Label for Genuine Photographs

[flatulent1]

Barry, I like it. May I borrow this for my own artistic expression?

[SilverGlow]

So what does the OP define as a genuine photograph?

What is his definition?

And is the definition universally accepted?

To me, a photograph is made by using light to create an image, and not about how that light was captured, nor on what medium that light effected an image.

I think one has to nail down the definition of a photograph before going forward with such an idea.

One more question: Why would one care to label their photograh genuine?

[ooze]

So what does the OP define as a genuine photograph?

What is his definition?

Go back to the OP and read the linked "Statement" where you will find the definition.

[Q.G.]

Go back to the OP and read the linked "Statement" where you will find the definition.

A definition.

[Metroman]

I'm going back to bed. I have obviously slipped in to the surreal, APUG parallel universe during the night!

[Q.G.]

There is a difficulty in nomenclature when one uses the appelation "genuine photograph". It implies the existence of a class of objects made up of "non-genuine photographs".

Any logician would point out that the set of "non-genuine photographs" is an empty set. There is no such thing as a "non-genuine photograph" although there are plenty of pictures that are routinely mistaken for or misrepresented as photographs.

Only logicians who are trying too hard. (And they would be wrong.)

The words "non-genuine" are not to be ignored. A false photograph is something posing as a photograph while it is not. The word "photograph" denotes what it poses as, not what it is. No problem with that.
It doesn't matter what that something it is, except for the succes it may hope to have posing as something it is not.
You know that, judging by the "although [..]" bit.

The set could be empty, but not because of some logical issues.

[Q.G.]

When is a photograph not manipulated?

Does pulling and pushing count? Development duration and contrast control? Choice of developer and/or film to influence grain? Filters used on the lens? The choice of paper grade? Spotting? Dodging and burning? 'Alternative processes'? Etcetera.

As it is, i think this a completely unusable, because empty, concept.

[Ulrich Drolshagen]

A definition.

No, and that may be the part causing all the confusion. It's only *our* definition. The crucial part is the dot org in our label. What's new is, that we the first time have means to tell our definition with every picture we show. For us it doesn't matter whether the picture was record by some silicon chip or by some silverhalide emulsion or what has happend to the picture afterwards as long in postprocessing a short list of manipulations have been avoided. With our label we only guarantee that we don't have used any of four listed operations:

* The photograph shows within its used crop all distinguishable objects of the subject which were part of it in the moment of tripping the shutter
* There are no objects removed, added, changed in their relative position or altered in their proportions
* The textures of the subject elements were not altered
* As far as color pictures are concerned the colors of all parts of the subject were not basically altered.

Thats all of it. We will not have to (and do not) argue the question whether photography in itself is so much manipulation that removing power lines, making models slimmer, their boobs larger or whatever does not add anything meaningful to the list any longer. Everyone can do what he wants with his/her pictures. We only tell with our pictures what we didn't have done with them.

I'm writing this during a break. May be I can give a more extended reply in the evening if required.

Ulrich

[Chazzy]

* There are no objects removed, added, changed in their relative position or altered in their proportions

How about genuine photographs which are printed from multiple negatives? A number of famous fine art photographers have done that. And how about the surrealists? They have sometimes altered the proportions.

I love the idea of claiming the label genuine photograph and shaming the purveyors of inkjet prints. But I suspect that they will only react with ridicule.

[Domenico Foschi]

But I suspect that they will only react with ridicule.

Rightly so.