New Group: Photrio Photographic Arts Standards

[removed account4]

Not "bad" at all. Just a heads-up:

The vast majority of "real photographers" have zero interest in street photography and wet darkrooms..they actually care enough to want to make their important images better.

I who said anything about "real photographers"? Street Photography or Wet Darkrooms ?
Your heads up wasn't much different than magazines from 1913 or pop photography giving tips on how to take better photographs with your Brownie.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Not "bad" at all. Just a heads-up:

The vast majority of "real photographers" have zero interest in street photography and wet darkrooms..they actually care enough to want to make their important images better.

And who died and appointed anyone the arbiter of what constitutes a "real" photographer? Depending on who you listen to, "professional" photographers are the only "real" photographers because they earn a living with their camera. Or "art" photographers are the only "real" photographers because they're pursuing a vision not enslaved to popular trends of "what sells". Etc, etc....

 

[removedacct1]

Not "bad" at all. Just a heads-up:

The vast majority of "real photographers" have zero interest in street photography and wet darkrooms..they actually care enough to want to make their important images better.

More photosnobbery. Ugh.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Yup!

 

[faberryman]

The vast majority of "real photographers" have zero interest in street photography and wet darkrooms..they actually care enough to want to make their important images better.

And street photographers who have wet darkrooms don't want to make their images better?

 

[awty]

Thats why I have zero interest in being a real photographer. Prefer just to make pictures unburden by others perceptions.
Hate heedless, bureaucracies always some bugger trying to make sure you have no fun.

 

[eddie]

And who died and appointed anyone the arbiter of what constitutes a "real" photographer?

It's just more of the same... For some reason, he feels the need to disparage the quality of the work in the galleries, as well as belittling the writing skills of members. I hope it makes him feel better about his work.

 

[removed account4]

It's just more of the same... For some reason, he feels the need to disparage the quality of the work in the galleries, as well as belittling the writing skills of members. I hope it makes him feel better about his work.

What can you do eddie, SSDD and all that jazz. As I said regarding the vid that he linked to, I think the tips she gave are spot on. I assisted photographing a fashion show decades ago and the weighted leg and body twist was front and center. And as we know there are rules to composition that some live by and some twerk for their own convenience, and the young lady in the video pretty much gave a composition, nothing wrong with that. Seeing she has a large subscriber/following base it means that there will be more pleasing photographs in the river. Personally I was sad she didn't talk about putting rabbit ears and wiskers on people, whenever I see portraits like that it makes me smile when the chips are down. Regarding real photographers? I can't remember who said it groucho? garo? but it has to do with not wanting to be a member of a club that asks me to be in its membership, or something like that.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Not "bad" at all. Just a heads-up:

The vast majority of "real photographers" have zero interest in street photography and wet darkrooms..they actually care enough to want to make their important images better.

And who died and appointed anyone the arbiter of what constitutes a "real" photographer? Depending on who you listen to, "professional" photographers are the only "real" photographers because they earn a living with their camera. Or "art" photographers are the only "real" photographers because they're pursuing a vision not enslaved to popular trends of "what sells". Etc, etc....

It's just more of the same... For some reason, he feels the need to disparage the quality of the work in the galleries, as well as belittling the writing skills of members. I hope it makes him feel better about his work.

He is just trolling down the river. When I ask him a direct question for clarification or information about one of his technical statements, he replies with insults. Reminds me of the dreaded two letter troll and we know what happened to him.

 

[Ron789]

I will think about how to go forward and carry on later this week.

... is what the OP posted 1 1/2 years ago. We have not heard of him since. I suppose this means this forum made sausage of his proposal. Shouldn't we close this thread by now?

 

[jtk]

Just curious: Does this thread's shocked! shocked! society listen 24x7 to officially authorized pop music?

 

[jtk]

It's just more of the same... For some reason, he feels the need to disparage the quality of the work in the galleries, as well as belittling the writing skills of members. I hope it makes him feel better about his work.

I don't recall belittling writing skills... nor "disparaging quality of work in the galleries." I've rarely (if ever?) said anything negative about Photrio's Media contributors.

A little honesty helps.

 

[jtk]

...as for "real photographers," the VAST MAJORITY of "real photographers" used their smartphones in the last few minutes to photograph their most recent restaurant meal or their infant or their closest friend.

 

[Bill Burk]

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.

Struck a chord with me too.

My favorite formal attire includes a solid red Pendleton shirt.

 

[pdeeh]

Wow is this thread still going?

 

[jtk]

Wow is this thread still going?

I'm sure some of us would like to see pdeeh's photos on Media.

 

[removed account4]

I'm sure some of us would like to see pdeeh's photos on Media.

Pdeeh's work was in the gallery for YEARS. probably removed it when his sub-lapsed.

===

Hi Mark ( OP )
I was wondering if you have thought about this thread a bit more?

