New Group: Photrio Photographic Arts Standards

[jtk]

Ignored by the ignorant, probably because the work is too good: http://lenscratch.com/2019/02/photonola-richard-alan-cohen/

 

[jtk]

True, they are images, but mechanically-produced: many multiples of identical prints can be made. A darkroom print is the product of an artisan, dodged and burned, bleached and toned to his or her liking (or to the client's, depending), each one potentially unique..

Wrongo! But being wrong is its own reward sometimes.

Look at the darkroom prints you see on coffee house walls, stuff by street wanna-bees, aspiring Ansels...redundant, redundant, redundant.

 

[jtk]

jtk, as you often post ponderables, I am not sure what you mean.

I think of inkjet prints as digital output, so they don’t meet my analog standards. I allow them if that’s what others produce, but don’t produce them myself.

You've invented the idea of "analog standards" out of nowhere. They ain't even ideas...and nobody on this thread has even hinted at them before this thread.

 

[faberryman]

You've invented the idea of "analog standards" out of nowhere. They ain't even ideas...and nobody on this thread has even hinted at them before this thread.

I am pretty sure Bill has standards for his analog prints. I know I do. That's why a lot of my prints in up in the waste basket. Please note that he said "my analog standards" not some formal standards which might or might not exist.

 

[jtk]

True, they are images, but mechanically-produced: many multiples of identical prints can be made. A darkroom print is the product of an artisan, dodged and burned, bleached and toned to his or her liking (or to the client's, depending), each one potentially unique..

I think you're debasing the work of many of today's finest print makers, who do today make inkjet prints that allow all of those "artisan" techniques.

 

[jtk]

Here's a list of an infinite array of photo artistry and artists. Compare to Photrio's.

http://lenscratch.com/photographers/subjects/

I doubt that any on that array are so constipated that they argue about film Vs digital.

 

[removedacct1]

I didn't realize we were arguing about film VS digital!

 

[faberryman]

I didn't realize we were arguing about film VS digital!

How could we not with analog photographers proposing standards for digital photographers?

 

[awty]

Ignored by the ignorant, probably because the work is too good: http://lenscratch.com/2019/02/photonola-richard-alan-cohen/

They scream of digital....
There interesting, but dont work for me, cant get far enough away to stop the green bits being so busy. See a lot in this style done more visually pleasing. Why dont you try your hand at this style, seems all the rage at the moment. The bottom few are far better to look at.

 

[Bill Burk]

You've invented the idea of "analog standards" out of nowhere. They ain't even ideas...and nobody on this thread has even hinted at them before this thread.

On lenscratch, click Browse by Process and choose "Silver Gelatin".

If I were staying on topic, I'd be discussing what might be the title on those process buttons.

But of course, I'm rambling off-topic and talking about what I consider to be appreciable as an object of art. I appreciate a continuous tone silver gelatin print.

Sure, I enjoy a good image too, but I don't think a scan is as valuable as a print. But if it were, here's a great photo by Ansel Adams of Toyo Miyatake. Download the 140MB tif to really see it.

https://www.loc.gov/item/2002695342/

 

[removed account4]

I didn't realize we were arguing about film VS digital!

LOL it ALWAYS ends up some sort of argument where someone who loves digital has to argue with people who just loves film.
its really too bad people can't just have a good time.

 

[Bill Burk]

Haa jnantz,

It’s all a good time. Yes fine inkjet prints can be made, and they can be made to hang side-by-side indistinguishable from silver gelatin prints from the same photographer. (I’ve seen at least three shows where they were mixed, Robert Frank at LACMA comes to mind). Plus you can scan a negative or print, digitally manipulate it and output to silver gelatin. Bob Carnie does that all the time. Heck I would consider having Bob do that for any of my prints I want enlarged. My size limit is 11x14, but there are several pictures I envision larger.

But my standard is an 11x14 silver gelatin print dodged and burned to taste, uncropped with black borders and wide white borders, with Selenium toner and spotted.

Whenever I make a print smaller I don’t get to dodge/burn. When I make a print larger, it’s clumsy.

I don’t think of myself as a fine artist. I’d be more comfortable with the term folk artist. It’s like Haiku. Something everyone does. I just happen to be using film and silver gelatin, as someone might use watercolor paper and India ink for their poetry.

 

[removedacct1]

LOL it ALWAYS ends up some sort of argument where someone who loves digital has to argue with people who just loves film.
its really too bad people can't just have a good time.

And I should point out that I was being facetious..... ;-)

 

[Bill Burk]

Ack, I tried to enjoy it, but following "Black and White" on lenscratch leads to photography done by raw converted to bw and adjusted in lightroom.

Sorry, that's why we need a standard. Photrio so far is the only place where I can actually filter out the digital.

 

[faberryman]

Ack, I tried to enjoy it, but following "Black and White" on lenscratch leads to photography done by raw converted to bw and adjusted in lightroom. Sorry, that's why we need a standard. Photrio so far is the only place where I can actually filter out the digital.

