New Group: Photrio Photographic Arts Standards

[markjwyatt]

The Wikipedia definition is clear and accurate. Really, if you don't know something as fundamental as what a digital negative is, you are probably not the best person to be instituting standards.

I am not intending to institute standards. I may be part of the process, but this is not about me per se. That is why I created a group. I was trying to understand the boundaries of a digital negative. One could scan a negative, invert it then go forward digitally or to ink jet or even enlarge to silver emulsion, and some might call all that "digital negative". I do not think many would agree that all of those processes are a digital negative. Clearly you do not even have to start with a analog or any negative .

 

[nmp]

Does scanning a negative, inverting digitally and color correcting for base color, then using that to go forward (various routes possible) fit digital negative? These are the kind of distinctions I am trying to capture.

Digital negative is "printed" on a transparent carrier from a digital file for the purpose of printing on a photosensitive substrate, usually in contact. Digital file in turn can be made from either analog or digital source.

 

[markjwyatt]

Digital negative is "printed" on a transparent carrier from a digital file for the purpose of printing on a photosensitive substrate, usually in contact. Digital file in turn can be made from either analog or digital source.

That is what the Wiki article conveys. Some people do refer to a RAW file as a "digital negative", and a lot of other people do get a bit upset! (hint) It would be cool if we could have an agreed upon language to communicate some of these ideas more precisely.

Photrio: Digital Negative [DNG file]
Photrio: Digital Negative [hybrid digital/analog process]

(each of these would have a description to be more clear as to what it conveys)

 

[faberryman]

One could scan a negative, invert it then go forward digitally or to ink jet or even enlarge to silver emulsion, and some might call all that "digital negative".

The could, but they would be using the wrong term. The term digital negative, as it is defined in Wikipedia, has been in the photographic lexicon for 20 years.

 

[nmp]

That is what the Wiki article conveys. Some people do refer to a RAW file as a "digital negative", and a lot of other people do get a bit upset! (hint) It would be cool if we could have an agreed upon language to communicate some of these ideas more precisely.

Photrio: Digital Negative [DNG file]
Photrio: Digital Negative [digital to analog process]

The DNG Digital Negative is a trade name of sorts. The other one is small d digital small n negative. DNG does not have to be a negative at all. They are positives as they come out of the cameras or converted from other raw formats. Adobe tried to get all camera manufacturers to follow this standard and failed.

Add: Adobe likes to screw with generic terms and adopt them. Like Lightroom, a play on darkroom.

 

[removed account4]

Maybe in Canadian French...

french french
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giclée

 

[markjwyatt]

The DNG Digital Negative is a trade name of sorts. The other one is small d digital small n negative. DNG does not have to be a negative at all. They are positives as they come out of the cameras or converted from other raw formats. Adobe tried to get all camera manufacturers to follow this standard and failed.

I have heard people just in general refer to any RAW file as a digital negative to signify that it replaced the film negative in purpose (i.e, the master image). I understand it does not meet the informal standard of many who understand the digital negative process.

Photrio: Digital Negative (RAW file master)

(may not work in many tagging systems unfortunately)

Photrio: Digital Negative [Adobe Std: DNG file]
Photrio: Digital Negative [hybrid digital/analog process]
Photrio: xxDigital Negativexx [RAW file master]

 

[faberryman]

I have heard people just in general refer to any RAW file as a digital negative to signify that it replaced the film negative in purpose (i.e, the master image). I understand it does not meet the informal standard of many who understand the digital negative process.

People misuse words all the time. That doesn't render them alternative definitions.

 

[markjwyatt]

People misuse words all the time. That doesn't render them alternative definitions.

Merriam and Webster may disagree with that. Though not yet (no entry, at least online) :https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/digital negative?src=search-dict-hed

...or at least Mr. Online Dictionary would: http://www.yourdictionary.com/digital-negative

"A RAW image camera format. Like film negatives, RAW files can be converted many times into different photos, while the original "negative" remains intact."

 

[Dali]

french french
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giclée

I rather trust my 56 years of French speaking than Wikipedia.

 

[Dali]

Photrio Photographic Arts Standards

The initial objective is to create a series of descriptions that can be used as tags on images on the internet, printed work, or wherever users want to use them. The purpose of the tags wold be to lead back to standards related to how images were created and post processed. The tags would indicate to the viewer in a non-judgemental way to what degree the image has fidelity to the original moment in time and space. It would help people decide for themselves whether the image meets their expectations for a photograph, a work of graphic arts, a composite image, etc.

