Label for Genuine Photographs

[jnanian]

:rolleyes:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippe_Halsman

There is actually surprisingly little "composition" here...

i LOVE surrealism !

[Greg Davis]

I find it interesting that this definition excludes completely analog work from people like Jerry Uelsman, too. A couple years ago Donald Miller and some others tried something similar, even looking at the legal ramifications of it. As far as I can tell, it didn't just fail, but they aren't here on APUG anymore, either.

Collectors, the one's really spending a lot of money, like the near $4,000,000 for Gursky's photograph, really don't give a rat's ass if the photograph is "Genuine" or not. They aren't collecting a photograph for it's analog properties, they are investing in the artist's ability to make an impact on the world and increase the investment value of the photograph. The only people who will care about a label like this in any form are people who care more about the craft rather than the content, not gallery owners, not critics, not collectors, not casual viewers, not art historians, not even 99% of other artists.

[Joe VanCleave]

To me, the concept of "genuine photographs" being viewed on websites is, well, oxymoronic, if we use the OP's definition.

Consider that one's color space/gamut and monitor calibration effects the end result; as does the (hidden) process of converting the "genuine" photographic print to a JPEG image. What's left that's genuine?

That said, there is an element of the OP's idea that I think deserves some credit, which is a purposeful distinguishing of graphic arts from photography; software has indeed blurred that traditional distinction.

~Joe

[Q.G.]

@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.
<<

To judge by your words, you didn't bother to read our statement. May be I should have copy and pasted into my opening post to your convenience but I thought it being too long. To answer your question in short here: It does not matter what you do with your picture as long as you respect four things:

- 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.

That doesn't work, Ulrich. You can't brush away objections by not dealing with what they are, assuming the things they are objections too are not known instead.

I have read your definition. And it does not work.

For instance: the texture of the subject, for instance, is altered by choice of film, processing, paper, paper grade, processing, etc.
Filters on the lens?
There is no way you can't.

Colours? Exactly the same.

Your making a very strange decision, being that it is o.k. to do whatever the craft allows upto and including the moment the print is dry, but that you're not allowed to do anything after.
There is no magic in that moment, that would change manipulation, from something part of the legitimate process, into something that is the biggest evil known to the craft/art.

[nick mulder]

Henry Peach Robinson

1890 or so... Genuine Photograph ?

[viridari]

Henry Peach Robinson

1890 or so... Genuine Photograph ?

At only 310x400 pixels, that's a silly challenge to issue.

[DLawson]

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

I might, but it would affect what I was willing to pay.

I have two framed Ansel Adams posters -- no doubt called "prints" by whoever sold them. I'm glad I have them. I like them. but I wouldn't pay $200 for them, much less whatever the current rate is for an AA print.

They're just different things.

For me, I'd be less inclined to buy inkjet work than posters, since I don't expect any ink out gassing problems with posters (of course, they're not behind real glass either).

[nick mulder]

At only 310x400 pixels, that's a silly challenge to issue.

Shot circa 1890, without information pertaining to its physical dimension, but taking a guess at somewhere between 1/4 and whole plate even at the low res as it is presented here it still has enough information to give us a hint that the DOF is uncanny - this is achieved via means of a composite.

Looks like a photograph, smells like a photograph ...

Not a 'genuine' photograph as defined.

Its an example of probably thousands of photographs from that period - a part of our history, well before 0s & 1's were conceived

[DLawson]

:rolleyes:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippe_Halsman

There is actually surprisingly little "composition" here...

I can see how maybe they got ahold of the cats for the second attempt. But it is beyond by belief that they could be picked up for attempts 3 through 28.

[Ray Rogers]

Disclaimer:I have not read any links! I promise to get around to it eventually....

I think, however, that what is being aimed for is some sort of affirmation that the pictures represent truth or "reality". What a can of surreal worms you have opened! I actually welcome the idea! I dislike being deceived... I want to know that the image is real as depicted... mind you, I enjoy all sorts of images, but I want to know "the rest of the story" behind an image. I love both the Halsmann's Dali and the Robinson's Peach, but I have lived long enough to conclude they are not likely to be representing the reality I often eagerly regret comming back to. OTOH, Some images actually pose as things that are not true. They are in fact Lies! Advertising Photgraphy uses many tricks... make a small compact car look spacious? FAKE! Make it look like your sitter is happy? Most sitters want to get it over with and go back to their own world. So where do you draw the line? Everytime we maniuplate the image, we create something that is not quite like "reality"; not once have I seen a woman with quite the same tone as those I have had my way with on my enlarger's baseboard! Our Black and White world is not reality... Yet, I certainly think B&W pictures, as well as ordinary level controls should be acceptable... what about all the portrait photographs that have been retouched... remove one pimple and it's not genuine anymore?!! We used to call those images "altered" and even today, some altered photos are allowed for passports... as long as the "main features" are not lost... so does the US government allow fake photographs on passports? Not really. Altered? Yes. Fake? No. And, What about super-real paintings that "look" like they might be a genuine photograph? Unrelated- but I think it speaks to the underlying issue here. Well, in all honesty I have not followed your links yet... So yea, I could be singing out of tune. Despite that possibilty, I think I actually welcome your idea, especially if you are able to find a more robust term and defniton. The world has a right not to be deceived....But often, lying is simply accepted. Good Luck!