Label for Genuine Photographs

[keithwms]

Let's just cut to the chase, Ulrich. Why don't you simply say "Analogue Photograph."

But I still think that a signature says more than any other label ever can.

 

[keithwms]

Ah okay. Well I will politely excuse myself from the thread then, sorry

But I still think that a signature says more than any other label ever can.

 

[Ray Rogers]

Ah okay. Well I will politely excuse myself from the thread then, sorry

But I still think that a signature says more than any other label ever can.

Yes, but not if they want recognition now.

They cannot convey their message with an unknown name (w/no meaning)... A label is a short cut.

OTOH, once they are recognized, the name could do it very well.

 

[Ulrich Drolshagen]

@phritz phantom
>>what's the german word you're using instead of the english "genuine"? the german "genuin"?<<
wesensmäßig, wirklich, eigentlich, richtig. Für eine Website hätten wir möglicherweise die Bezeichnung "richtige Fotos" gewählt. Einen deutschsprachigen Namen haben wir aber eigentlich nie in Erwägung gezogen.

@Ray Rogers
>>I did not think you had "Ausland" in mind...<<
I used the term "foreign" in the sense of "not my own". I learn a lot of English at present

@all
I much appreciate your input but I presently feel overburdened to reply to all your posts. I would much like to settle the issue with the term "genuine".
I now know that this term is differently understood than we have interpreted it ourselves and that there will be no way to come together on this. I don't stick to the term. As far as I am concerned we must not discuss this any further.
But our concern does not depend on that term it is not settled by dropping it.
I have learned from this thread that there is seemingly no way to rescue the essence of the term "photography" as a way of capturing pictures of an instant and preserve their close link to reality.
But I still hope that there will be a way to come to a common understanding on what a photograph is to us. Otherwise it would become a wrap which can be filled with arbitrary content. There must be a reason why we use some sort of camera rather than a brush or a pencil to make pictures. I would much like to discuss this a little bit further.
I have noticed, that the term "photograph" is used for exposed light sensitive substrate, namely paper no matter what the source of the picture is. In German there is the terms "Negativ" for a picture out of a camera (with certain kind of cameras it would be a raw file of cause), "Fotogramm" for a picture on a light sensitive substrate if there is no camera involved and "Abzug" if the picture is made from a "Negativ" by using an enlarger. For a picture made from a "Negativ" without an enlarger, the term "Kontaktkopie" (contact print) is used. There are "Diapositive" (slides/transparencies) of cause too.
Besides that the term photograph is colloquially used for every picture which resembles a realistic representation of a (seemingly) real scene no matter whether it is shown in a magazine, in a book, on a computer monitor, as an inkjet print or any other way.
Our concern is with that thoughtless colloquial use of the term "photograph" for those made up pictures which masquerade as representations of a captured instant of reality. Our goal is indeed to discriminate these from any other incarnation of the medium. May be you convince me that this is impossible and we have indeed lost the credibility for capturing an instant of a "found" scene for ever.

Ulrich

 

[Q.G.]

@phritz phantom
>>what's the german word you're using instead of the english "genuine"? the german "genuin"?<<
wesensmäßig, wirklich, eigentlich, richtig. Für eine Website hätten wir möglicherweise die Bezeichnung "richtige Fotos" gewählt. Einen deutschsprachigen Namen haben wir aber eigentlich nie in Erwägung gezogen.

A good english translation of "richtig" would be "true"; you would be calling those thingies "true photographs".

But "genuine" is indeed another good translation. It is not the word that lies at the root of the problems the idea ran into.

 

[Ray Rogers]

Our concern is with that thoughtless colloquial use of the term "photograph" for those made up pictures which masquerade as representations of a captured instant of reality. Our goal is indeed to discriminate these from any other incarnation of the medium. May be you convince me that this is impossible and we have indeed lost the credibility for capturing an instant of a "found" scene for ever.

Ulrich

A good and noble cause.

Don't give up.

Humm...

From Wiki:
Documentary photography usually refers to a type of professional photojournalism, but it may also be an amateur, artistic, or student pursuit. The photographer attempts to produce truthful, objective, and usually candid photography of a particular subject, most often pictures of people.

 

[Domenico Foschi]

This kind of thing is typical of European Bureaucrats. The Brussells bureaucracy wanted to regulate the amount of bend allowed in bananas.

