Photograph

Photograph. This is the label given on most of the lens-captured images at a recent exhibition I attended, by 5 different photographers. What does it mean?

I was told by the attendant that the composite images printed on canvas (with what appeared to be inks/pigments) were made by some sort of digital process-she seemed to beam as she said this, as if it were oh so hip and sophisticated. They were very nice looking, but I wanted to know more and no more could be found out.

The ones not labelled Photograph were labeled Archival Photograph. What does that one mean?

I'm afraid I know what it means. I'm afraid the word photograph has become completely meaningless, like saying you just ate some "food".

g'day Wayne

how about; a photograph is the physical representation of an image created when reflected light is captured by any means

LOL, I agree. That seems to happen with things in mainstream marketing. When I moved into the picture framing business I discovered the same problem, possibly worse. Most mats are not 4-ply or any ply at all, acid free often only means temporarily acid free (the mat is given tums) and of course the word archival is now completely meaningless. I still use it in my companies marketing because the other companies have trained the public to look for it even though few really know what it is supposed to mean. Even simple words like “sale” are often meaningless since many place just markup the merchandise and have a 50% sale 365 days a year. There was a carpet store down the street from my house that appeared to be going out of business for a number of years. It turns out that the name of the business is actually “going out of business” and they have a permanent sign.

Cheers,
Mark

Lots of BS in the art world, for sure.

My favourite is the term "giclee" instead of inkjet.

According to several sources, it is a term likely originally chosen from a dictionary by someone who doesn't speak French. In French, it is a slang word for ejaculation. Heh, heh ....

In the interests of ethics, a buyer should know how a piece of art was produced. If the print is an inkjet, it's an inkjet. If it is a traditional print, the buyer should know that. If it is B&W silver print, the buyer should know if it is fiber or RC. etc. etc.

All the BS terms just suggest that the seller isn't comfortable telling the truth.

jpeets said:

Lots of BS in the art world, for sure.

My favourite is the term "giclee" instead of inkjet.

According to several sources, it is a term likely originally chosen from a dictionary by someone who doesn't speak French. In French, it is a slang word for ejaculation. Heh, heh ....

In the interests of ethics, a buyer should know how a piece of art was produced. If the print is an inkjet, it's an inkjet. If it is a traditional print, the buyer should know that. If it is B&W silver print, the buyer should know if it is fiber or RC. etc. etc.

All the BS terms just suggest that the seller isn't comfortable telling the truth.

Click to expand...

Well put. And thanks because I didn't even know what Giclee was supposed to mean (inkjet, eh).

Some computer nerd could probably do well to put out a Digital-English dictionary so that those of us who don't live in front of a monitor can know what all that truly awesome (sarcasm) stuff really is.
As far as I'm concerned Cookies are something I eat with milk.

Every other piece of art said "watercolor" or "oil" or "aluminum and glass". Why should photography be different? And more importantly, why do digital users feel such a need to obfuscate their methodology? Because that is what is behind this disturbing (apparent) trend. I'm willing to bet there wasnt a single analog print among those displayed. With almost 30,000 members you'd think we could do something about this. Or am I the only one who cares?

Wayne

I was in a gallery and informed the owner that since the print was a giclee, I couldn't spend a significant amount of money on an inkjet print which would easily fade...her face was priceless.

Gary Holliday said:

I was in a gallery and informed the owner that since the print was a giclee, I couldn't spend a significant amount of money on an inkjet print which would easily fade...her face was priceless.

Click to expand...

whatever the print is termed it's just a label for the object, a monochrome wet processed print may well be correctly labelled "silver gelatin", but that is no guarantee of quality or longetivity if it wasn't created and processed "properly"

Gary Holliday said:

I was in a gallery and informed the owner that since the print was a giclee, I couldn't spend a significant amount of money on an inkjet print which would easily fade...her face was priceless.

Click to expand...

To put a finer point on it, "giclee" has been adopted in some circles as a term for inkjet reproductions of art works originally produced in other media, i.e. oils, acrylics, etc.

I have to take issue with the fade comment, though. At the risk of a some heated debate, I will simply note that most major art institutions (i.e. major galleries like the MOMA and Chicago Art Institute) embrace inkjet prints for their collections. They are not considered ephemera.

I know that properly treated B&W, fiber-based silver prints are still the gold standard, simply because they have been around so long. Under identical accelerated testing conditions, properly printed pigment prints do better than any other color printing medium. I recently saw a photo exhibition at a fairly big-name gallery in which color prints from the 60's were in appalling condition.

