New Group: Photrio Photographic Arts Standards

[Pieter12]

The idea of arts standards is ridiculous. Art stands by its perception by the viewer, the public and the establishments of the day. Photographic art by definition is art made by light reacting with a substance to create an image of some sort.

 

[removed account4]

I guess I can see analog photographers wanting digital photographers to adopt these "standards", but really who else cares if the digital post processing was a little or a lot. I don't see why digital photographers would want to adopt these standards, and they are the only ones that would be using them.

Hi faberryman
I agree but at the same time I think there is a subset of film / analog photography people out there who really want and need to know how things are done. We saw that over the years on the 'PUG when there were endless threads about how much photoshop was too much, or if inverting a negative was "allowed". We also see tons of threads where people ask "how do i make a photograph that looks like this" IDK while I think that in a way it is sort of over the top, at the same time I think it is kind of fun to know that a tag or description means more than "#experimental/inverted xerox hand painted sunprint" might mean something more than what it looks like at face value.

 

[markjwyatt]

I think this is something that could grow over time, especially if the "film revolution" picks up steam. Many film users probably think about this, many dual (film and digital) probably do, most digital users probably do not, but if it got traction on Flickr and other places like that it could be interesting (if not fun).

 

[removed account4]

I think this is something that could grow over time, especially if the "film revolution" picks up steam. Many film users probably think about this, many dual (film and digital) probably do, most digital users probably do not, but if it got traction on Flickr and other places like that it could be interesting (if not fun).

You are probably right, but IDK, I was at an art fair, it must have been 10 years ago and there were these digital photographers there showing their beautiful scenics and animalia images. We got chatting and they both told me that they shoot full frame ( meaning they don't crop what images they have ) and they shoot as if the images were done on chrome film so they don't edit anything. I am not sure what editing software they use but they believed that as soon as you touched the image file it was the end, so they shared many of the same beliefs that straight film photographers do. Every image they had matted and framed was absolutely beautiful. Their beliefs were refreshing because most of the digital shooters I have ever met before and since then well, they treat their image file much like a film photographer treats a negative, as something to be tweaked and interpreted, a starting point for something new, not as the final product. My guess is maybe there are hidden pockets of digital shooters that are like these guys I met just like there are hidden pockets of film photographers who only shoot 4x5 superxx processed in abc pyro and contact print on azo with amidol... I think its great... how photography can be sort of cultish full of interesting fetishes!
and after its all said and done to me at least, its all the same .. a good time..

 

[Bill Burk]

In a print exchange, I received several prints that followed standards that are similar to the ones I follow. For me it was good to see that I was doing alright, some were clearly getting more out of the medium than I. One suggested the real differences between an enlargement and a contact print from 8x10. A few were done differently but the rules allowed it.

So the value of knowing how something is done for me.. is to see if I am on the path I want to be, or if there is a better way to consider.

 

[jtk]

In a print exchange, I received several prints that followed standards that are similar to the ones I follow. For me it was good to see that I was doing alright, some were clearly getting more out of the medium than I. One suggested the real differences between an enlargement and a contact print from 8x10. A few were done differently but the rules allowed it.

So the value of knowing how something is done for me.. is to see if I am on the path I want to be, or if there is a better way to consider.

Obviously, if no "standards" the viewer would be stuck with appreciating the image for itself. Seems like that's not a popular idea among film-only photographers.

After all, who wants to be responsible for responding to an image for itself, without all sorts of technical jabber?

And of course, if the point of "standards" has to do with online presentation, presumably we could ask questions?

The photographer might not want to answer questions. Maybe response to questions could be required by participation rules. Lots of folks do want rules....I guess.

 

[Pieter12]

Rather than "standards" it seems like what is being requested is a how-to for the image, the equivalent of metadata for the neg and post-production. Interesting, but not something that should be required. Photos in galleries and museums usually just specify the material used for the print.

 

[markjwyatt]

The word "standards" tends to evoke the idea of forcing someone to fit into a box. That is not the intention. For instance, let's say someone posts an image online that is digital and simulates a platinum print. But that person adds a tag #PlatinumPrint. Well according to APUG "standards", an accurate tag might be #[Digital: Simulate Platinum Print]. The hypothetical tag #PlatinumPrint would not be recognized [in consensus] by the APUG community as a platinum print. No one would deny that you could simulate the look of a platinum print, but it is not a platinum print because it involves no platinum chemistry in its creation (other than to model the simulation perhaps).

