New Group: Photrio Photographic Arts Standards

[Dali]

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.

Do you see with your own eyes within a frame? Do you see in black and white? Do you see still or moving reality? Does the perspective of what you see change or not when you move? Do you hear sound related to what you see or disconnected to it? And I could go on and on to show you that a picture is remotely linked to reality when you experience it. Now, is there a little more or a little less cloud, a very few cares as what you see hung on the wall is already kind of artificial.

 

[ozphoto]

How can one regulate a standard for what is art and what is not?
Everyone sees art and photography differently and trying to create specific "boxes" in which to place peoples creations, is IMHO an impossible venture.

Photrio already has some "standards" for posting - analog, hybrid, digital; it caused some horror amongst some members that these would be integrated into the one forum, changing what APUG was (and still is, mind you). Now think of a group of people deciding to be the advocates of what makes a picture right and what makes a picture wrong, to all and sundry.

The freedom to express ourselves in our own way, is what allows us to create imagery as we see fit, sure some of it ruffles (a lot!) of feathers, some not so much. However, if we start to implement "standards" of what is right/wrong/correct/incorrect, the joy and freedom that artists feel when creating their art will be stifled. Instead of creating individual art, we might as well just produce artworks/photographs as a "create by numbers" effort.

We already have some "standards" that help create aesthetically pleasing images - the rule of thirds comes to mind, but sometimes breaking those rules makes for a stronger image or one that really stands out. For me, standards are for safety, manufacturing or employment - applying it to the creative arena defeats the purpose of creating.

Just my 2c (2.2c including GST)

 

[MattKing]

I can think of a number of fields where established photographic standards in respect of the accuracy of representation are or would be useful.
But not in the field of Art.

 

[jtk]

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.

I've never lived in a "subdivision" so maybe my understanding of "art" is more metropolitan or rural.
Ko.Fe, I've visited your Flikr...which of your images do you consider "art" and which are not-art according to your rules? Are they all "art?"

 

[faberryman]

And Phortio Symposium recent collective show. Those are art.

The Photorio Symposium group show was an alternative process show, which included silver gelatin as an alternative process. May of the images shown were derived from digital negatives and other digital processes. Would you exclude those?

 

[Sirius Glass]

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.

 

[ReginaldSMith]

+1 on the Red Canoe!

 

[jtk]

Standards in the food industries are important because peoples lives can depend on them......art is subjective......think anout it.

Yes. The problem with the "standards" idea is that it began with prejudiced notions... it is anti-art. Terrible idea.

That Photoshop and digital photography are somehow antithetical to art is a notion that is nearly exclusive to a shrinking subset of Photrio Members.

That professional photographers are somehow not "artists", and that commercial photographs are somehow not "art" demonstrates that the idea springs from ignorance: the resulting authoritarian mindset.

 

[removed account4]

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.

it is more than that .. its a negative that was made with the assistance of a computer, that is about it ..
i regularly make digital negatives at a xerox shop on PAPER not film ...

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?

thing is that every person on the planet perceives every moment in reality differently... depending on their
life experiences .. so in essence reality is pretty much an illusion we create for ourselves ...
the B-52s sang the song "private idaho" about just this ...

Half the time, you don't even use a camera...where does that fit in?

not sure i would fit in at all, unless there were standards set forth that have to do with cameraless photography .
its kind of the problem the minutemen had decades ago ... they were part of a larger group who said
" hey they don't look like us, dress like us or sound like us, why are they here" ...

i've haven't added false tags or nsfw to my work
instead i upload everything as a "hybrid image" seeing it gets online with a scanner..

vive la résistance!

 

[removedacct1]

Yes. The problem with the "standards" idea is that it began with prejudiced notions... it is anti-art. Terrible idea.

That Photoshop and digital photography are somehow antithetical to art is a notion that is nearly exclusive to a shrinking subset of Photrio Members.

That professional photographers are somehow not "artists", and that commercial photographs are somehow not "art" demonstrates that the idea springs from ignorance the resulting authoritarian mindset.

Exactly.

 

[removed account4]

That Photoshop and digital photography are somehow antithetical to art is a notion that is nearly exclusive to a shrinking subset of Photrio Members.

digital / hybrid were never a large population here and were often slammed on apug.
many film users are intimidated by a variety of things ... its unfortunate and not only digital related

That professional photographers are somehow not "artists", and that commercial photographs are somehow not "art" demonstrates that the idea springs from ignorance: the resulting authoritarian mindset.

sure there are people who say that including some commercial photographers. people say all sorts of ©r@p!
and its all a bunch of nonsense.