Bottom line still is, let the buyer know what they are buying, and be honest when educating less than sophisticated buyers.

Wayne is right to be disconcerted about the dubious passing off of realistic looking pictures as photographs.

And Ray Heath has made a strong attempt to clarify the identity of photography in a succinct manner; Quote: "how about; a photograph is the physical representation of an image created when reflected light is captured by any means": Unquote. This is close to what we need, a simple, rigorous and unambiguous understanding of what a photograph IS.

For a long time I thought along the lines of what Ray suggests until I painted myself into an intellectual corner. Why aren't ALL pictures of things photographs?

Consider the following. The first step in making pictures of things is invariably light hitting a sensitive surface. Up until the 19th century that light sensor was an organic 100 Megapixel (more or less) multi-element device with lens, variable aperture, and focussing capability. I refer, of course, to the human eye. The modern digital camera is a remarkable mechanisation of what the eye has always done and it works the same way: an image is captured (retina capture), divided into stimulus values (retinal processing), signals are sent up a cable (optic nerve equivalent) and filed in memory (brain equivalent).

As Wayne says there seems to be a trend, formal or informal, to declare any picture originating from a camera, analog or electronic, a photograph. This includes such diverse species as a news-paper picture, ink-jet print, or a monitor display. And it doesn't seem to matter how far along the picture is in the chain of production. If there is a camera at the front end then everything downstream from there is a photograph.

Well the eye is a digital camera, albeit an organic one, so everything downstream of that first glimpse of the subject should be a photograph! Gosh, even the Mona Lisa could be a photograph!

Maybe the way out of this imbroglio is to declare all pictures originating from INORGANIC light sensors true photographs and all pictures originating from ORGANIC light sensors paintings, drawings, whatever. But I suspect that this clumsy ad hoc excuse making generates more absurdities than it removes and it also ignores what lies at the heart of photography itself. And it is not cameras.

Here’s my attempt at a succinct declaration: “A photograph is an object that bears a picture composed of marks caused in its surface by the impact of light.”

The central principle is that light, “photos”, makes marks, “graphos”. All the works of Louis Daguerre, Margaret Cameron, Paul Strand, Edward Weston, Ansel Adams, Diane Arbus, and all the other greats fit this criterion. None are excluded. And as far as I can see there are no ambiguities about it.

Wayne, or Ray Heath, or I can go into a gallery, point at a picture and ask “Is this the thing that was struck by light that caused the marks that make the picture?” If the answer is yes then it’s a photograph, if no then it’s something else; no ifs, no buts, no maybes.

More so than defining what a photograph is, I'd rather just see some standards/expectation implemented whereby persons exhibiting work and purporting to be photographers provide a simple explanation of their process so we can decide what to call it and them. It doesnt seem like too many people are concerned about it though, even here on APUG. Maybe it has been discussed to death already or something, or maybe the cause has been given up as hopeless or pointless. It seems like 30,000 analog photographers could have some effect on this trend if they were so inclined.

Wayne

I like Herschel's definition, as it comes closest to saying what the word literally means: writing with light. And his coining of the term suggests to me that, aside from his lack of understanding of how the human optic system works, he was making an apparent distinction between biological vision and this new thing, writing by the direct chemical action of light, an artificial process.

So my personal use of the term 'photography' applies to a photograph being very much related to the action of light upon a light-sensitive surface or media.

Photographic reproductions are just that, reproductions; whether by halftone, duotone or other printing techniques; although some of these methods do employ light sensitive media as intermediary steps to the finished mechanical reproduction, so there are some gray areas (no pun intended.)

I would expect a reproduction of an oil painting in a gallery to state that it was a reproduction, and not merely say "painting"; likewise, I would like a graphic arts reproduction of a photographic image to also indicate its media of reproduction. I can live with the term 'giclee', since I know it's art-speak for 'not silver gelatin'.

But I understand both media enough to know that images of photographic origin, edited via graphic arts software and printed via mechanical reproduction, are what they are. They can appear to be mechanical reproductions of photographic images (i.e. they can be very good simulations); or you can insert Bart Simpson atop Ansel's Halfdome image and print it using the same technology, and it suddenly becomes less photographic, and more like what it really is: mechanically reproduced graphic arts.

