Label for Genuine Photographs

[Q.G.]

The difference between how the scene REALLY is and your rendition of it (your picture). THAT is the deception....not a bad thing either...and I say this with no complaint.

That's only a deception if you expect that there is no such difference.
And then you're not deceived by the picture, but you're deceiving yourself.

[chriscrawfordphoto]

Chris,
everything you wrote matches my opinion - but: it has nothing to do with the idea of "Genuine Photograph".
I don't care eather if a photograph has been shot by chip oder film. I also do scan my negs and print them.
The topic we're talking about is: is a photoshopped composite a "real" photograph or something different?
I think it's something different.

Best,

Nick

So what about Jerry Uelsmann? His work is 100% silver based, done in the darkroom, no computer involved. He's been doing his composites since the 1960s and is still at it. He's one of the most famous photographers in the world and no one who matters has ever accused his work of not being 'genuine photographs'. The computer is just a modern way to do that kind of work and I suspect that J.R. would use it if he were a young man starting today. Its another tool and compositing pictures is a technique that has been used since the beginning of photography's existence.

[Chazzy]

So what about Jerry Uelsmann? His work is 100% silver based, done in the darkroom, no computer involved. He's been doing his composites since the 1960s and is still at it. He's one of the most famous photographers in the world and no one who matters has ever accused his work of not being 'genuine photographs'. The computer is just a modern way to do that kind of work and I suspect that J.R. would use it if he were a young man starting today. Its another tool and compositing pictures is a technique that has been used since the beginning of photography's existence.

I heard second-hand information that he is a pixel-pusher now. But in any case, I agree: combination printing is authentic, genuine, a real photograph, or whatever you want to call it.

[Greg Davis]

I heard second-hand information that he is a pixel-pusher now. But in any case, I agree: combination printing is authentic, genuine, a real photograph, or whatever you want to call it.

No, he still uses his darkroom. His wife, however, does use Photoshop.

[2F/2F]

NO ONE CARES

Just had to check back in, and came across this gem. IMNSHO, it is the only thing in the thread that has been worth reading.

[Nick Hermanns]

So what about Jerry Uelsmann? His work is 100% silver based, done in the darkroom, no computer involved. He's been doing his composites since the 1960s and is still at it. He's one of the most famous photographers in the world and no one who matters has ever accused his work of not being 'genuine photographs'. The computer is just a modern way to do that kind of work and I suspect that J.R. would use it if he were a young man starting today. Its another tool and compositing pictures is a technique that has been used since the beginning of photography's existence.

Good example! His work is indeed not photoshopped composites - it's darkroom-created composites. It maybe is - or is not... - a piece of art. But: for me it does not match my defintion of photography. But Uelsmann is good example for that kind of composites that can't be confused with "real" photographs because it is completely surreal on first sight. His pictures do not pretend to be "real".

[phritz phantom]

what about darkening the sky through red filters, adding contrast and dodging burning? according to your definition, it would allowed and be considered "genuine", i guess. but in reality i've hardly ever come across an ansel adams sky and i'd estimate that vast majority of all drama skies in photography did not really look like that to human eyes at the moment of taking the picture.and are a product of darkroom manipulation. why is that allowed and other things not?
my guess is, because you would like it to be allowed. the relation between photography and reality is a difficult one and a slippery slope. trying to come up with a final definition is rather futile.

[Ray Heath]

so when I press genuine photographs on your site i see 1 image, is that right?

and wasn't Herschel wrong? don't light rays have more to do with electrons than chemicals?

[Q.G.]

Good example! His work is indeed not photoshopped composites - it's darkroom-created composites. It maybe is - or is not... - a piece of art. But: for me it does not match my defintion of photography. But Uelsmann is good example for that kind of composites that can't be confused with "real" photographs because it is completely surreal on first sight. His pictures do not pretend to be "real".

They do not need to pretend, because they are real.
They may not conform to someones expectations (yours, for instance), but how does that make them not real, how else are they not real?

[Q.G.]

what about darkening the sky through red filters, adding contrast and dodging burning? according to your definition, it would allowed and be considered "genuine", i guess. but in reality i've hardly ever come across an ansel adams sky and i'd estimate that vast majority of all drama skies in photography did not really look like that to human eyes and are a product of darkroom manipulation. why is that allowed and other things not?
my guess is, because you would like it to be allowed. the relation between photography and reality is a difficult one and a slippery slope. trying to come up with a final definition is rather futile.

I have the impression that this "genuine photography" idea is exactly like that religious bunch who reject technology, but only that thechnology that didn't exist yet when the man saying that they should reject technology was born.

But i do understand the basic tenet, and it is not about rejecting new technology, but rather what you (can) do with it.
Does it make a difference? I don't think so.