• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

New Group: Photrio Photographic Arts Standards

markjwyatt said:
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.
Click to expand...
Maybe you need to do a poll on what people define as a digital negative. I think we (and the rest of the world) define it as a digital output on a plastic substrate for the purpose of allowing the creation of non-digital images.
 
Arguing for a narrow definition of photography and a broad definition of digital negative seems a bit odd.
 
markjwyatt said:
Not if they do, but to what degree they do or they deviate. I.e., how much modification.
Click to expand...

Modification to what? A picture already intrinsically departing from reality? What are you looking for? Appreciating pictures for what they offer or put pictures and photographers in little tagged boxes with the feeling to do a service to a community who took billions of pictures without knowing what they were really doing (where is the tag?) for the last century an a half? Pathetic.
 
faberryman said:
Arguing for a narrow definition of photography and a broad definition of digital negative seems a bit odd.
Click to expand...

Not sure I am arguing for a narrow definition of photography (starting point is moment in time/space I guess. That could be considered narrow). And anything that is my opinion is my opinion. It would not be me that decides on any definition. More like a consensus of practitioners.
 

So if there is a blank sky in the original image, but the final print has amazing clouds and lightning that is not a modification? I see that in the digital world at least. It is more difficult in the darkroom, but far from impossible.
 
I have just read through this entire thread, and I now need a shot of very strong coffee to... never mind.

The term "tosser" comes repeatedly to mind...
 
Dali said:
I rather trust my 56 years of French speaking than Wikipedia.
Click to expand...
My understanding is that "giclee" is a slang term for a particular type of "spurt".
 
markjwyatt said:
I would rather have you assist and lead
Click to expand...

I don't think there's a definitive answer to what "Fine Art" is in Photography or any other art, in factmany can't grasp what Art is in itself. I'm just reading Charlotte Cotton = The Photograph as Contemporary Art. I think the term Contemporary art is more useful than Fine Art, Charlotte is creative director of the Nationla Museum, has worked for leading US institution sand also the Photographers Gallery in London so well versed in the field.

To me the term Fine Art is just a way of saying I'm working to the highest standards i can achieve, what's more important is how one's work is seen by others, how it sit's alongside the work of other photographers. Of course academically I have had to write about the work of others as well as my own work, and the term Contemporary sits well here/

Back in the UK I have a book The Photograph as Fine Art, I'd be interested to see how they define Fine Art,

Ian
 
markjwyatt said:
I would rather have you assist and lead
Click to expand...

I don't think there's a definitive answer to what "Fine Art" is in Photography or any other art, in factmany can't grasp what Art is in itself. I'm just reading Charlotte Cotton = The Photograph as Contemporary Art. I think the term Contemporary art is more useful than Fine Art, Charlotte is creative director of the Nationla Museum, has worked for leading US institution sand also the Photographers Gallery in London so well versed in the field.

To me the term Fine Art is just a way of saying I'm working to the highest standards i can achieve, what's more important is how one's work is seen by others, how it sit's alongside the work of other photographers. Of course academically I have had to write about the work of others as well as my own work, and the term Contemporary sits well here/

Back in the UK I have a book The Photograph as Fine Art, I'd be interested to see how they define Fine Art,

Ian
 

I agree, it's an aesthetic approach rather than a standard, and perhaps needs defining that way.

Ian
 
Dali said:
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?
Click to expand...

I would modify this to the question "What makes you think this could be the case?"

As to the general thrust of the proposal ... well, I think I'll just just leave it as 'no comment'.
 
Nodda Duma said:
Lol! I would expect nothing less of you! Saying what everyone else is thinking.
Click to expand...
i started tagging my images NSFW ( adult content ) a while ago for a while those tags got me more "hits"
im going to start tagging mystuff like that again.

OP,
my work whether it is film based or digital based is not based on truth
even when it is social or urban or architectural documentation.
there is no such thing.

good luck with your project !
 
markjwyatt said:
So if there is a blank sky in the original image, but the final print has amazing clouds and lightning that is not a modification? I see that in the digital world at least. It is more difficult in the darkroom, but far from impossible.
Click to expand...
google Gerry Uellsman... for floating objects in space
 

Kind of like click-baits at the bottom of a web page, the content has nothing to with the picture (not that I know first hand.)

Half the time, you don't even use a camera...where does that fit in?
 
markjwyatt said:
The standards are not intended to define "real photography", rather give the public the information they need to understand how modified an image may be (analogous to food labeling).
Click to expand...

Maybe a warning could be "Warning, this scanned silver gelatin print may be burned and/or dodged. Some Farmer's reducer can be used to enhance shadow detail." I think modifying an image is what makes photography fun. To me, a standard is TMI.
 
Mainecoonmaniac said:
Maybe a warning could be "Warning, this scanned silver gelatin print may be burned and/or dodged. Some Farmer's reducer can be used to enhance shadow detail." I think modifying an image is what makes photography fun. To me, a standard is TMI.
Click to expand...

Not sure that would be considered “modified” under the rubrics of film photography. Now, add a house to the central focus of an image. That would likely be considered a modification.
 
markjwyatt said:
Not sure that would be considered “modified” under the rubrics of film photography. Now, add a house to the central focus of an image. That would likely be considered a modification.
Click to expand...
To the OP I think this whole idea stinks. I can hear the giggles now if something like this actually happened here. Sorry
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register