New Group: Photrio Photographic Arts Standards

[Mainecoonmaniac]

To the OP I think this whole idea stinks. I can hear the giggles now if something like this actually happened here. Sorry

I feel the same and I appreciate your honesty Bob.

 

[removedacct1]

To the OP I think this whole idea stinks.

I can imagine this turning into an acrimonious game of "Approved VS Rejected". That'd be useful, wouldn't it??!

 

[removed account4]

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?

LOL

 

[tedr1]

To the OP

Puzzlement over the veracity of photographic pictures is a natural response in the era of the smartphone and photoshop. Once upon a time things were different and the manipulation of images involved sufficient work to discourage the majority of amateur photographers who were satisfied if they were able to be proficient at cropping dodging and burning black and white pictures. A little study of the history of photography shows that manipulation of photographs in more complex ways for propaganda or profit began immediately following the invention of photography and has continued ever since. Recent developments have placed these abilities in the hands of everyone and even permit the automated production of "better" family snapshots by editing the picture so that the eyes of someone who blinked are replaced automatically by open eyes. Under these conditions confusion about veracity of pictures is understandable, and personally you have my sympathy, I learned photography in a simpler world when there was only film.

However I feel that the approach you recommend to us, of organizing a system of documentation for the processes that generated the picture, may be too complex for an organization like Photrio to accomplish. But more importantly I think it misses an important point, which is that in many cases it is impossible to know the veracity of a picture, and this uncertainty is not fatal to the appreciation of the picture for what it is, be it smartphone snapshot with edited eyes, fine-art masterpiece with dodging and burning, photoshopped online blog image, photoshopped commercial media production or whatever, it is a picture, a picture made by humans for a reason. For each individual the ability to deal with the question "why does that picture exist?" is in my opinion more useful and helpful than dealing with the question "how was that picture made?"

It seems to me you may be in search of mastery of the complex business of images, of which photography is small subset. I urge you to continue your quest, the path may take you into many interesting areas of experience, much may be learned about image making, and if the journey proves enjoyable this may be the most that can be expected. Bon Voyage.

 

[pdeeh]

As time goes on "photrio" seems increasingly strange to me.

Yes.

There are (is?) a handful of really out there threads at the moment ...

 

[Sirius Glass]

If one is going to set up a standard than why not make it ISO 9000 compliant?

 

[macfred]

Yes.

Yes +1

There are (is?) a handful of really out there threads at the moment ...

Too much for my taste. May be it's time to configure a special discussion board for those ...

 

[markjwyatt]

I am hearing the comments, and will consider what to do going forward. Apparently this is not too popular, and I suspect you misunderstand my intentions. I do understand with some of the resistance to it. In any case, I have been travelling the last few days (though I did manage to the some more important things like get some photography in). I am out again today, so I will think about how to go forward and carry on later this week.

 

[jtk]

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.

This sounds a lot like a certain president's confusion about the definition of "SEX."

A digital negative is AUTOMATICALLY a DNG file. It's a FILE TYPE, like TIFF or JPEG or PSD. This is literacy, not "secret language."

An inkjet transparency (or paper print) that's created for contact printing is a print or, arguably, an INTER NEGATIVE...not a NEGATIVE. This isn't "secret language".

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Standards in art? Really?

The only tags I need is "film" or "analog print" or "alternative".
The rest is not an art in my personal standards .
And we have entire gallery here to meet my simple standards.

So, to me all standards in art are in this gallery.

 

[pentaxuser]

Voluntary, then why bother?

Lets form a select committee to look into forming a feasibility study to consider thinking about investigating the idea to cogitate on scheduling a group to plan looking into to this idea!

How did an old dyed-in-the-wool British civil servant like you end up in California and don't say that you went because you'd heard that LSD was catching on and you assumed, wrongly as it turned out, that this was a move to restore the British currency following that tea incident in some East Coast harbour .

pentaxuser

 

[nmp]

Standards in art? Really?

The only tags I need is "film" or "analog print" or "alternative".
The rest is not an art in my personal standards .
And we have entire gallery here to meet my simple standards.

So, to me all standards in art are in this gallery.

Remind me not to vote for you for the Standards Committee.

 

[pdeeh]

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]

'raw' isn't an acronym or anything like, it should never need to be capitalised in this way.

Nor is it a file format in any commonly-used sense.

'raw' simply expresses that it is unprocessed data off the sensor (though in practice a raw file is preprocessed in-camera before it lands on your computer).

The coinage is probably from older Unix versions, where data was either 'raw' (just a data stream) or 'cooked' (data being (e.g.) displayed on a terminal).

In turn, I'd guess that the Unix nomenclature was a nod to the title of one of Claude Lévi-Strauss' books. The early Unix engineers were a well-read lot (note the Unix/Linux world of shells and daemons - almost certainly a nod to the Qlippoth, if not to the hells of Dante Alighieri.)

So, to summarise: 'raw', not 'RAW'.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Remind me not to vote for you for the Standards Committee.

Every committee which is trying to set standards on art reminds me commies buldozering art show in the park in Moscow.
Many artists who didn't met KGB and Party standards on arts ended up .... As recognized and successful artists in Westren World.
Chrushov yelled on Ernst Neizvestny for been not in the arts standards and ... Ernst Neizvestny made statue of Chrushev on Chrushev last place on Earth.

Dosvidanya tovarish N.

 

[jtk]

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.

It would be anti-creative, actively hurtful, to "help people" with "their expectations."