If it is printed on silver gelatin paper it is probably analog, although Bob Carnie can make film negatives from digital files. If it is printed on inkjet, it could be either scanned film or digital. Either way, it is digital. You should not get extra credit for shooting on film and scanning. Not sure what else needs to be said. Certainly not all the hoorah advocated about the extent of digital processing by some in this thread.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Ignored by the ignorant, probably because the work is too good: http://lenscratch.com/2019/02/photonola-richard-alan-cohen/

I don't care how they were done - they're painful to look at.

 

[Bill Burk]

I just looked at eBay for gelatin silver, sorting by lowest price first there is a flood of cheesecake photographs.

I am sure it is all contemporary prints from vintage image files.

There's also a ten-dollar listing that promises to tell you how to make silver gelatin prints from digital files.

A meaningful standard would exclude that stuff.

 

[faberryman]

A meaningful standard would exclude that stuff.

And would of course immediately be adopted by eBay sellers.

 

[SchwinnParamount]

Glad that some interest is brewing on this.

I do not think we need to "draw lines". My point was to create standardized #Tags or Notes that photographers could use voluntarily to communicate what they did. In addition, more general tags could be created such as #[Digital, analogous to ordinary darkroom printed], meaning that [digital analogues of] dodging, burning-in, possibly some masking, Farmer's reduction, cropping, contrast control, etc. were used, without need for additional tags, unless desired. a more restrictive general standard may be #[Digital, analogous to f64]. The point is not say "this is a photograph" or "that is not a photograph", or "this is over manipulated", but rather to communicate "here are some techniques used in production of this image". Such tags could be created for classes of photographic image making, #[Silver based B&W film], #DryPlates, #Platinum Prints, etc. A standardized way to present those tags/notes digitally, in print, or otherwise could be agreed upon. I was also not proposing that we create THE standards, but APUG standards. Others could create competing standards if they want. For instance #[APUG: Digital, analogous to ordinary darkroom printed], #[Joe's Museum: Digital, analogous to ordinary darkroom printed], ... Over time a few will survive, merge, etc. (hopefully). APUG is the logical organization to start such an endeavor (if any standards already exist,m we should recognize them also).

If people are interested in starting, probably the best thing to start with is to survey any existing standards, and post those on the group.

It's kind of funny that you would think that any interest is brewing on this. Maybe there is interest in making sure the standards that you proposed are never defined, codified, or enforced... But the standards themselves? Nope. No interest.

Standards make sense when an algorithm driven automaton is in communication with another one. Like you know, network endpoints such as chat clients and chat servers. Language compilers need standards of course... like the ECMA standard that results in things like JavaScript and TypeScript. Shit doesn't work if the ECMA standard isn't followed by JavaScript compilers.

People aren't automatons and do indeed function quite well with an imprecise vocabulary for art and the processes to make art. I'm not sure how you see the potential for a slight miscommunication about an art process as a problem that needs to be solved. Perhaps if you're a pedant and you find another like yourself to talk about photography with another pedant then after you've driven each other crazy because you cannot perfectly understand each other, then you can work with your fellow select and tiny group of art process pedants and work out a secret language for yourselves. Have fun!

Meanwhile, I'll enjoy continuing to make my photographs and if you ask me how one of my photographs was made, I'll tell you. If my standards-poor explanation is not clear to you, my world will not be rocked. Go read a book on basic film and print development and then you won't need any more special photographic language than has already existed for over 100 years. If you're asking about some digital image, I'll tell you I pressed the button and the software did the rest. Go read a PhotoShop or LightRoom manual for any special digital language you may need to understand. But please don't try to burden photographers with any additional "standardized" words. Standards are for bureaucrats and software engineers.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I don't care how they were done - they're painful to look at.

Well said. I agree.

 

[markjwyatt]

It's kind of funny that you would think that any interest is brewing on this.

Maybe the fact that this discussion sprung to life after months of dormancy clued me into that?

Maybe there is interest in making sure the standards that you proposed are never defined, codified, or enforced... But the standards themselves? Nope. No interest.

Are you the standard bearer for the consensus opinion of Photrio? Or are you speaking for yourself? If the latter, thank you for your opinion. If the former, maybe we can just link a chat box to you from every image in the world in case anyone has questions .

... I'll enjoy continuing to make my photographs...

This is what I spend a lot of my [free] time doing.

Standards make sense when an algorithm driven automaton is in communication with another one. ...

Standards are used for a lot of reasons, not just for automation.

 

[removed account4]

It's kind of funny that you would think that any interest is brewing on this.

