Proposed APUG Definitions

Helen B · Aug 17, 2005

"If you know of a another source that would be useful in this effort I would appreciate it - a LOT - if you would let me know how to gain access."

I've already mentioned the Wikipedia Photographic Processes category but it probably got lost in all the mudslinging. The thing about Wikipedia is that anyone can offer additions or changes to it, as explained here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Introduction.

Best,
Helen

Ole · Aug 17, 2005

For current alt. processes, there is lots of information on http://www.alternativephotography.com - except that it seems to have been hacked since yesterday

df cardwell · Aug 17, 2005

Ed Sukach said:
I can say that a rock I've found in my back yard is "Grey Granite."
Why does that description of it infer that I've "drawn a circle around it"?

Because that, sir, it what it means. if that is too antiquated a definition... consider that in defining what something is, one defines what it is not.

And while it is very nice to say what something is... we sometimes are wise to consider what we are suggesting it is not.

haris · Aug 17, 2005

Chemical - exposure made on any material which must be processed in chemicals, and prints made on any surface which must be processed in chemicals and in process is not used any other technique than chemical required. And process doesn't use any other metod for input and oputput than optical. Include projecting slide.

Digital - exposure made on light sensitive electronic digital capture device and output made with digital device, including machines like Frontier which has output on chemical processed paper, but writting on that paper is made digitaly.

Hybrid - any combination which doesn't fall in above two.

Something like that.

But in my "real life" I use term photography for using film and silver gelatine prints made from negative film, for slide (printed or projected) and term imaging for digital or other kind of image making/taking.

GregT. · Aug 17, 2005

Ed Sukach said:
If you know of a another source that would be useful in this effort I would appreciate it - a LOT - if you would let me know how to gain access.

Austin Community Colleges Department of Photographic Technology has compiled a pretty comprehensive (85-page pdf) online Photography & Digital Imaging Glossary at http://www.austincc.edu/photo/glossaries.htm .

Dr. Robert Leggat MA M.Ed Ph.D. FRPS FRSA has compiled A History of Photography From its beginnings till the 1920s at Dead Link Removed.

The American Museum of Photography (a virtual online museum) has A Primer On Processes at http://www.photography-museum.com/primer.html though not nearly as comprehensive as the alternative photography link above provided by Ole.

An online electronic version of John Towlers The Silver Sunbeam can be found at http://albumen.stanford.edu/library/monographs/sunbeam/toc.html.

David Brown · Aug 17, 2005

lee said:
... howty towty (sp?) ...

lee\c

Lee:

I think it's hoity toity. But, I could be wrong ... :rolleyes:

David

lee · Aug 17, 2005

thanks that looks right

lee\c

tim atherton · Aug 17, 2005

http://www.getty.edu/research/conducting_research/vocabularies/aat/

http://www.getty.edu/research/conducting_research/standards/cdwa/

http://www.loc.gov/rr/print/tgm2/bibl.html#photography

http://www.metmuseum.org/special/photography2001/photo_glos.htm

http://www.nmpft.org.uk/insight/info/5.3.20.pdf

to start off with

Joe Symchyshyn · Aug 17, 2005

I vote for the AAA-DDD definitions as well. (If and only if there NEEDS to be definitions) Personally I don't think so... This whole idea is agenda based.

As far as "traditional"... Pretty soon, "traditional" WILL be digital because that will become the traditional method of image capture. We will become the alternative process bunch. Nothing wrong with that and nothing to fear from it either...

joe

Ed Sukach · Aug 17, 2005

Thanks to all who have contributed.

I've searched "the surfaces" here .. I'm not too sure that some of the definitions are all that accurate, or concise.

From one of the "Getty" sites ... in part: "Reticulation ... resulting in a granular pattern in prints from the negative." Well, sort of ... but it is fairly easy to throw the enlarger out-of-focus and NOT see a "granular" (characteristically "alligator skin") pattern on the print. I have seen it happen with film... and I suppose it would be possible on paper ...

For discussion: "Carbon Process" (one can easily morph this into a description of the print): A photographic printing process using paper coated with a mixture of gelatin, potassium dichromate and carbon particles."

