Label for Genuine Photographs

[Nick Hermanns]

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?

I didn't say exactly what I mean: of couse the pictures are real (how could a picture not be real?). But they do not pretend to show reality. For me (just for me!) this is not photography but painting by using the tools of photography.

[nick mulder]

I'm out of this one ...

toodle pip

[Ray Rogers]

I didn't say exactly what I mean: of couse the pictures are real (how could a picture not be real?). But they do not pretend to show reality. For me (just for me!) this is not photography but painting by using the tools of photography.

Not just for you!

Ray

[Ray Rogers]

"There is a difference between a shaky or out-of-focus photograph
and a snapshot of clouds and fog banks."
Erwin Schrödinger

The difference here is REALITY.

[Q.G.]

I didn't say exactly what I mean: of couse the pictures are real (how could a picture not be real?). But they do not pretend to show reality. For me (just for me!) this is not photography but painting by using the tools of photography.

No picture pretends to show reality.
Only some people think that some black, white and various shades of gray markings on a bit of coated paper, or similar marks on paper in colour, represent reality.

But i don't think the genuine photograph thing is about representing reality (or pretending to do so).
It's about using photographic tools only. It is flawed in that it sets a limit to what tools it deems worthy of the classification "photographic", and in that it does not recognize that the reason why it holds that some tools aren't permissible also applies to the tools it says are permissible.

If you 'paint' a picture using the tools of photography instead of those of painting, you're not creating a painting, but a photograph. You're not painting, but 'photographing'. That picture would be a "genuine photograph".

[Ray Rogers]

No picture pretends to show reality.

Well, since pictures are not a life form, I would have to agree with you!

Nevertheless, many pictures are used by humans to represent certain aspects of reality.
Whether those attempts are successful and those representatons, honest, is a serious matter of concern for some people.

[keithwms]

Ulrich et al, there is really only one label needed to certify that a photograph is genuine... your signature.

[Ray Rogers]

... i don't think the genuine photograph thing is about representing reality (or pretending to do so).
It's about using photographic tools only.

So you think that their "genuine photograph" is just another way of saying
a photograph made by... APUG? (Analog Photography User's Gear)


That is certainly a key issue here, and one for the OP to address again.
I guess.
I still haven't read their links... too many other more important things to do.

[Ulrich Drolshagen]

Then you should perhaps remove all use of the term.
It is at the core of your statement: not manipulated.

And you do indeed try to 'define' it. You list what 'manipulations' are allowed without affecting the "genuine" status ("What are the tolerable postprocessing steps [...]"), and what would be too much.
Completely arbitrarily: what you do not define indeed is where exactly you draw the line, and - more importantly - how and why.
As it is, it would be impossible to know what a "genuine" photograph would be. Impossible to know when to use the label and/or why.

Nothing is too bad not to serve a purpose at least not to serve as a bad example. Our statement may indeed serve as an example of failed communication.
You are perfectly right and we have to thank you for pushing us onto the issue. We had to reread our own statement to notice this at last. As we started to to discuss our goals our approach was not to rely on a definition of the term "manipulation". Unintentionally we did exactly that. We have to apologize for the thus caused confusion. Our mentioned examples for allowed steps of hmm ... treatment merely should serve as an incomplete list of techniques which show that indeed photographs must not in all respects be perfect representations of the real scene which they were made of. Our only aim is to make a difference between found pictures and artificially made ones that by the the every day experience of the broad public get taken as a picture of a found scene.
We have updated our statement -as we now hope- appropriately.

Ulrich

[Greg Davis]

Since I do no recognize your authority as a governing body as it relates to photography, I reject your definition and substitute my own.