Just as an information Europe is not a country but a continent. All those names such as Finland, Germany, Belgium, Luxemburg, Italy, Spain, etc etc. are indicative of different countries with a separate history, government, traditions and even languages.
Moreover, as an European, rather an Italian living in Los Angeles, I abhor stepping into a Ralph or Alberstson market because I know I am going to see displays of perfectly shaped, tasteless waxed (?) tomatoes, pointless apples that could enter beauty contests and just like bimbos have no substance.
Do you want genuine? Go to Italy.

 

[Ray Rogers]

...as an European, rather an Italian living in Los Angeles, I abhor stepping into a Ralph or Alberstson market because I know I am going to see displays of perfectly shaped, tasteless waxed (?) tomatoes, pointless apples that could enter beauty contests and just like bimbos have no substance.

Was Alan talking about real bannas?
I thought it was a euphemism!


Ciao!

 

[PKM-25]

Our concern is with that thoughtless colloquial use of the term "photograph" for those made up pictures which masquerade as representations of a captured instant of reality. Our goal is indeed to discriminate these from any other incarnation of the medium. May be you convince me that this is impossible and we have indeed lost the credibility for capturing an instant of a "found" scene for ever.

Don't despair, young people are already well over all the hype and fake having been rammed down their throats since birth. It takes talent to show the real scene brilliantly. People still believe in it, I believe in it, that is what I strive for.

 

[markbarendt]

I have learned from this thread that there is seemingly no way to rescue the essence of the term "photography" as a way of capturing pictures of an instant and preserve their close link to reality.

I believe you are correct.

But I still hope that there will be a way to come to a common understanding on what a photograph is to us. Otherwise it would become a wrap which can be filled with arbitrary content.

Arbitrary content is freedom, arbitrary content is fun, arbitrary content is good.

I like JBrunner's definition.

There must be a reason why we use some sort of camera rather than a brush or a pencil to make pictures. I would much like to discuss this a little bit further.

It's fast, it's easy by comparison.

I have used brush and pencil, still do some.

Photography for me is a fun way of drawing a picture.

Our concern is with that thoughtless colloquial use of the term "photograph" for those made up pictures which masquerade as representations of a captured instant of reality. Our goal is indeed to discriminate these from any other incarnation of the medium. May be you convince me that this is impossible and we have indeed lost the credibility for capturing an instant of a "found" scene for ever.

Ulrich

I think it is possible to discriminate between the subsets you suggest.

Photography is more than just those subsets.

 

[Ulrich Drolshagen]

Just an addendum to my previous post: Is this a photograph in the colloquial sense the word is commonly used in?

Dead Link Removed

Ad if not: What makes it being not a photograph?
BTW: the picture is by G.J. Herrmann

Ulrich

 

[Ray Rogers]

Just an addendum to my previous post: Is this a photograph in the colloquial sense the word is commonly used in?

Dead Link Removed

Ad if not: What makes it being not a photograph?
BTW: the picture is by G.J. Herrmann

Ulrich

How was it made?
(Is this an airbrush print?)

At this point all that can be said is that it is a picture, or an image.

Some may use the word "photo" to mean "image" and not many people may object...

However, even if they might have thought it was a photograph orginally and point to the image on the screen and say "that photograph"...
they would in truth, be wrong... correct?

 

[markbarendt]

Is this a photograph in the colloquial sense the word is commonly used in?

In the colloquial sense the word is commonly used in, is this a photograph?

Sure.

If someone tossed this (http://www.flickr.com/photos/halophoto/2775853329/) down in front of an average person would they call it a photo?

My bet is yes and the next thing they would say is "wow, that's great!"

Does it portray a found single scene? No.

Does it portray a memory of visiting a single place or a single holiday trip? Sure.

Are memories real, genuine? Yes.

Are both photos honest with the viewer? Yes.

The only difference between the photo you used as an example and the example in this post, is the artistic style.

 

[Q.G.]

The only difference between the photo you used as an example and the example in this post, is the artistic style.

... And the way they were created.

 

[markbarendt]

... And the way they were created.

Absolutely.

Would you call it a photo?

 

[Ray Rogers]

Absolutely.

Would you call it a photo?