While I was a bit of a loose cannon a bit ago when this thread first got a head of steam I do see some value in it. I think there is great interest in knowing how much post processing was used. but it can be a slippery slope trying to figure out how much pre-post processing is a little and how much is a lot. When this site was APUG these ideas were on my mind a lot and isn't hard to do a small excavation of my posts to see that to me at least I think it is nearly impossible to make a photograph with NO manipulation. I think Vaughn stated (and I am paraphrasing) in one thread that as soon as you put the camera on the tripod the image is manipulated ... so where does one draw a line between a little amount and a lot? If a photograph is to look like the scene when it is photographed, our eyes have a specific f-stop, deep DOF looks nothing like it is when we see it. We see fluid motion so what shutter speed should be used? (I haven't even scratched the surface of processing the film ( or using orthochromatic materials to give a certain look ) using Latent Image Manipulation techniques, or negative intensification baths, or certain developing to enhance grain or make it less noticeable). Does burning and dodging count what about contrast adjustment on black and white prints? ( Should I only photograph in color? I'm colorblind so my perception of color is a bit different than maybe yours. ) And lastly, presentation on certain materials, whether thay are hand coated or machine coated ( like Ilford's Fine Art paper ) or printed on one of NoddaDuma's Dry Plates ... please notice I have completely left out cameraless work or sunprints or retina prints. At a certain point it is virtually impossible, for me at least, to look at an image, no matter how it was conceived and turned into a physical object and even thought there was a mild form of manipulation used to make it.

John

ps. I looked at the discussion in the group but this thread seemed more the place to post my thoughts...

 

[jtk]

IMO the photographic print is the physical realization of a photographer's perception/idea.

I don't think method of production is at all relevant, even to the perpetual semantic games.

 

[removed account4]

IMO the photographic print is the physical realization of a photographer's perception/idea.

I don't think method of production is at all relevant, even to the perpetual semantic games.

This sounds OK for you but it seems for many people, including some galleries / museums out there, how something is made makes a difference. But for the OP and others that levels of manipulation makes a difference, where does one draw the line?

 

[faberryman]

This sounds OK for you but it seems for many people, including some galleries out there, and museums, how something is made makes a difference. But for the OP and others that levels of manipulation makes a difference, where does one draw the line?

No need to draw lines. Just do what you want to do.

 

[markjwyatt]

Pdeeh's work was in the gallery for YEARS. probably removed it when his sub-lapsed.

===

Hi Mark ( OP )
I was wondering if you have thought about this thread a bit more?

While I was a bit of a loose cannon a bit ago when this thread first got a head of steam I do see some value in it. I think there is great interest in knowing how much post processing was used. but it can be a slippery slope trying to figure out how much pre-post processing is a little and how much is a lot. When this site was APUG these ideas were on my mind a lot and isn't hard to do a small excavation of my posts to see that to me at least I think it is nearly impossible to make a photograph with NO manipulation. I think Vaughn stated (and I am paraphrasing) in one thread that as soon as you put the camera on the tripod the image is manipulated ... so where does one draw a line between a little amount and a lot? If a photograph is to look like the scene when it is photographed, our eyes have a specific f-stop, deep DOF looks nothing like it is when we see it. We see fluid motion so what shutter speed should be used? (I haven't even scratched the surface of processing the film ( or using orthochromatic materials to give a certain look ) using Latent Image Manipulation techniques, or negative intensification baths, or certain developing to enhance grain or make it less noticeable). Does burning and dodging count what about contrast adjustment on black and white prints? ( Should I only photograph in color? I'm colorblind so my perception of color is a bit different than maybe yours. ) And lastly, presentation on certain materials, whether thay are hand coated or machine coated ( like Ilford's Fine Art paper ) or printed on one of NoddaDuma's Dry Plates ... please notice I have completely left out cameraless work or sunprints or retina prints. At a certain point it is virtually impossible, for me at least, to look at an image, no matter how it was conceived and turned into a physical object and even thought there was a mild form of manipulation used to make it.

John

ps. I looked at the discussion in the group but this thread seemed more the place to post my thoughts...

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.

 

[faberryman]

What is the perceived need for these APUG standards? Not many people post in Media anyway, though there are quite a few regulars.

 

[markjwyatt]

What is the perceived need for these APUG standards? Not many people post in Media anyway, though there are quite a few regulars.

The hope would be that it moves beyond APUG, and helps spur discussion all over. ASME standards are used by many organizations, not just ASME. APUG could become [more] recognized as a standard bearer in photography. Many people may just adopt the APUG standards if they made sense, rather than create their own, or they may copy and modify them (likely it would become open source unless APUG wanted to try and own the standards and copyright protect them- this is something that could be discussed). Calling them APUG standards distinguishes them form other standards. For instance DPReview could create DPReview standards, and people may say, 'I like APUG standards better because APUG has a strong base of film and alternative process as well as digital users, and their standards have more depth'. Others may say, 'I prefer DPReview standards because APUG standards are stuck in the past...'.

 

[removed account4]

Hi Mark
I guess the way I see it is there might be a problem where one person's plain vanilla dodging and burning like it is "nothing" is another person's "over the top" so they might be too conservative or liberal the way they tag things ... that said, I do understand where you are coming from. Over the years APUG/PHOTRIO has been known ( for over a decade ) as THE place where analog/ non digital photography has been tops, and I think it would be interesting to have a series of tags that mean something rather than be just tags, and have it link back to this site. To be honest, whenever I tag things other places, or on my blog I really no clue and just make stuff up, but having the weight of someplace like APUG/PHOTRIO behind what the tags mean I think would be kind of fun, at least I won't be winging it as much LOL.
While I think it will be a monumental task to get others to go along with some of these tags ( maybe they will gain traction and it won't really be that hard? ) at least it will be fun.
Good luck with your efforts !

 

[faberryman]

I guess I can see analog photographers wanting digital photographers to adopt these "standards", but really who else cares if the digital post processing is a little or a lot. I don't see why digital photographers would want to adopt these standards, and they are the only ones who would be using them. Why are analog photographers adopting standards for digital photographers? No standards for themselves?