Or

"Carbon Prints": Photographic prints made by a relatively permanent non-silver process involving dichromated gelatin. Popular ca. 1870 - 1900; more common in Europe than the United States; often used to reproduce artworks (?? - ES). Typically a carbon black, but a wide range of other pigments may be used."

A "Carbon Print ... without "carbon"?

The "Silver Sunbeam" was an especially interesting site ... from a book published in the later half of the 19th century. Interesting for the historical information ... I'm not too sure about its usefulness in separating "Analog" from "Digital.
Fascinating to read about the requirements - necessities - for photography then.... One entry especially ... "Stove, shovel, poker, coal or wood-box."

Roger Krueger · Aug 17, 2005

I'll also vote for the AAA-DDD method, it keeps the separate elements separate, and at least the first two elements allow zero room for creative interpretation--it's either digital, or it isn't, period. Whether something labeled ADA is "at least as good as an enlarger print" or "just as bad as the rest of the digital crap" is properly left in the hands of the now-informed consumer.

The only pitfall I see is the last element--what is digital media? As someone who's pro-Lightjet, pro-digital-neg-contact, anti-Inkjet I have a hard time seeing a case for the distinctions I'd LIKE to make.

I guess I could argue for "optical print"--something made with a light sensitive material--vs. a "physical print"--something made by physical manipulation of a substance--inkjets, offset presses, peeing your initials into a snowbank.

I specifically dislike definitions which illogically intermingle the object and process descriptions. "Gelatin Silver Print" is solely a description of a physical object and says nothing about the means used to achieve it. Proposing that it be only used for enlarger prints makes no sense to me, a Lightjet "Gelatin Silver Print" is the same object, just produced differently. If the process is an important part of the description of the work, by all means include it, but don't redefine a physical object based on the process that leads to it.

Ed Sukach · Aug 17, 2005

df cardwell said:
Because that, sir, it what it means. if that is too antiquated a definition... consider that in defining what something is, one defines what it is not.
And while it is very nice to say what something is... we sometimes are wise to consider what we are suggesting it is not.

I've read this a number of times, now ... and somehow .... I think you are trying to make a point, but for the life of me I don't know what it is.

If we describe something, of course we are limiting the possibilities of what it is NOT... I suppose I could list what it is NOT... but that would take a far larger and more involved volume of words. "It is not an oil painting, nor a charcoal sketch, nor a watercolor , nor an apple, nor..."

I still do not see the down side to all this. If I exhibit a photograph, I will label it something like: "Shagbark Hickory ... Film/ Silver Gelatin Print". By doing so, I am not "limiting my creativity"... or am I reading all this incorrectly?

I fail to see what ... ANY... harm an honest description of my work will cause, anywhere, under any circumstances.

I am NOT trying to be combative here ... I am only seeking a clarification.

Ed Sukach · Aug 17, 2005

Joe Symchyshyn said:
.... (If and only if there NEEDS to be definitions) Personally I don't think so... This whole idea is agenda based.

I am wrestling with the "agenda based" idea. Do you mean to infer that someone has a covert agenda for establishing clear, concise and honest descriptions?

I don't. I'm trying to envision who would, and what they would hope to gain, by being open and honest (other than supporting their reputation - which is enough for me).

The other way around ... by obfuscating the image of what is being sold, CAN, through fraud, result in short term monetary gain...(a.k.a. "ripoff") - something I've already experienced in my own Town Owned, modest gallery.

There is a difference in the value of the different media. Community Zoe -
[ http://www.communityzoe.com ] - lists prints for sale, and "Silver Gelatin Prints", are listed for a considerably higher price than "Ink Jet Prints" of the same image. I am fairly certain this is NOT an isolated example.

Alex Hawley · Aug 17, 2005

Ed Sukach said:
I am wrestling with the "agenda based" idea. Do you mean to infer that someone has a covert agenda for establishing clear, concise and honest descriptions?

I don't. I'm trying to envision who would, and what they would hope to gain, by being open and honest (other than supporting their reputation - which is enough for me).

The other way around ... by obfuscating the image of what is being sold, CAN, through fraud, result in short term monetary gain...(a.k.a. "ripoff") - something I've already experienced in my own Town Owned, modest gallery.

