New Group: Photrio Photographic Arts Standards

[faberryman]

In what other area of the arts do we have such process specificity or "standards" (a loaded word if ever there was one) which artists are encouraged to enumerate? I'd be inclined to take the Fifth and let the images speak for themselves. I'm not even keen on giving my images titles.

 

[eddie]

Did you use film for that image? Or is it digital? (I would like to think I could tell, but not everyone could). Were those clouds there in the original scene? Maybe none of my business, but if you want to tell me I would be curious and it may make me appreciate your work more (or reject it). If you do not want me to appreciate the work, that is fine, too. Sorry for wasting your time.

Are you saying that you might see an image, like it, but then find out clouds were added, and that would cause you to reject it?

 

[markjwyatt]

You do know that Giclee translates to Ejaculation.... t

Excuse my lack of French- still it served as a good example. Hopefully not an "in your face" example though [duck and cover]

 

[markjwyatt]

Are you saying that you might see an image, like it, but then find out clouds were added, and that would cause you to reject it?

I might not reject it, but I would have some reservations about it, yes. Especially if the clouds made the image. If the clouds were incidental and removed a distracting blank sky, maybe not as much. If the clouds made the image, I may still like it, but may think differently about it ( a great picture of clouds with the scene to accentuate them).This is personal, and I would like the information if the artist were willing to reveal it. Why was Mona Lisa smirking?

 

[Nodda Duma]

I think what you’re talking about is something more along the lines of the Dewey Decimal System, which may sit more comfortably in the minds of the non-conforming artist.

 

[eddie]

To you, it seems, process is more important than results.

 

[nmp]

I like the idea, but doesn’t EXIF accomplish most of this? I think what you are wanting could be accomplished with the addition of a tagline or two to the EXIF datalist.

ANSI, NIST, etc standards are in place so that no communication barriers exist to the accurate exchange of technical information and data, primarily for manufacturing and specification of components/features. So probably not the best analogy.

I think what you’re talking about is something more along the lines of the Dewey Decimal System

I remove exif data from my photographs. Don't want anyone to see what camera I used or not used. The images should stand on their own, in my opinion of course.

 

[markjwyatt]

In what other area of the arts do we have such process specificity "standards" which artists are encouraged to enumerate?

Quite a few driven by educational organizations (e.g., http://www.nationalartsstandards.org/). Not sure it matters. How many states/countries have actually passed really good food labeling laws (not many, certainly not the US or its states). It does not mean we should not have them, nor that someone has not tried to create them. Digitiization creates a need to be addressed, at least in my opinion, and based on posts on this site as well as others, I am not alone in thinking this.

 

[markjwyatt]

To you, it seems, process is more important than results.

Both are important. The results are the most important i feel, but what is represented and how it got represented is also important, at least in some cases. If I am buying a photograph to hang on my wall, and it is represented as something that occurred, but is in actuality a composite, I may take that into consideration (I may still buy it in any case, but want to start with some facts). If the artists refuses to reveal anything about it, I will take that into account also. If someone is selling me a painting,it is inferred that it was hand painted. If it were inkjet printed, It has less long term value. If it were certified as hand painted, I would want to know of the existence of ink jet printed copies also. I have a copy of [numbered drawing repro] John Lenon, "Suddenly 38" 290/300. If it were 290,000/300,000, I would likely have expected to pay less for it.

 

[eddie]

If someone is selling me a painting,it is inferred that it was hand painted. If it were inkjet printed, It has less long term value. If it were certified as hand painted, I would want to know of the existence of ink jet printed copies also. I have a copy of [numbered drawing repro] John Lenon, "Suddenly 38" 290/300. If it were 290,000/300,000, I would likely have expected to pay less for it.

I understand this, in terms of investing in a piece of art. I just don't see how it should effect appreciating a piece of art.

 

[nmp]

Both are important. The results are the most important i feel, but what is represented and how it got represented is also important, at least in some cases. If I am buying a photograph to hang on my wall, and it is represented as something that occurred, but is in actuality a composite, I may take that into consideration (I may still buy it in any case, but want to start with some facts). If the artists refuses to reveal anything about it, I will take that into account also. If someone is selling me a painting,it is inferred that it was hand painted. If it were inkjet printed, It has less long term value. If it were certified as hand painted, I would want to know of the existence of ink jet printed copies also. I have a copy of [numbered drawing repro] John Lenon, "Suddenly 38" 290/300. If it were 290,000/300,000, I would likely have expected to pay less for it.

Think Peter Lik's Moonlit Dreams or Steve McCurry's recent controversy about his photos some going back decades. I think it is a worthwhile discussion, but creating a standards body - not sure how far that will go.

 

[markjwyatt]

I remove exif data from my photographs. Don't want anyone to see what camera I used or not used. The images should stand on their own, in my opinion of course.

Ok. I accept that. Let's say I came across your website and saw this image ( http://niranjanpatel.zenfolio.com/p900617636#h6c82aeac ). Would you be offended if I asked if there was any elements added to teh scene? Let's say I looked and saw shadow content, bit no long shadows cast by nearby objects and wondered about the position of the sun (shadow could be cast upwards by the mountain you are on for instance)?