The proposal would be to create a committee/committees to start defining things, then create standards and tags. If such adequate standards already exist, we could adopt them.

Are you really interested in knowing if the image you are looking at "has fidelity to the original moment in time and space"? What make you think it should be the case?

 

[Willyekerslike]

Sorry if it triggered you. Then again artists tend to be somewhat emotional!

No you did not trigger me as you choose to put it but I think maybe I hit the nail on the head as far as you are concerned with my last post.

Now man up and put it to a vote, I would be interested in seeing the level of support for your little club for rules.

 

[markjwyatt]

Are you really interested in knowing if the image you are looking at "has fidelity to the original moment in time and space"? What make you think it should be the case?

Not if they do, but to what degree they do or they deviate. I.e., how much modification.

 

[markjwyatt]

...

Now man up and put it to a vote, I would be interested in seeing the level of support for your little club for rules.

Let's give it a little time. A couple people have joined the group, and a lot of people have not seen this.

 

[Lachlan Young]

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

Exactly. What I want to know is the position on print retouching/ spotting...

 

[eddie]

Not if they do, but to what degree they do or they deviate. I.e., how much modification.

Does the knowledge that I burned down the corners for 8 seconds, dodged a tree in the lower right for 10 seconds, burned the sky for 20 seconds, bleached a puffy white cloud, and spotted out some trash in the foreground enhance the photo in any way? Do we need to post marked up test prints next to our finished work, like this?

 

[NedL]

Eddie. That's a great print. For a minute I wasn't here but lost in it instead. Wish I could see it in person.

 

[markjwyatt]

Exactly. What I want to know is the position on print retouching/ spotting...

I guess the group will have to formulate these things. I would suspect there would be categories (say Photrio: General Digital, or Photiro: General Photo-sensitive) that would encompass normal and general practices for the mediums without need for any additional details. Retouching and spotting is pretty normal for portraits, but some photographers do feel it is a significant modification. Perhaps Photrio: Photography[portraits] would have that covered? I am personally quite open.

 

[markjwyatt]

Does the knowledge that I burned down the corners for 8 seconds, dodged a tree in the lower right for 10 seconds, burned the sky for 20 seconds, bleached a puffy white cloud, and spotted out some trash in the foreground enhance the photo in any way? Do we need to post marked up test prints next to our finished work, like this?

View attachment 202816

I would say it falls under the rubrics of "normal" photo-sensitive procedures. I know you are having a little fun (and making a point), but I do not think it is required to post the marked image (though it may be instructive to other photographers). Nice image, by the way.

 

[eddie]

Eddie. That's a great print. For a minute I wasn't here but lost in it instead. Wish I could see it in person.

It's James Dean by Magnum photographer Don Stock, printed by Pablo Inirio, a master printer.

 

[markjwyatt]

It's James Dean by Magnum photographer Don Stock, printed by Pablo Inirio, a master printer.

Did he post the mark-up also?

 

[NedL]

It's James Dean by Magnum photographer Don Stock, printed by Pablo Inirio, a master printer.

Thanks

 

[eddie]

I would say it falls under the rubrics of "normal" photo-sensitive procedures. I know you are having a little fun (and making a point), but I do not think it is required to past the marked image (though it may be instructive to other photographers). Nice image, by the way.

How else would you be convinced that an image isn't overly-modified? Truthfully, the point I'm trying to make (and I sense a few others responding) is that it's too late to change the lexicon. Developing a "Photrio only" definition is a waste of time when most members stick to the definitions shared by the rest of the world. The last thing we need, if Photrio is to grow, is a secret language.

 

[nmp]

Did he post the mark-up also?

Check this...

https://petapixel.com/2013/09/12/marked-photographs-show-iconic-prints-edited-darkroom/

 

[markjwyatt]

How else would you be convinced that an image isn't overly-modified? Truthfully, the point I'm trying to make (and I sense a few others responding) is that it's too late to change the lexicon. Developing a "Photrio only" definition is a waste of time when most members stick to the definitions shared by the rest of the world. The last thing we need, if Photrio is to grow, is a secret language.

That is the purpose of tags and publishing the definition of the tags. It removes the secret language and if anything creates dialog (I think I can attest to that already). It also potentially clarifies things. Rather than arguing which of the three (and probably more actually) definitions of "Digital Negative" is correct, create a tag for each of them along with a simple definition.