~Joe

Wayne said:

More so than defining what a photograph is, I'd rather just see some standards/expectation implemented whereby persons exhibiting work and purporting to be photographers provide a simple explanation of their process so we can decide what to call it and them. It doesnt seem like too many people are concerned about it though, even here on APUG. Maybe it has been discussed to death already or something, or maybe the cause has been given up as hopeless or pointless. It seems like 30,000 analog photographers could have some effect on this trend if they were so inclined.

Wayne

Click to expand...

Until the creators of certain media grow up and embrace what they create, instead of insisting that they are creating the same as what others create in other media, that will never happen.

Dont you think they need some help growing up?

I read the artists bio and it turns out Archival Photograph means Archival Pigment Inks applied with an Epson 4000. He says "This new medium has imbued my work with exciting new possibilities". He also say nothing about his capture method so we can assume he is ashamed to admit it.


Wayne

Wayne said:

Dont you think they need some help growing up?

I read the artists bio and it turns out Archival Photograph means Archival Pigment Inks applied with an Epson 4000. He says "This new medium has imbued my work with exciting new possibilities". He also say nothing about his capture method so we can assume he is ashamed to admit it.


Wayne

Click to expand...

That is an unknown. What is common these days is to say "It doesn't matter."

However it seems up front about the printing method, so I say no foul. You can't ask for too much more. My printing is described in an "about the prints" section, but it could have been done just as easily in the bio.

I think that providing the information for people who care is just good marketing. It doesn't affect those who don't care.

FWIW when I offered both silver prints and ink jets of the same image, I couldn't give away the ink jets. If they liked the image they went for the silver every time.

Hmmmm, well, personally I don't care how a photographic print is made if I'm at an exhibition or gallery show. What matters is the picture, whether I find it interesting, whether it is made with imagination and printed with graphical excellence. I have seen digitally printed pigment prints that are very fine indeed -- pigments sitting on lovely paper in graphically excellent ways, rewarding the closest scrutiny. I have been informed by people who know that these are very light-fast and permanent, the inks are improving all the time. Reputable gallerists wouldn't show a picture that isn't permanent. Of course, at this level the inks are very expensive and this is reflected in the cost of making a print. It's a fast-moving field and I guess there aren't many people who truly know what's going on.

On the other hand, I've been at big-name exhibitions of "APUG-approved" photographs, i.e. analogue, hand-made silver gelatin prints and been singularly unimpressed by the pictures.

I too was stumped by the term "giclée" when I first came across it in relation to photographic printing. I rooted around to find out what it means, and discovered that it means "inkjet print". Of course I chuckled, but one must understand where the photographer is coming from: "inkjet print" conjures up images of worthless home-made prints in the buying public's mind where what the photographer means is "expensive, light-fast, permanent, very expensive ink print on special, very expensive, acid-free paper". A bit of a mouthful when you're buying ad space and paying by the character.

As for the "This new medium has imbued my work with exciting new possibilities..." statement -- I have come across many such. They are usually a prelude to disappointment. Digital photography and the world of computer manipulation are not bringing forth a new medium. It's actually all very disappointing, both traditional photography and digital photography/computer manipulation. I have yet to come across anybody who's actually doing something new and interesting with all these "exciting new possibilities". It will come, of course.

It's just another instance of the dumbing down of America (or the world, for that matter). I saw this ad for an exhibition space here in Phoenix. I called and they said come down. I went down incognito to see for myself. It turned out to be outside, in front of a "bread" company-type place. Outdoor wouldn't be too bad if it weren't here in Phoenix in August. Anyway, there was a young guy (in his 20s) there exhibiting photographs. I started talking with him. Of course, they were all digital, and not too bad. He had only been taking photographs for a couple of years. There were some black and white but mostly color. I asked him about the black & whites (already knowing the answer)... what kind of paper are they printed on? He said "Fuji something or other". I said "Crystal Archive?" He hesitated a moment, and then said "Yeah, I think that's it." Man, if you don't even know what materials you are using...

He asked me if I was a photographer. I said yes. He asked what kind of camera I used. I told him 4x5, 8x10, and 11x14. He said that his prints were 11x14". I had to explain to him that those were the sizes of my cameras that use film in those sizes. He didn't have a clue to what I was talking about...

Svend Videbak said:

Hmmmm, well, personally I don't care how a photographic print is made if I'm at an exhibition or gallery show. What matters is the picture, whether I find it interesting, whether it is made with imagination and printed with graphical excellence. I have seen digitally printed pigment prints that are very fine indeed -- pigments sitting on lovely paper in graphically excellent ways, rewarding the closest scrutiny. I have been informed by people who know that these are very light-fast and permanent, the inks are improving all the time. Reputable gallerists wouldn't show a picture that isn't permanent. Of course, at this level the inks are very expensive and this is reflected in the cost of making a print. It's a fast-moving field and I guess there aren't many people who truly know what's going on.

