of the scene.

And even though i think it 'bonkers', it's still much better than the "a digital photo isn't a photo, even though photons, distributed by lenses, were used to create it" silliness.

Interestingly, I don't hold that view. I believe that a photograph in the strictest sense is a physical artifact created by light on a light sensitive surface. The camera and how it interprets information is inconsequential to the existence or non-existence of the end product as a photograph. You don't need a lens or even a camera to make a photograph. Put your hand on a piece of photo paper, flick a light on and off, process it, and congrats, you've made a "genuine" photograph. A photograph is a thing, not a workflow, interpretation, or concept. A silver gelatin print, or any form of photogram to my mind is a "genuine" photograph, because all "genuine" photographs are some form of photogram. Bromoil, gumover, etc are artifacts that are both photographs and illustrations. An image file is an image file. An image file displayed on a computer monitor or the back of a camera is just that, nothing more, nothing less. An inkjet is an illustration, because it is an artifact made from ink and paper. Indeed an inkjet printer will make an illustration of anything you send it. That's what the thing does. It's very simple, can't be argued except obtusely, for all the harrumphing around doesn't change the physical properties of the things, which anybody can witness, unless they are so vested in validation that they deny actual physical reality. I'll say it again, it's not how, it's what.

 

[Nick Hermanns]

maybe instead of genuine or fake you should label it something else like straight unmanipulated photographic image ...

Yes... I have the strong feeling that a huge part of this discussion would not have been neccessary if this unlucky term "Genuine" would have been avoided.
"Straight & unmanipulated" says more or less what I mean - and I think Jan and Ulrich are thinking similar.

Again my point of view (because I belive that a lot of guys here didn't really read the manifesto):

"Straight & unmanipulated" for me means:
What I saw is what I got (the neg shows what the finder showed).
I did not add or eleminate parts to/of the motif after exposure.
The image might be shot by film or digitally - I do not care.*

In very simple words: that's it.

Whoever would like to have deeper information: read the website.
And try to ignore "Genuine", read "Straight & unmanipulated" instead.

Best,
Nick

* For my person actually I do care, because I love film, I love my Rolleiflex, my BessaIII, my M6.
But I do accept a good digital photograph as well, I just do not like to work with it...


http://www.nick-hermanns-photography.de

 

[Rolleigraf]

fake photos ??

numeric images ARE drawn with light ...
and if put onto paper via an enlarger, they are printed onto paper with light too.

maybe instead of genuine or fake you should
label it something else like straight unmanipulated photographic image
made from a historic process ... or straight, unmaipulated non digital / analog image ... ( no digital involved )

you folks sound too much like the gallery owners who i audienced with
who insisted my silver-photographs were not photographs because
they did not fit their criteria ...

Hi, I think I might have chosen the wrong word here: "rendered" is used over here for images which come completely out of a computer, done with 3DSmax, Maya or similar software - those images are not drawn by light (the only thing they have in common with photographs and all other images one can imagine is that they REFLECT light). I am not speaking about digital photography!

To me, an image who has nothing in common with a photograph, but was created to pretend to be photograph, IS a fake photograph, isn´t it?

Regards,
Jan

 

[Rolleigraf]

You have totally confused me here. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy the technical bits of photography too but if you aren't creating art or telling a story in the end, what's the point?

Following this thought a bit further;



If your label isn't for honest storytelling (news, history, portraits, snaps of family)...

If your label isn't for honest art (something pretty for the wall)...

If your label isn't for marketing (you aren't trying to make a buck)...

And if your label isn't for news...

What's the point in your label?

What I wanted to say is that I do not regard my work as art. Others may judge over this. When I say "I am a photographer", I mean the following: I am a guy who runs around and looks for interesting things which catch my eyes. I then take pictures of these things. I do not want to tell a story with my images. I only want to show other people my view. What drives me is maybe the search for aesthetics. Is it art? I don´t know. I was often told art should have an intention, something to tell. I do not feel that my images have something special to tell, apart from telling how I see. My only intentions is to show people that beautyful, fascinating, unique things are all around us and do exist in our physical reality. I am taking pictures of these things. My pictures certainly are not objective, they are biased (of course), but they are in fact images of the real world - not composites. THAT is what the label is about.

 

[Rolleigraf]

(...)

I'll repeat myself: 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.

Your label is intended and used to set a group of photographs ("genuine" ones) apart from another group of things that do not hold up to whatever you say distinguishes between the two groups.
Yet you believe that you are not "judging whether a photograph is genuine or not"...? The entire Genuine Photograph Manifesto is one big judgment.
(...)

Q.G., what I mean is: I do not want to attach this label to other photographer´s work. I do use it for mine. And whoever wants to use it, may do it. But since we invented the label, we are defining the rules.

And finally, I am making a last try: "Genuine Photograph" -as used in the context of our website, is to be understood as fix term like a brand name, not as a description. We are giving a definition for this term. This is why we write it with capitals.

 

[Q.G.]

Q.G., what I mean is: I do not want to attach this label to other photographer´s work. I do use it for mine. And whoever wants to use it, may do it. But since we invented the label, we are defining the rules.

That is well understood.

But you have to understand too that, by the mere act of creating such a label, you (!) are saying something about photographs in general. It being that there are such you think are genuine, and such that are not. No matter whether you say something about some particular photographs or not.

This entire 'thing' here is not about whether your choice of photograph you personally would like to attach your label to is the right choice.
It is about whether the idea itself makes sense.

I still don't see how it could. I have said why not a couple of times, so will not go into tat again.
But i will say again that you can't keep believing that the opposition to your idea stems from no more than people not understanding what you mean. They, we do. We really do. And we (or i, at least) don't like it.

And finally, I am making a last try: "Genuine Photograph" -as used in the context of our website, is to be understood as fix term like a brand name, not as a description. We are giving a definition for this term. This is why we write it with capitals.

Well no. It's far too late for that.

You have indeed defined what you understand a "genuine" photograph to be. It's not just an empty label, not just a 'brand name' without intended meaning.
Your aim is clear, you (the site) said what a photograph needs to be to be allowed to have the label you thought up attached to it.
You can't back out of the criticism the idea has received by simply saying that it means nothing.

 

[Q.G.]

Interestingly, I don't hold that view. I believe that a photograph in the strictest sense is a physical artifact created by light on a light sensitive surface.

I do too.
So i recognize the physical state created by light hitting the physical sensor, the physical way that state is transferred onto something else, the physical way that again is transferred onto yet another something else, as a photograph too.

There is no fundamental difference between the two media in that regard.

I do not own a digital camera (not even in a digital phone. I do own a digital video thingy though), nor have a desire to own or use one.
Simply because i like film and the analog process (or rather what it produces. I thoroughly detest the head ache producing messing around with nasty chemicals) much more than what i have seen the Other Way produce. Still.

But that doesn't give me funny ideas about what a photograph is, nor a desire to justify my choice by denying that the Other Way is not photography. It is. Just not the process of my choice.

 

[Kirk Keyes]

That's why I liked the FoundView concept which is prety much what the Genuine Photo concept is, but I think the name worked better. FoundView implied that the image presented represented the subject of the image without certain modifications. The Genuine Photo name implies a whole lot more, and I don't think it needs to. Perhaps a better name could be used to represent the concept.

 

[nick mulder]

Back again ...

So:

I take digital photos of lots of weird and wonderful unrelated objects and scenes, comp them together, HDR, photoshop swirl, glowing edges, etc... print them out nicely using 'lightjet or lambda machines' (I don't know much about that stuff), light the print well then take a 1:1 photo of it with a film based copy camera and print accordingly.

I'm not too sure of the percentage of people let alone photographers would be able to distinguish the two prints but I'll take a stab at say %5 (?)

The copy is genuine - the original art work is ?

(uh huh, Richard Prince with a pedants twist)

 

[JBrunner]

I don't mean this as a point of argument, just a question of interest: what do you think about prints made on photographic paper, which has been exposed to light and developed in photo chemicals, from a file made with a digital camera? These are the LightJet and Lambda machines. I see them no differently as photograms, personally.

A LightJet or Lamda machine produce what is technically a photograph in my book. Created by a hybrid method, but a photograph in the strictest sense. Again, the workflow is irrelevant, while the artifact, a "real" photograph, genuine in the fact that the OBJECT was created by light, is relevant. If you paint on translucent material and expose a light sensitive material by passing light through it, it is a photograph. Cameras are incidental to a photograph's existence, so the type of camera or sensor is utterly irrelevant. Photography is the art and science of rendering an image on a light sensitive thing. Photographs are things. They are physical. You can see them, touch them, tear them, or even eat them. Cameras, sensors, or intentions are not part of a photograph's existence.

If you paint, squirt, spray or otherwise deposit pigment on a receptor surface it is a painting or illustration. Inkjet prints or "giclee" are not photographs, no matter how they are arrived at. Despite the need for validation by some practitioners, they are clearly illustrations, indeed they are only "photographs" if a person is engaged in word crafting with the intention of a cherished outcome, or ignorant.

 

[JBrunner]

The copy is genuine - the original art work is ?

(uh huh, Richard Prince with a pedants twist)

A computer file.

 

[Q.G.]

I see where you are going with this and do not necessarily disagree, but it does become easy to split hairs. For example, a dye transfer photograph would not be a photograph, but rather a print as in printmaking since the dyes are transferred from one surface to a new substrate. The final substrate is not exposed to light to form an image. Neither are Polaroid Transfers, etc., if you want to get real technical.