Ed, I have no doubt that you are going about this with the best of intentions. One of the main functions that codes and standards serve is to prevent fraud. Even though a set of standards and a code may be adopted, I'm sure you are aware that there are people who will still get around it and continue with their fraudulent practices. Your proposal is for a voluntary code which it must be. No one here has the authority to make it legally binding in any way, nor does anyone have authority to enforce it. There is no means of enforcing it. So what good is it going to do towards combatting fraud?

In the pragmatic sense, it is also promoting an agenda, the agenda of whoever writes the code, whether it be done by a committee or one individual, and whoever the code is adopted by. In adopting the code, the governing body says "These are the standards acceptable to (fill in the organization name)". Oh yes, as soon as a committee of people, no matter how informal it may be, say this is what we want, you have created a governing body who is forcing their agenda on those who subscribe to their code.

This may sound strange, but please think hard about it. You verbatim may not be the same as my verbatim. These "differences in verbatim" arguments arise all the time in the world of government-mandated codes and their intepretation between enforcers and subscribers.

So what I'm saying is, its an extremely slippery slope you want to take everyone on. The intentions may be sound and of the highest ethical nature. However, there will be stumble and once the fall begins, its awful, awful hard to get back to where you started.

Modifying a line I already stated, your verbatim is not going to be my verbatim.

scootermm · Aug 18, 2005

Ole said:
ADD = film - scan - inkjet

I found this mildly amusing.

Ed Sukach · Aug 18, 2005

Alex Hawley said:
Ed, I have no doubt that you are going about this with the best of intentions.

Thank you. Once in a while I try to be "squeaky clean". This is one of those times.

One of the main functions that codes and standards serve is to prevent fraud. Even though a set of standards and a code may be adopted, I'm sure you are aware that there are people who will still get around it and continue with their fraudulent practices. Your proposal is for a voluntary code which it must be. No one here has the authority to make it legally binding in any way, nor does anyone have authority to enforce it. There is no means of enforcing it. So what good is it going to do towards combatting fraud?

I don't expect it to be the ultimate answer, unless a Flaming Arm descends from the heavens and anoints us all as Guardians of ART (not likely). I have spent a bit of time pondering one question: "What is the alternative?" That is to do nothing, grit our teeth and hope that every fraud simply disappears.

In the pragmatic sense, it is also promoting an agenda, the agenda of whoever writes the code, whether it be done by a committee or one individual, and whoever the code is adopted by. In adopting the code, the governing body says "These are the standards acceptable to (fill in the organization name)". Oh yes, as soon as a committee of people, no matter how informal it may be, say this is what we want, you have created a governing body who is forcing their agenda on those who subscribe to their code.

It WOULD be "forcing" if it was not VOLUNTARY. If one chooses to use "the code" and identify it as an APUG code, they are expected to adhere to its provisions. Does that sound unreasonable?

This may sound strange, but please think hard about it. You verbatim may not be the same as my verbatim. These "differences in verbatim" arguments arise all the time in the world of government-mandated codes and their intepretation between enforcers and subscribers.

"Think hard about it." I haven't stopped thinking about it yet, nor do I intend to.

So what I'm saying is, its an extremely slippery slope you want to take everyone on.

Not if they do not want to be on that slope. See "Voluntary" above.

The intentions may be sound and of the highest ethical nature. However, there will be stumble and once the fall begins, its awful, awful hard to get back to where you started.

Not the first "slippery slope" I've been on (Why does this remind me of alpine skiing?).
It would be nice to have all kinds of assurances and guarantees in life. I wonder if I could convince the local Lottery officials to include warrantees against losing.
I, and those who choose to participate, will be risking time and effort. I don't think the earth is going to open up and swallow us if we fail and abandon the quest.

Modifying a line I already stated, you verbatim is not going to be my verbatim.

Fine with me. When did I infer that it HAD to be?
Again, see "voluntary" comments above.

Joe Symchyshyn · Aug 18, 2005

Ed Sukach said:
I am wrestling with the "agenda based" idea. Do you mean to infer that someone has a covert agenda for establishing clear, concise and honest descriptions?

If it's a voluntary system, the people you are attempting to reach just won't care anyhow... So what is this really about? (This is the agenda I'm seeing)

As I see things, it's about trying to make our pictures sound better than the other guys because of materials and processes. That's fine, go crazy and describe and pigeon hole to your heart's content...