 

[Arklatexian]

Photrio Photographic Arts Standards

This group proposes the creation of a set of standards that can be used by Photrio members and encourage other to use to convey the nature of the photographic work they are presenting. An example of such standards are the f/64 group; though I am not proposing rigid standards of this type (there could be a class as such within the 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 idea would be to use the tags ourselves (on Flickr, photo-sharing sites, social media, print, what ever); have links to pages where the tags and the standards they represent are defined; to encourage other people to use the tags, and to lead them to the descriptions.

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).

The tags could describe general classes of modification (say "Photrio Level1"). They could indicate specific features, e.g., "Photrio: Content added subtle", "Photrio Content added significant", "Photrio: Clouds added", etc. People with special interests could create standards for their own classes, e.g., "Photrio: f/64 digital equivalent".

Clearly this is most useful for images ultimately distributed digitally, but could also be used for gallery prints etc. (say in the description).

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.

I believe, if you check their website, you will find that the Photographic Society of America has already done most of that over the past hundred years or so. Of course, while embracing some f64 restraints they may also cover (I'll whisper this: "Pictorial") as well........Regards!

 

[Arklatexian]

View attachment 203058

Unfortunately, while red canoes are funny to some people and impact is, perhaps, over used, a picture with no "impact" stands a much better chance of being ignored by viewers looking for something other than how big the grain is and other technical stuff. They may be looking for "what made the photographer take this picture? What did he/she see that I am not seeing? But first something needs to catch their attention and that, my friends is usually "Impact". When we had a Salon here, we took turns watching the accepted prints (yes, people do steal them). We all noticed that some prints caused people to stop and take another look. These were the prints with "impact". Laugh all you want but these were people off the street, not photographers. Hopefully people, other than just photographers, will look at your pictures.. Oh, also, sales of any of these pictures was very rare. The picture thieves were mostly after nudes so we watched them the closest and we laughed (to ourselves) when the little old ladies would see a nude, study it closely, and then burst out loud laughing.. We never knew why........Regards!

 

[Tony Egan]

Post your Canadian red canoes here?

 

[LaurentMartin]

A Worldview gifts

 

[OptiKen]

"We have no art. We do everything as beautifully as we can."
Balinese saying

 

[Pieter12]

Artlessness can sometimes be art. But process alone is not art--be it film, alternate process, or digital or other manipulation.

 

[awty]

Artlessness can sometimes be art. But process alone is not art--be it film, alternate process, or digital or other manipulation.

I agree, but how do you discuss with people the difference without getting into a fist fight?
Photographers are so touchy.
Regulation stifles creativity.

 

[Eric Rose]

It seems all this is important to the OP. I encourage him to apply himself to it and see where it takes him. Personally I see no use for it in my world however it would be interesting to see what the OP comes up with.

 

[jtk]

Artlessness can sometimes be art. But process alone is not art--be it film, alternate process, or digital or other manipulation.

That idea doesn't seem to be widely embraced on Photrio.

 

[jtk]

I prefer to think of photographs as photographs, often better than "art", which itself is usually worse than "art."

 

[jtk]

digital / hybrid were never a large population here and were often slammed on apug.
many film users are intimidated by a variety of things ... its unfortunate and not only digital related


sure there are people who say that including some commercial photographers. people say all sorts of ©r@p!
and its all a bunch of nonsense.

 

[removed account4]

Not sure what that was about, were her tips "bad"? I don't think so, I think EVERYTHING she said was pretty much spot-on. I made sure to subscribed to her feed, and I gave her a big thumbs up. The funny thing is the TITLE of her vid. The things she suggested to do are basic composition "skillz" if you know them and a secret if you never learned them, kind of sort of like always using FILL FLASH on your point and shoot camera. ©R@P, I should have a vid for that.

 

[jtk]

Not sure what that was about, were her tips "bad"? I don't think so, I think EVERYTHING she said was pretty much spot-on. I made sure to subscribed to her feed, and I gave her a big thumbs up. The funny thing is the TITLE of her vid. The things she suggested to do are basic composition "skillz" if you know them and a secret if you never learned them, kind of sort of like always using FILL FLASH on your point and shoot camera. ©R@P, I should have a vid for that.

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.

 

[Brendan Quirk]

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.

People do what they do. They may not think your prescriptions result in better images. Do you argue oil vs. acrylic?