Label for Genuine Photographs

[Q.G.]

Photography is a visual medium. The aim is to produce images to show.
There can be no deception: if you see an image, you see an image.

The rest is in your beliefs, hopes, expectations, likes and dislikes, in short: in you.
So perhaps a label that says you are qualified to watch and appreciate images?

[Ian David]

Photography is a visual medium. The aim is to produce images to show.
There can be no deception: if you see an image, you see an image.

The rest is in your beliefs, hopes, expectations, likes and dislikes, in short: in you.
So perhaps a label that says you are qualified to watch and appreciate images?

Actually, the rest is sometimes in the context: ie not in you.

[Kirk Keyes]

Back when digital was taking off in the mid 90's - after the Art Wolfe zebra scandal, some people came up with the idea of "FoundView" as a way to identify images that had been made with standard photographic techniques and without using composites. I thought it was a good idea then, and I still do. But there are many problems with implementing these sorts of systems and I'm not sure there will ever be a way to do it. I suppose when all media is delivered electronically and metadata can be imbedded in the electronically transmitted photos, then we can include a label with all our images letting the viewer know what "special" properties of our photos have.

Here's a archive of the FoundView info:
http://www.vad1.com/photo/foundview/

[Kirk Keyes]

I see FoundView has been replaced with TrustImage:
http://trustimage.org/

That site is about a year out of date...

[lxdude]

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.

Assistants were a dime a dozen. When they got ripped up too badly, bring in some more.

[billschwab]

That site is about a year out of date...

Which is exactly where "GenuinePhotograph.org" will be in a year.

Less labels, more photography.

[Ray Rogers]

One strange thing-
This drive to want to know a photograph represents truth, seems to derrive from the fact that they look quite real... and the illusion that they are merely being "recorded" rather than being "created".... Art historians correct me if I err, but I don't think painters ever had to face this problem... infact, they can paint a picture of Jesus, (or even God perhaps) and no one asks if it's real.

Do that with a camera and see the reaction you get.

In literature, we take care of the problem by classification... fiction/nonfiction/documentary etc...
Why can't we do that in photography?

Ray

[cowanw]

One strange thing-
This drive to want to know a photograph represents truth, seems to derrive from the fact that they look real... Art historians correct me if I err, but I don't think painters ever had to face this problem... infact, they can paint a picture of Jesus, (or even God perhaps) and no one asks if it's real.

Do that with a camera and see the reaction you get.

In literature, we take care of the problem by classification... fiction/nonfiction/documentary etc...
Why can't we do that in photography?

Ray

Reminds me of F. Holland Day when he posed as Christ: not a good reception with the critics of the day:rolleyes:

[Greg Davis]

Duane Michals also had an actor portray Christ. It's nothing new. Bill Schwab is right, in a year, this particular .org will most likely be a "page under construction" with nowhere to go.

[jon koss]

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"...

Ah, Grasshopper, might the term not also imply the existence of a class of objects made up of "genuine non-photographs"? And it is not with this class that our humble OP has rightly concerned himself? Think on this Grasshopper, while you look around the house for the dictionary to help with your spelling!:o