Label for Genuine Photographs

[viridari]

My own private label covers analog, digital, and literally anything I create.

This thread just took a turn for the better.

[paulie]

photographic prints are made using light, if they fail this test then they should not be allowed to use the term photograph

[Domenico Foschi]

It is an elitist position that doesn't take in consideration the real value of a photograph: the vision of the photographer.
As someone else said in this thread, go out and take pictures, sharpen your vision, because at the end if you do that, THAT is the only thing that counts: your own work.
If you put your energies in being overly critical about what other people do, you have missed the point of what creativity is and in the end it will only be of harm to yourself as it will restrict your vision in your own small perception of what a good photograph is or should be, and you will feel isolated by your own doing.

[Kerik]

Some comments border insult and ridicule which is quite uncharacteristic of APUG.

You must be new here...

[Q.G.]

photographic prints are made using light, if they fail this test then they should not be allowed to use the term photograph

Light alone makes nothing.

You need more than light. And there the trouble begins...

The process isn't perfect either, leaves things that need be 'corrected'. There the trouble continues...

To keep it short: the trouble never stops.

[viridari]

Some comments border insult and ridicule which is quite uncharacteristic of APUG.

Actually I thought that was pretty typical.

[SilverGlow]

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

I did read it, however I found it too vague, and frankly, a bit nonsense.

Just because a photograph shows the addition of subtraction of an element does not prevent it from being a photograph.

What about all those people that Stalin had removed from thousands of pictures? Are those resulting pictures no longer photographs? Of course they still are photographs....they are now touched, but nonetheless they are still genuine photographs.

I don't appreciate the need to label a picture as being "genuine". I sense this action comes out of being intimidated or afraid of digital captures.

At the end of the day, if someone loves the look of a picture, who cares by what means it was created?

Even decades before the advent of digital capture, people all over the world were adding and removing elements from their photographs, and again, doing so does not cause these pictures to cease being Genuine Photographs.

A photograph is simply a picture that was created by light which bounced off a subject/s onto a medium, be it film, a sensor, whatever.

What about Cross Processing? That process changes the colors of a color negative, so the results would be a non-photograph?

I find this whole thing silly, but before you get mad, be advise I have a right to my opinion.

This is a "Genuine Response"....and I approve.

[Chazzy]

At the end of the day, if someone loves the look of a picture, who cares by what means it was created?

I do. I wouldn't buy the world's greatest inkjet print if it were personally autographed by Jesus Christ. I don't think I would use the logo in the original post, but if I were selling silver gelatin prints, I would be sure that they were marked correctly; and as a potential customer, I think that photographers have the obligation to honestly and clearly state what they are selling. No mumbo jumbo about "giclee" or "pigment prints."

[Ian David]

I wouldn't buy the world's greatest inkjet print if it were personally autographed by Jesus Christ.

It would probably be a really good investment. Especially if it was JC's own work.

Ultimately, I think you can only control your own process - which I think is perhaps what Ulrich is all about anyway. Do whatever you do, be honest and upfront about it, and the market will let you know if it cares.

Ian

[Rolleiflexible]

I do. I wouldn't buy the world's greatest inkjet print if it were personally autographed by Jesus Christ. I don't think I would use the logo in the original post, but if I were selling silver gelatin prints, I would be sure that they were marked correctly; and as a potential customer, I think that photographers have the obligation to honestly and clearly state what they are selling. No mumbo jumbo about "giclee" or "pigment prints."

I appreciate that this is red meat for the APUG
faithful but I see nothing to be gained by dismissing
art because of the medium the artist selected for
his or her work. This is the same attitude that, a
hundred years ago, led to the dismissal of photography
as an artistic medium altogether. We've overcome
that shibboleth, only now to eat our own by drawing
lines and saying that a darkroom print has merit, but
an inkjet print does not. Does it ever end?