 

[bernard_L]

142 posts and counting. Them people should be out burning film or in the lab printing.

 

[nmp]

Every committee which is trying to set standards on art reminds me commies buldozering art show in the park in Moscow.
Many artists who didn't met KGB and Party standards on arts ended up .... As recognized and successful artists in Westren World.
Chrushov yelled on Ernst Neizvestny for been not in the arts standards and ... Ernst Neizvestny made statue of Chrushev on Chrushev last place on Earth.

Dosvidanya tovarish N.

I was simply trying to show the irony in your statements. On one hand you decry "standards in arts" which I completely agree. Also agree with everything above. However, although you are entitled to your opinion, you do not think anyone who is producing a digital print is an artist. Isn't that your own attempt to define what is and what is not art?

 

[Sirius Glass]

This thread is a self eating watermelon.

 

[ReginaldSMith]

@bernard_L

Out burning film and wasting electrons here.

 

[winger]

To the OP

Puzzlement over the veracity of photographic pictures is a natural response in the era of the smartphone and photoshop. Once upon a time things were different and the manipulation of images involved sufficient work to discourage the majority of amateur photographers who were satisfied if they were able to be proficient at cropping dodging and burning black and white pictures. A little study of the history of photography shows that manipulation of photographs in more complex ways for propaganda or profit began immediately following the invention of photography and has continued ever since. Recent developments have placed these abilities in the hands of everyone and even permit the automated production of "better" family snapshots by editing the picture so that the eyes of someone who blinked are replaced automatically by open eyes. Under these conditions confusion about veracity of pictures is understandable, and personally you have my sympathy, I learned photography in a simpler world when there was only film.

However I feel that the approach you recommend to us, of organizing a system of documentation for the processes that generated the picture, may be too complex for an organization like Photrio to accomplish. But more importantly I think it misses an important point, which is that in many cases it is impossible to know the veracity of a picture, and this uncertainty is not fatal to the appreciation of the picture for what it is, be it smartphone snapshot with edited eyes, fine-art masterpiece with dodging and burning, photoshopped online blog image, photoshopped commercial media production or whatever, it is a picture, a picture made by humans for a reason. For each individual the ability to deal with the question "why does that picture exist?" is in my opinion more useful and helpful than dealing with the question "how was that picture made?"

It seems to me you may be in search of mastery of the complex business of images, of which photography is small subset. I urge you to continue your quest, the path may take you into many interesting areas of experience, much may be learned about image making, and if the journey proves enjoyable this may be the most that can be expected. Bon Voyage.

This says all of the non-snarky things I've been thinking while reading this thread. Thank you, Ted, for writing it so well. As for my snarlier answers, I'll just say I'm in agreement with jnanian and Bob Carnie. FWIW, I'm a member of the Photographic Society of America - they organize competitions (print as well as projected images), help out member camera clubs, and many other things. I'm in charge of some round robin style print groups where the portfolio gets mailed around and we each make comments on each others' prints. I do my best to shake up the groups with out-of-the-camera-club type of shots. If any group were going to codify the definitions of words commonly used in photography and try to get photographers to use tags for every image, it would be PSA. No, I don't see it happening.

 

[faberryman]

What is a camera club type of shot?

 

[MattKing]

What is a camera club type of shot?

Red canoes are really important - at least in the Canadian (CAPA) versions.
Immediate impact is probably the most important characteristic, because people/judges rarely get much time with any particular "image" (I use "image" because so much of what is viewed now is viewed on a screen). Camera clubs rarely seem to accommodate series or collections of prints.

 

[winger]

Red canoes are really important - at least in the Canadian (CAPA) versions.

In the club I was in in New England, it was fur, feathers, and lighthouses. In that club, the quality level was very high at least. In a group I joined somewhere else, HDR was "in" and for any subject. Overall, yes, it's the initial impact of a shot that gets the higher scores in most camera clubs. If there's much thought required to "get" the photo, it won't do as well.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

I was simply trying to show the irony in your statements. On one hand you decry "standards in arts" which I completely agree. Also agree with everything above. However, although you are entitled to your opinion, you do not think anyone who is producing a digital print is an artist. Isn't that your own attempt to define what is and what is not art?

I'm just very simple and honest person. I'm taking all addressed to me as is, straight. I'm an villager, I live in subdivision known as Village.

And in same simple honesty I addressed OP (marked as digital) attempt to regulate what is standards in art with how I feel.
I'm just not finding digital photography as an art. I'm digital photog as well. I see use for it for commercial, product, macro and even documentary. Or just for the wall print.
But not as an art. To see art I'm going to Galleries and Museums. To see mostly paintings as art, but I'm even more excited to see prints from Bob Carnie or George Zimbel own photos prints or Garry Winogrand prints. And Phortio Symposium recent collective show. Those are art.

I used to be computer graphics artist. I'm not considering it as an art either.

 

[ReginaldSMith]

Red canoes are really important - at least in the Canadian (CAPA) versions.
Immediate impact is probably the most important characteristic, because people/judges rarely get much time with any particular "image" (I use "image" because so much of what is viewed now is viewed on a screen). Camera clubs rarely seem to accommodate series or collections of prints.

The 'red canoe' me laugh out loud. I'm very familiar with PSA photographs. Often there is all punch and no substance. When you see them all in a string, like their monthly PDF they send out. You can see how hard it might be to out-impact each other. If I recall, "impact" is the most important quality of the image.