Spend 10 minutes explaining to someone the longevity and processes and how this paper responds and this paper lasts and why this is so much better... blah blah blah... And then they turn to you all bleary eyed and confused and say "I just thought it was a really neat sunset".

Unfortunately I think you're preaching to the choir. The only people likely to use the definitions are those that already describe their work properly.

This isn't about rules and standards... It's about feeling misunderstood and underappreciated. I would say spending your time creating better and better work instead of thinking up more rules for photographers would get you farther in the end.

joe

Ed Sukach · Aug 18, 2005

Joe Symchyshyn said:
I would say spending your time creating better and better work instead of thinking up more rules for photographers would get you farther in the end.

Thanks for your advice.

Do you expect me to ... Would you WANT me to ... respond in kind?

Ed Sukach · Aug 18, 2005

For discussion:

Calotype: A print from a paper negative, created by exposing a paper negative - paper, sensitized with a mixture of salt or potassium iodide and silver nitrate, with or without gallic acid; and then fixed in salt and then, usually made transparent with a molten wax bath for printing. The print was made using, essentially, the same process.

How about it, group? Anyone doing Calotypes care to revise/ simplify - expand or correct - this?

GregT. · Aug 18, 2005

Ed Sukach said:
For discussion:
How about it, group? Anyone doing Calotypes care to revise/ simplify - expand or correct - this?

Ed,

This is a side note. What you are attempting is admirable. It is simply definining a particular process. Those who have chimed in with their $0.02 to tear down your efforts do not appreciate where you are coming from. Having said that, keep on truckin', dude.

What most folks fail to realize it is the erosion of the language of photography.

For what its worth: I believe digital, as well as digital hyprid, is an offshoot of "photography." Digital is not something that REPLACES a photographic process, but is an ALTERNATIVE means of realizing an image. If those who practice it would be true to their medium, we would not have a conflict.

That said, Keep on Keepin' on, Dude...many are behind you.

Alex Hawley · Aug 18, 2005

Joe Symchyshyn said:
This isn't about rules and standards... It's about feeling misunderstood and underappreciated. I would say spending your time creating better and better work instead of thinking up more rules for photographers would get you farther in the end. joe

I think you're assessment is on track Joe. But I'm as dense as usual and don't understand why anyone should feel misunderstood or underappreciated just because they do analog photography. Those sound like basic personal problems having nothing to do with photography.

Ed Sukach · Aug 19, 2005

Getting ready for an exhibition -

I'll describe one work as "Nude #31"
Under that: Analog Photograph, Silver Gelatin Print.

I should add "Signed in verso, with photographers DNA."

I cut my own mats ... someday I'll learn to cut ONLY the mat, and not myself.
It could happen. :rolleyes:

gr82bart · Aug 21, 2005

Found this on the web. Seems to be pretty decent definitions, but I really wouldn't know:

Photography definitions on About.com

Art.

Ed Sukach · Aug 21, 2005

gr82bart said:
Found this on the web. Seems to be pretty decent definitions, but I really wouldn't know:
Photography definitions on About.com
Art.

All those sites have useful items in their definitions... Most are a little too involved, comparing one process to another, or including aesthetic evaluations.

I've often said that this game is either feast or famine. Either I'm thrashing around like crazy or sitting here contemplating the flight of butterflies.
Recently the swamp done rose considerably, bringing the alligators closer to my rump, so I'm frantically tying to cope.

I'd like someone familiar with, or primarily interested in each specific process to read the definitions available, "concise" them and post them here for consideration.
Translation: Help!!
I'm by NO MEANS giving up, but I have to prioritize, and that necessarily means working more slowly HERE.

One question, for those making "Carbon" prints: Does there seem to be a significant difference between "Carbon" and "Carbro" prints?

gr82bart · Aug 21, 2005

Hey Ed,

You might want to use a format similar to this document. Not literally, but perhaps the methodology they used to outline and categorized the various processes. Basically they began with the taxonomical hierarchy and drilled down by distinguishing characteristics that separate categories. When complete this led to an 'easy' way to define the processes. It sounds complicated, but it isn't- I think.

http://www.fda.gov/cder/guidance/1721fnl.pdf

Regards, Art (I helped develop that document)

Proposed APUG Definitions

Moderator

haris

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency