I can see the OP's thinking, but also the problems of defining a "genuine photograph".
Perhaps the only viable and sensible option would be to label an original print as a "silver/gelatine print", "platinum print", or whatever process was used. Such labelling would actually means something to a buyer of a print?
This is all pretty funny. Buried in here is the assumption that a single person or group can dictate the meaning of the phrase 'genuine photograph'. This is laughably naive. The cat is out of the bag. Go make good photographs, period. I have only heard of one instance in the last ten years where a buyer returned a photograph because he thought it was something it was not. In this particular instance, a print was returned because the buyer thought a silver gelatin print on matte paper had to be digitally printed. He was so clueless that he could not tell the difference. My thought is that somebody who all of a sudden decides that a print they formerly loved is now a piece of dreck because they think it is digital (which in this case, it was really not digital at all) has some seriously twisted and strange reasons for collecting prints.
Remember a few years back when a couple of people here at APUG determined that they had come up with the only way for photographs to be art: Only one print could be made from a negative. And because there was only a single print, it was therefore art. I somehow missed it when that idea took the art world by storm. Imagine how sad all the sculptors who did multiple copies of bronze statues must have felt when their entire life's work became kitschy garbage overnight. Oh wait, it didn't happen. Last I heard, the purists in question have given up photography completely and are watching birds or something.
You can make any definitions you want, but it is likely that only a handful of people will agree on it, and the vast majority will yawn, then giggle and move on to doing what they were going to do anyway.
Ulrich, the way to get around these (reasonable) objections is to avoid the term "genuine" altogether. What you could do is form a group, something like f/64, and let that group's work speak for itself i.e. be known for adherence to a set of principles.
"Genuine" is, predictably, going to be a problem for many people... even those who know very well what you intend. It raises all kinds of questions, and I think you want your photographs to raise the questions, not the label on the photographs.
I wish that the magazines would disclose what they are publishing for all photographs—a scan from a negative, a scan from a real print, or a digital photograph. It may not matter to everyone, but it matters to me.
* 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
Then Philippe Halsmann's portrait of Salvador Dali
is not a "genuine photograph"?
For once, I find myself agreeing with Q.G. What
is the world coming to? :-0
i sometimes use color film that was damaged or old
and the color rendition looks nothing as it did in reality,
and i have retouched the film and print ( using traditional methods )
to remove ( and add ) various things ...
it seems that no matter how traditional and / or honest / genuine an image may be
only a certain type of image will fit the scope of this new organization ...
I am quite disheartened by some comments in this thread. Some comments border insult and ridicule which is quite uncharacteristic of APUG. It goes beyond expression of objection and counter ideas but is a personal attack.
In principle, I agree with OP - I prefer photographs that aren't highly modified. I wouldn't call all others UN-genuine however. I was talking to a friend of mine who is an art professor at a local college. Apparently, more accepted term is straight photography.
Are there reason for some of the reactions here beyond the term OP used? Please keep in mind, his native language isn't English. Taken in context, is it SO wrong to promote photographs with no modifications beyond simple adjustments? Is it SO wrong to express such opinion here in APUG?
Adv Reply
Originally Posted by Ulrich Drolshagen 