Indeed.
The important bit, in my opinion, is that whatever gets transferred or put on something in whatever way started life in the process of photons hitting things, pushing electrons about (or whatever they do).

If you want to be strict, you may demand that these photons pass through
specially shaped glass before hitting a lightsensitive thingy. But why be strict?

 

[JBrunner]

I see where you are going with this and do not necessarily disagree, but it does become easy to split hairs. For example, a dye transfer photograph would not be a photograph, but rather a print as in printmaking since the dyes are transferred from one surface to a new substrate. The final substrate is not exposed to light to form an image. Neither are Polaroid Transfers, etc., if you want to get real technical.

I do not personally consider those objects to be photographs, rather illustrations that use photographic materials and process in part of the work flow. They are art made from photographs, but the final artifact is not a photograph. I do a lot of emulsion transfers, and the provenance has been written as "emulsion transfer". That's the point of provenance. One need not split hairs if the work has a clear provenance, ie. someone who cares can interpret to a reasonable degree exactly what the thing is, regardless of pretension and technical or lay definitions of process. The thing is what it is.

In my edition of Weston's daybooks, for example, I do not labor under the delusion that the plates contained are photographs by EW. They are illustrations of his photographs, just as the APUG galleries and portfolios contain renderings of photographs for display over this medium, and not actual photographs per se.

The A in APUG is the first and foremost criteria for this site, and as such emulsion transfers, bromoils and other highly esoteric arts that involve analog photographic materials are welcomed and discussed, while hybrid methods, such as I sometimes use, are not.

 

[Ulrich Drolshagen]

That's why I liked the FoundView concept which is prety much what the Genuine Photo concept is, but I think the name worked better. FoundView implied that the image presented represented the subject of the image without certain modifications. The Genuine Photo name implies a whole lot more, and I don't think it needs to. Perhaps a better name could be used to represent the concept.

Further up I answered to a post by Sanders on this issue (there was a url link here which no longer exists).

>>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.<<

Up till now we did not get an answer on that. We do not stick to that name. If that really is your main concern, explain it to us and we will give it up, if that does help.

I am not in a state to answer to the discussion of the last dozen or so posts now. I will be back -may be- on Saturday with a more extended reply.


Ulrich

 

[JBrunner]

Indeed.
The important bit, in my opinion, is that whatever gets transferred or put on something in whatever way started life in the process of photons hitting things, pushing electrons about (or whatever they do).

If you want to be strict, you may demand that these photons pass through
specially shaped glass before hitting a lightsensitive thingy. But why be strict?

You have the cart in front of the horse. That infers the visual memories in your brain are photographs, if you draw a picture from them. I don't think they are, and even if I remove your brain, and frame it, it will still be a brain (yes, but is it Art? ) A photograph is a physical thing. How it started matters not, what was done, undone, or not done matters not. If I tape a negative to your forehead and place you in the sun long enough, and then remove it, I will have created a photograph on your forehead. If I tape a CF card to your forehead and do the same, I will also have created a photograph. One will be only a square. Both were created with light. Ink on paper does not have this quality, and the quality of being a visual physical image rendered on a physical surface by light is the inherent definition of a photograph, good or bad, big or small, art or not, still and always a genuine photograph. Sometimes I make photographs on my lawn.

(Incidentally, both of the forehead images and my lawn meet the definition as postulated of being genuine, so we've got that going for us )

 

[Q.G.]

You have the cart in front of the horse. [...]

No. You do.

Photography is a way of recording the image a lens projects (i'll be 'strict' now, though you mention samples of 'loose' photographs. But it's not about that now, and either is fine).
There are a few different ways of doing so. And what you do with it in the end maybe important for what you call the print or projection.
But it all starts the same. With the thing Fox Talbot, Niepce and their like tried and first succeeded to do. Make a permanent record of the image a lens projects.
I doubt Fox Talbot or Niepce would care about what for you appears to be the most important bit. I don't either.

 

[JBrunner]

No. You do.

Photography is a way of recording the image a lens projects (i'll be 'strict' now, though you mention samples of 'loose' photographs. But it's not about that now, and either is fine).
There are a few different ways of doing so. And what you do with it in the end maybe important for what you call the print or projection.
But it all starts the same. With the thing Fox Talbot, Niepce and their like tried and first succeeded to do. Make a permanent record of the image a lens projects.
I doubt Fox Talbot or Niepce would care about what for you appears to be the most important bit. I don't either.

It isn't important in the least, simply the actual definition: "drawn with light"

The "end" as you call and dismiss it, is what we labor to create. The whole point of the endeavor. The result. All else is process.

I doubt Fox Talbot or Niepce would consider depositing pigment on a substrate in a mechanical fashion drawing with light. I do think they would be fascinated with the process.

I do know definitely from long experience that you are always right, so I'll leave it at that, and perhaps peruse your further gyrations around the definition if I feel inclined to do so. Enjoy.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Pinhole? No lens.