I don't know about Q. G., but as far as the earlier (biker) image... I am thinking... no.

 

[Q.G.]

I don't know about Q. G., but as far as the earlier (biker) image... I am thinking... no.

As should be apparant by now, i don't believe in the concept of a "true" or "genuine" photograph.
I believe in the images we make. We use certain techniques, amongst which those involving light hitting something that is able to record, 'fix', the way light did that. But also others, that influence the way the final result will look.

Some of these techniques impart a certain look to the image, particular to the way (or what they use) to work.
Some people like that look, and emulate it using different image making techniques (by either using those techniques people would recognize as photographic, to create something as a starting point for, or something to incorporate into their intended final work, or by using completely 'foreign' techniques). A clue is often given in the names applied to the type of work, like being called "photorealism".

In all that, it will be - i'm convinced - impossible to identify something that would be a "genuine" photograph.
The closest you can get to it is by holding on to the light-hitting-a-surface-that-is-able-to-record-it thing.
But we have to use additional techniques (chemical or electronic) to make that visible, to change it from something 'latent' into an actual image. We can do that in many different ways, which without fail puts us well and truly on the road away from "genuine" photographs.
There are no such things as genuine photographs in the strict sense the manifesto wants to embrace and promote.

 

[Ulrich Drolshagen]

Please forget about the term "genuine". I have already realized that its use was not one of our best ideas. I just wish to have a manageable definition of the term "photograph" here.
Of cause the picture I have presented is not a photograph. It is an oil painting based on an initial photograph. But why is this so obviously not a photograph? And what makes it different from an inkjet print?

Ulrich

 

[Ray Rogers]

Should one differientiate between a photograph and a "trick painting" that looks identical to a photograph?

Why or Why not?

 

[Q.G.]

Please forget about the term "genuine". I have already realized that its use was not one of our best ideas. I just wish to have a manageable definition of the term "photograph" here.

But how is defining what a photograph is different from wanting to know when to call a photograph a true or genuine photograph?

It isn't.
That's why this thread has gone the way it has, isn't it?

 

[Q.G.]

A photograph uses photographic materials, an oil painting uses oil paints, even if the detail is good enough to fool the eye into looking like a photograph. A watercolor uses watercolor, pencil on paper is, you guessed it, pencil on paper.

That's not a manageable definition. Photographs are created using many different materials, many of which can also be used to create other things. Things like, for instance, an oil painting.

 

[Alan Johnson]

Please forget about the term "genuine". I have already realized that its use was not one of our best ideas. I just wish to have a manageable definition of the term "photograph" here.
Of cause the picture I have presented is not a photograph. It is an oil painting based on an initial photograph. But why is this so obviously not a photograph? And what makes it different from an inkjet print?

Ulrich

Yes, the term "genuine" as defined did exclude work by a top landscape and a top fashion photographer that I admire.Maybe you mean not excessive post-capture manipulation? Fashion/beauty photographs always were retouched/airbrushed/photoshopped. If you don't want to exclude them some manipulation must be allowed or there is just a half-finished result IMO.

 

[markbarendt]

I just wish to have a manageable definition of the term "photograph" here.

I understand that this is how you feel

Otherwise it would become a wrap which can be filled with arbitrary content.

but;

The content/subject matter in a photograph is totally and absolutely irrelevant to the definition of what a "photograph" is.

You can, at best, define and describe and label "your style" as a subset of photography as a whole; we all struggle to do this.

 

[Ulrich Drolshagen]

You can, at best, define and describe and label "your style" as a subset of photography as a whole; we all struggle to do this.

Seems to be a "hole in the bucket" kind of thing. I can only describe a subset if I know what the set is. Defining a subset of an empty set is meaningless.

Ulrich

 

[Ray Rogers]

I just wish to have a manageable definition of the term "photograph" here.
... the picture I have presented is not a photograph. It is an oil painting based on an initial photograph. But why is this so obviously not a photograph? And what makes it different from an inkjet print?

Ulrich

I don't think it was all that obvious...
I noticed however, that there were too few facial imperfections... the tone was too uniform... to be a straight shot.

But looking like a photograph and being a photograph are different things.

The examples you cite are different because...
(No Surprise!) they are not the same...　they have a different history.
Also, they smell and taste differently!