This is the use of the word "standard" I intend. Call it "truth in advertising". And again, @jtk, if an artist does not want to specify anything and wants the viewer to appreciate his work only based on the work itself with no supporting data, that is his prerogative. Some artists like to say 'this is a display of platinum prints'. Some may not want to specify, and just let the uniqueness speak for itself, but if you went to a gallery show with platinum prints, I would suspect that most of the time it will state that the prints are platinum. It is to the artistic and commercial benefit of the artist to point out that he went the extra mile to use platinum processes, but certainly his prerogative to not state this.

 

[jtk]

For years I've contributed to a letter-size B&W inkjet print Exchange. Every couple of months we all send a bunch of prints to the Exchange (number depends on how many have promised to send).

The only real rules are a) inkjet B&W b) letter size c) contribute on time per your promise d) share COMMENTS online on each print you get.

We sometimes have a dozen participants, which means a dozen prints from one file to our organizer. The organizer collates the prints and returns a dozen different prints to each of us...always excellent technically and often eye-opening. And we all benefit, to greater or lesser extent, by the comments each of us receive.

Plus, the rule that requires comments makes us think a bit about what we're seeing.

Comments are variously technical and aesthetic..never just technical, rarely highly opinionated...sometimes too brief but never the stupid "I like it" kind of thing and never "know it all" kind of thing. The point is for us to respond and receive responses that are worthy of good photographers. Quality of responses has evolved nicely over time.

 

[markjwyatt]

For years I've contributed to a letter-size B&W inkjet print Exchange. Every couple of months we all send a bunch of prints to the Exchange (number depends on how many have promised to send).

The only real rules are a) inkjet B&W b) letter size c) contribute on time per your promise d) share COMMENTS online on each print you get.

We sometimes have a dozen participants, which means a dozen prints from one file to our organizer. The organizer collates the prints and returns a dozen different prints to each of us...always excellent technically and often eye-opening.

Comments are variously technical and aesthetic...sometimes too brief but never the stupid "I like it" kind of thing and never "know it all" kind of thing. The point is for us to respond and receive responses that are worthy of good photographers. Quality of responses has evolved nicely over time.

Sounds like the basis for a skeleton set of "standards"! Are you willing to collate them and post them on the group?

 

[markjwyatt]

Here is a 1 carat ruby: $3920
Here is a 1 carat ruby: $100

What is the difference? In my personal view none, I accept synthetic gems, because both are actually rubies (in this specific case, the natural has better color, bit this is not always true...). BUT, I am not going to pay natural stone prices for a synthetic gem. There is a standard in the industry that one must state (inventing the standards tag):

#RubyNatural or #RubySynthetic

It matters. Both are based on aluminum oxide with appropriate coloring. They are not the same commercially nor from the basis of origin.

 

[removedacct1]

Here is a 1 carat ruby: $3920
Here is a 1 carat ruby: $100

What is the difference? In my personal view none, I accept synthetic gems, because bot are actually rubies (in this specific case, the natural has better color, bit this is not always true...). BUT, I am not going to pay natural stone prices for a synthetic gem. There is a standard in the industry that one must state (inventing the standards tag):

#RubyNatural or #RubySynthetic

It matters.

Certainly it matters when something is being commoditized: a buyer doesn't want to be sold a "fake" for "real item" prices. If we are talking about the selling of artwork, then it matters. If this is about determining "veracity of medium" here in context of this community, it matters to those who THINK it matters.

I think if you want to pursue a set of "standards" (the term has derogatory, snob aspects to which I object), then it should be of the "veracity test" sort, by which the photographer must volunteer process information in order to qualify for posting in a "verified sharing area". It seems that to some folks, having the artists they encounter pass a kind of veracity test is meaningful. I get that. Every day I see work posted on Instagram with the hashtag #wetplate or #tintype which has absolutely nothing to do with the wet plate process. But I would hate to see such an instrument turn into a tool by which people get segregated into a class of "lesser" photographers. I think there is plenty of room for things to go badly in that regard. Careful what you ask for.

 

[jtk]

Sounds like the basis for a skeleton set of "standards"! Are you willing to collate them and post them on the group?

Maybe I don't understand what you're asking. The two Exchange groups in which I've participated both had a volunteer organizer who physically collated prints. I think Photrio's format partially self-collates...some deny this, but I think Photrio Media tells us something about the technical and aesthetic qualities of Member contributions.

The inherent nature of contribution and sharing prints sets some of its own standards (in addition to the simple rules)....some people quit these print Exchanges because they prefer to talk about their latest camera and don't respect the comments of others on the physical prints they've received. Some quit because they don't get adequate comments. That's life among humans.