On the other hand, I've been at big-name exhibitions of "APUG-approved" photographs, i.e. analogue, hand-made silver gelatin prints and been singularly unimpressed by the pictures.

I too was stumped by the term "giclée" when I first came across it in relation to photographic printing. I rooted around to find out what it means, and discovered that it means "inkjet print". Of course I chuckled, but one must understand where the photographer is coming from: "inkjet print" conjures up images of worthless home-made prints in the buying public's mind where what the photographer means is "expensive, light-fast, permanent, very expensive ink print on special, very expensive, acid-free paper". A bit of a mouthful when you're buying ad space and paying by the character.

As for the "This new medium has imbued my work with exciting new possibilities..." statement -- I have come across many such. They are usually a prelude to disappointment. Digital photography and the world of computer manipulation are not bringing forth a new medium. It's actually all very disappointing, both traditional photography and digital photography/computer manipulation. I have yet to come across anybody who's actually doing something new and interesting with all these "exciting new possibilities". It will come, of course.

Click to expand...

I don't think there is anything to dispute about these points. What it does illustrate is that mediocre is mediocre regardless of the medium. Same goes for excellence. Funny though how many questions regarding provenance of non traditional prints are answered by the originators in a defensive and obfuscatory way, rather than with a simple direct answer. The issue of quality and content is brought forth repeatedly, when the question asks none of this. That content and quality are engaging should be taken for granted, or I wouldn't be at all interested. This points to issues shouldered by the some artists working in those media, not the media its self.

The real point is to take pride in art and craft, whatever that happens to be. The world of fine art photography is already so full of affected bs it certainly doesn't need more. Quality is a different matter than provenance, and provenance seems to be an afterthought, or even a thorn to some of those crafting with "new" media. This attitude undermines everyone working in all photographic arts, and says basically that photography is still unsorted, unorganized, and immature as an artistic venue.

The issue is not the work. The art takes precedence, but having so little respect for craft as to claim homogeny of all photographic process as the same thing is sad, self absorbed, and self serving, to the detriment of the craft as a whole.

JBrunner said:

I don't think there is anything to dispute about these points. What it does illustrate is that mediocre is mediocre regardless of the medium. Same goes for excellence. Funny though how many questions regarding provenance of non traditional prints are answered by the originators in a defensive and obfuscatory way, rather than with a simple direct answer. The issue of quality and content is brought forth repeatedly, when the question asks none of this. That content and quality are engaging should be taken for granted, or I wouldn't be at all interested. This points to issues shouldered by the some artists working in those media, not the media its self.

The real point is to take pride in art and craft, whatever that happens to be. The world of fine art photography is already so full of affected bs it certainly doesn't need more. Quality is a different matter than provenance, and provenance seems to be an afterthought, or even a thorn to some of those crafting with "new" media. This attitude undermines everyone working in all photographic arts, and says basically that photography is still unsorted, unorganized, and immature as an artistic venue.

The issue is not the work. The art takes precedence, but having so little respect for craft as to claim homogeny of all photographic process as the same thing is sad, self absorbed, and self serving, to the detriment of the craft as a whole.

Click to expand...

I completely agree. It benefits no one to be obtuse about your working processes and materials. Some of this BS I ascribe to insecurity on the part of the artist. A fair amount comes from "emerging" artists who are desperate to sound unique and new. Some of it is simply smoke and mirrors from unscrupulous "artists" to try and fool the buyer - however this underestimates the buyer's level of sophistication, and eventually will come back to bite the perpetrator's ass.

In part, this BS arises from some people's very odd notions of hierarchy in their chosen field. Outside of photography, the nearest analogy would be to assert that oil paints are more artistic than acrylics, or other such tripe.

For guidelines on what media/methodologies/technologies are acceptable to the real art world, look at the collections of major art institutions. They are quite at odds with some of the notions bandied about here.

jpeets said:

For guidelines on what media/methodologies/technologies are acceptable to the real art world, look at the collections of major art institutions. They are quite at odds with some of the notions bandied about here.

Click to expand...

Sorry to ignore this so long, I dont have regular internet this summer.

What is acceptable in this regard in the "real" art world? I rarely get out into the big world. I am writing a letter to the gallery and dont want to be too off base in suggesting how they could do better in the future.


Wayne