Would you object to tagging this as "Photrio: Photography [<generalmethod> (<process descriptor)>]"?

Maybe as an artist you would not want to answer those questions or tag it. I think that wold be perfectly acceptable. I think a lot of people would be amenable to tagging as they do so informally often anyway.

You are producing amazing images! And yes it is the end product that matters ultimately.

 

[Billy Axeman]

I think 'Photrio Photographic Arts Standards' is too banal.
If you want to attract people with the right background and posture call it 'The Universal Photographic Arts Standards Association' or more frivolous (but still appealing) 'The Galactic Photographic Arts Standards Society'.

 

[faberryman]

This is all a ruse by straight photography film fanatics to get digital imagers to admit that their images are not real photographs. It's a rehash of Group f/64's effort to discredit the Pictorialists. What's next? Membership cards. A decal for your car window? A secret handshake?

 

[faberryman]

Ok. I accept that. Let's say I came across your website and saw this image ( http://niranjanpatel.zenfolio.com/p900617636#h6c82aeac ). Would you be offended if I asked if there was any elements added to teh scene? Let's say I looked and saw shadow content, bit no long shadows cast by nearby objects and wondered about the position of the sun?

I'd ignore you as some kind of nut case. The images speak for themselves.

 

[removed account4]

sounds like it might be interesting for people who need to follow rules and to be part of some group with a membership.
i add and subtrract things to my darkroom prints all the time. ill pass on your group, thanks.
good luck with your standards

 

[markjwyatt]

This is all a ruse by straight photography film fanatics to get digital imagers to admit that their images are not real photographs. It's a rehash of Group f/64's effort to discredit the Pictorialists.

Not in my case. I am mainly digital at this point, but still interested in film photography.

 

[markjwyatt]

I'd ignore you as some kind of nut case. The images speak for themselves.

They do. And they are not being represented as anything in particular beyond "monochrome: cotton". Note the use of a tag. Look familiar?

Anyone who takes an interest in a work beyond what is stated is a nut case?

 

[Bob Carnie]

sounds like it might be interesting for people who need to follow rules and to be part of some group with a membership.
i add and subtrract things to my darkroom prints all the time. ill pass on your group, thanks.
good luck with your standards

I am thinking the same kind of like camera club culture.

 

[removed account4]

I am thinking the same kind of like camera club culture.

yup ...
and i'll want absolutely nothing to do with that ...

 

[Billy Axeman]

Ah yes memories ... the camera clubs from the previous century with their formal hierarchy.

 

[MattKing]

I understand why some people feel the desire for these sorts of labels, because for the purposes of some discussions they aid in clarity.
And there are some fields of photography - journalism and scientific being examples - where the presence and nature of manipulations are relevant to the purpose for which the photographs were created.
But generally I don't feel the need to categorize a photograph in order to form an opinion of it.
I prefer the later versions of "Moonrise" to the earlier versions. The fact that the later ones required more work in the darkroom doesn't hurt my appreciation of them.
And I"m happy to see the results of high quality HDR when that technique is entirely appropriate for the subject (such as architectural work where interiors and exteriors need to be shown in juxtaposition).
There may be more value from efforts to standardize nomenclature (in order to aid discussion) than to standardize photographic categorization.

 

[faberryman]

It just dawned on me that the 90% of Photrio members who don't have Hybrid checked don't have the slightest idea this thread exists. Seems like you leaving a bunch of people out of the discussion.

 

[markjwyatt]

It just dawned on me that the 90% of Photrio members who don't have Hybrid checked don't have the slightest idea this thread exists. Seems like you leaving a bunch of people out of the discussion.

Isn't this a general forum? I am fairly new to Photrio, so not sure how everything works. This seemed the most appropriate place to put it.

 

[nmp]

Ok. I accept that. Let's say I came across your website and saw this image ( http://niranjanpatel.zenfolio.com/p900617636#h6c82aeac ). Would you be offended if I asked if there was any elements added to teh scene? Let's say I looked and saw shadow content, bit no long shadows cast by nearby objects and wondered about the position of the sun (shadow could be cast upwards by the mountain you are on for instance)?

Would you object to tagging this as "Photrio: Photography [<generalmethod> (<process descriptor)>]"?

Maybe as an artist you would not want to answer those questions or tag it. I think that wold be perfectly acceptable. I think a lot of people would be amenable to tagging as they do so informally often anyway.

You are producing amazing images! And yes it is the end product that matters ultimately.

I will probably react like faberryman.... If you ask me nicely, perhaps I will tell all about the photo. (Nothing added nor taken out in the Photo, by the way. Summer sunsets in India get so hazy that they barely cast shadows, a few minutes after the sun completely disappeared from the sky) And no I would not be personally interested in being branded/tagged one way or the other. Weird that only photographers ask how the photo was taken or what camera etc. Regular people just enjoy them. If they relate to it, they will buy it regardless of the process.

Thanks for the compliments, by the way.

:Niranjan.