I quit one of my Exchanges after nearly 10 years because some participants insisted on camera brags and never commented usefully...

I only contribute to Exchanges BECAUSE I want comments..why would I (or anyone) send someone my prints if they wouldn't/couldn't respond?.

 

[removed account4]

Hi Mark

Many years ago my local starbucks had photographs of that looked like color PT/PD glass plate images. And to this day I have wondered if they were made by a digital simulation by layering images in photoshop so the end result looked like a gum-over PT/PD on glass or if they were the real thing. I can totally understand what the value might be to have some sort of visual cue that tells the viewer what it is they are looking at.

 

[faberryman]

I think if you want to pursue a set of "standards" (the term has derogatory, snob aspects to which I object), then it should be of the "veracity test" sort, by which the photographer must volunteer process information in order to qualify for posting in a "verified sharing area".

Veracity test? You can choose to believe what the photographer says or not. There are no image police to go around to everyone's house to see if they are lying or not.

 

[Pieter12]

And the point is? Get someone to share their technique? I think that's another subject altogether, maybe called learn the craft behind the picture, should not be a requirement.

 

[Bill Burk]

For years I've contributed to a letter-size B&W inkjet print Exchange. Every couple of months we all send a bunch of prints to the Exchange (number depends on how many have promised to send).

The only real rules are a) inkjet B&W b) letter size c) contribute on time per your promise d) share COMMENTS online on each print you get.

We sometimes have a dozen participants, which means a dozen prints from one file to our organizer. The organizer collates the prints and returns a dozen different prints to each of us...always excellent technically and often eye-opening. And we all benefit, to greater or lesser extent, by the comments each of us receive.

Plus, the rule that requires comments makes us think a bit about what we're seeing.

Comments are variously technical and aesthetic..never just technical, rarely highly opinionated...sometimes too brief but never the stupid "I like it" kind of thing and never "know it all" kind of thing. The point is for us to respond and receive responses that are worthy of good photographers. Quality of responses has evolved nicely over time.

But why not just share files?

 

[removed account4]

Veracity test? You can choose to believe what the photographer says or not.

good point ! whose to say the tags are going to be valid ( as suggested 8 pages back ) ...
there are a lot of grifters on the internet, and photography is sometimes their grift.

 

[Bill Burk]

But why not just share files?

I would say (if you answer that you want the physical print), it’s not a stretch from there to the idea that a nice print is worth holding, and then what you would like to see in a nice print.

 

[jtk]

I would say (if you answer that you want the physical print), it’s not a stretch from there to the idea that a nice print is worth holding, and then what you would like to see in a nice print.

I posted about prints. There is no such thing as analog online. Adding the "hold in hand" standard is irrelevant to the original online premise.

 

[Bill Burk]

jtk, as you often post ponderables, I am not sure what you mean.

I think of inkjet prints as digital output, so they don’t meet my analog standards. I allow them if that’s what others produce, but don’t produce them myself.

 

[jtk]

jtk, as you often post ponderables, I am not sure what you mean.

I think of inkjet prints as digital output, so they don’t meet my analog standards. I allow them if that’s what others produce, but don’t produce them myself.

Me, I don't think of photos as mere "output.". I see them as images.

 

[Bill Burk]

Me, I don't think of photos as mere "output.". I see them as images.

That’s why I would ask, could you trade computer files rather than prints? The chief benefit I imagine is the anticipation of receiving a package to open which you can enjoy without any computer.

But hey, maybe a file exchange wouldn’t be a bad idea where it’s the image that counts. This could solve some of the problems of a print exchange: the cost of printing, packaging and shipping two ways.

For the kinds of photos I most appreciate, a physical print is the only way to fly.

 

[Pieter12]

Me, I don't think of photos as mere "output.". I see them as images.

True, they are images, but mechanically-produced: many multiples of identical prints can be made. A darkroom print is the product of an artisan, dodged and burned, bleached and toned to his or her liking (or to the client's, depending), each one potentially unique..

 

[awty]

A good picture is a good picture, but one made by hand without computers is always special. Like a piece of furniture hand made by a crafts man, apposed to furniture designed on a computer and cut to size by a robot. You might be able to mass produce and make perfect furniture, but the hand made piece will always fetch a premium, if it is well made. Same will go with photography as less people make hand made prints, lots of people still appreciate low out put high quality unique items made by people.....I certainly do.