This is kind of funny. Not sure how anyone can suggest there is no interest. Upholding the standards of "analog photography" has been the standard of this website sine 2002. LOL.
Look at 3 boxes at the top of the page where people can pick and chose what "standards" they want to see. People would otherwise be "permitted" to post digital+hybrid info in the main forums and not just film and print scans or inverted film and print scans into the gallery pages without hesitation,as well as hybrid images or straight digital works, and not face blowback by some of the site's subscribing and non subscribing membership who do not want the standards of this website to be dragged down into the gutter with digital or hybrid uploads.
The IS an interest in "standards" it is just that people are blind to the ones that they see every day, but don't notice them. There are handfuls of posts in the main forum about how much photoshop "is allowed" in the gallery, what constitutes a "good print", "rules of composition" &c. Maybe I am wrong but the "standards" the OP has suggested are already there, it is just a matter of tags ...

And would of course immediately be adopted by eBay sellers.

Who knows what will or will not be adopted by ebay sellers. The system for "grading" used camera equipment was invented / formulated by the owner of KEH Camera Brokers 25+ years ago and seems to be the "standard" a lot of used camera buyers and sellers go by, seems like a good thing for people to be transparent in what they make and sell. I know if someone sold a "analog silver print" and it turned out to be from a digital camera machine printed at a lab.. It probably wouldnt' be too good. Its like people selling Platinum Prints that come out of a nozzle or putting large format film rebate and notch codes around digital images...

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

This is kind of funny. Not sure how anyone can suggest there is no interest. Upholding the standards of "analog photography" has been the standard of this website sine 2002. LOL.
Look at 3 boxes at the top of the page where people can pick and chose what "standards" they want to see. People would otherwise be "permitted" to post digital+hybrid info in the main forums and not just film and print scans or inverted film and print scans into the gallery pages without hesitation,as well as hybrid images or straight digital works, and not face blowback by some of the site's subscribing and non subscribing membership who do not want the standards of this website to be dragged down into the gutter with digital or hybrid uploads.
The IS an interest in "standards" it is just that people are blind to the ones that they see every day, but don't notice them. There are handfuls of posts in the main forum about how much photoshop "is allowed" in the gallery, what constitutes a "good print", "rules of composition" &c. Maybe I am wrong but the "standards" the OP has suggested are already there, it is just a matter of tags ...


Who knows what will or will not be adopted by ebay sellers. The system for "grading" used camera equipment was invented / formulated by the owner of KEH Camera Brokers 25+ years ago and seems to be the "standard" a lot of used camera buyers and sellers go by, seems like a good thing for people to be transparent in what they make and sell. I know if someone sold a "analog silver print" and it turned out to be from a digital camera machine printed at a lab.. It probably wouldnt' be too good. Its like people selling Platinum Prints that come out of a nozzle or putting large format film rebate and notch codes around digital images...

I think there's a difference between truth-in-labeling and "standards". Calling an inkjet print a platinum print is false labeling, and can be demonstrated through physical analysis. But setting "standards" to determine what is and isn't acceptable is a throwback to the Beaux-Arts world of 18th and 19th century genre painting where there was an "Academy" determining what was or was not acceptable subject matter and technique in painting and sculpture. THAT is the last thing APUG/Photrio needs to be.

 

[removedacct1]

setting "standards" to determine what is and isn't acceptable is a throwback to the Beaux-Arts world of 18th and 19th century genre painting where there was an "Academy" determining what was or was not acceptable subject matter and technique in painting and sculpture. THAT is the last thing APUG/Photrio needs to be.

I agree completely. It is the wrong approach entirely.

 

[markjwyatt]

...setting "standards" to determine what is and isn't acceptable is a throwback to the Beaux-Arts world of 18th and 19th century genre painting where there was an "Academy" determining what was or was not acceptable subject matter and technique in painting and sculpture. THAT is the last thing APUG/Photrio needs to be.

My proposal is not to set standards for "acceptability", but rather to more standards for "applicability". The Pt example is simplistic for sure, but illustrates the idea that using the term "platinum print" should be applied to prints or even scans of prints in which the print was actually produced using platinum chemistry. Wile images digitally or otherwise manipulated to have the appearance of platinum prints should be labelled as "simulated platinum prints" or something of that nature. Doing chemical analysis is more about enforcement, and I really am not suggesting APUG or the standards I proposed should be enforced; though if someone sold a print as a "platinum print" and referenced the standard which stated that platinum chemistry (perhaps with other qualifiers) were used, but the print were strictly a digital image manipulated to look like a platinum print, the standard could potentially be used to bludgeon the seller. If such standards are ever created, I would suggest that it be stated very clearly that the standards are strictly voluntary, and that APUG would not be involved in any enforcement action (other than perhaps informal editorializing on its pages by members). ASME creates standards. Private companies, and even governmental agencies adopt them. ASME does not enforce them, as I understand it, contract law and possibly regulations outside of ASME enforce them indirectly (I.e., you chose ASME standards, now live up to it). ASME may be involved in interpreting. I would suggest the most APUG would do is open a thread to discuss a specific case if there is interest in it so members can provide their personal opinions, or leaving open the possibility of an offended party to join APUG and start a thread if no one does it for them.