Label for Genuine Photographs

[Rolleigraf]

In the nearly twenty years that my work has been exhibited in galleries and museums no one has ever asked me if I used film or a digital camera, or if my print was a silver-based print or a digital print. Nor could they tell the difference (I shot digital for a few years then went back to film; my early prints are from the darkroom, my later ones from scanned negs) The simple fact is that

NO ONE CARES

The narrow mindedness of some of the people here is sickening. Maybe its because I graduated from a university art program that exposed me to all forms of art and to the history of art and photography. Photography is now nearly 200 years old. The silver-gelatin print process that so many of you worship like some silly idol is only about 100 years old. There are hundreds of different chemical processes for capturing an image and printing it and several digital processes, not to mention the hybrid processes that have evolved. There is no such thing as a 'genuine photograph'. Photography, like painting and like sculpture, is a term that embraces a number of diverse mediums and methods of working. Painters, for example, can choose watercolor, oil, acrylic, egg tempera, fresco, or alkyd. Oil pastels and dry pastels are often referred to as painting media as well, though they also share much with drawing. No one gets nasty about choice of painting media in the world of painting. Why do photographers so often act so stupid and prejudiced? The type of print or choice of film or digital is something that truly means very little; your work will be judged by the image not the process.

Chris,

sorry, but I think we have a misunderstanding here - again.

We do not favor any photographic (!) technique.
We do not say film is better than digital or what else.
We don´t judge if some artistic technique (i.e. photography) is better than another kind of artistic technique (i.e. painting, digital art, ...).

But we do not want our chosen artistic technique (i.e. photography, which we chose for a special reason) to be confused with another artistic technique (for example digital art). The danger of confusion exists, as we explained above.
A painter would not want his oil paintings be confused with, for example, prints. Imagine a printer which is capable of producing 100% oilpainting-look-prints. This painter would probably say that he did not print his work, but paint it by his own hands. So do we communicate, that we did not compose our images in a computer, but did record them using film, a sensor, or another light-sensitive medium.

Regards,
Jan

[billschwab]

Blah, blah... blah.

Such mental masturbation. I can't believe anyone is giving time to this circle jerk.

[Rolleigraf]

At least you seem to do, Bill ;-)

[keithwms]

Blah, blah... blah.

Such mental masturbation. I can't believe anyone is giving time to this circle jerk.

No, see, there is a fundamental difference: that has a well defined end, when everybody is done. This just goes on ad nauseum

[Q.G.]

Not true, because you wrote:

"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."

So when you look at an image, where is the deception? Do you then not look at an image?

Now if you would start to imagine things, things like that what you see is a real part of a real world, or an imaginary part of a real world, or a real part of an imaginary world, or... [you fill in whatever you like - you already have done so, reading more into the thing you called udder craap. ]
Then you may find that deception might cross your way. All your fault.

But when you are looking at an image, you're looking at an image. Something to look at.

[SilverGlow]

Blah, blah... blah.

Such mental masturbation. I can't believe anyone is giving time to this circle jerk.

Hey, speak for yourself! The rhthym of his words really gets me off... the cadance, the inflection of the sentences...wow...somebody get me a cigarette and NOW!!

[SilverGlow]

Chris,

sorry, but I think we have a misunderstanding here - again.

We do not favor any photographic (!) technique.
We do not say film is better than digital or what else.
We don´t judge if some artistic technique (i.e. photography) is better than another kind of artistic technique (i.e. painting, digital art, ...).

But we do not want our chosen artistic technique (i.e. photography, which we chose for a special reason) to be confused with another artistic technique (for example digital art). The danger of confusion exists, as we explained above.
A painter would not want his oil paintings be confused with, for example, prints. Imagine a printer which is capable of producing 100% oilpainting-look-prints. This painter would probably say that he did not print his work, but paint it by his own hands. So do we communicate, that we did not compose our images in a computer, but did record them using film, a sensor, or another light-sensitive medium.

Regards,
Jan

Jan,

Why do you care so much what other people think? Does their perception of a photograph, right or wrong, change your work? Change anything? No, no it does not.

You worry too much about things that don't matter. I sense control issues in your life...if you and your buddies would instead get together and go on a shoot and make art, that would be better then having a circle jerk filled with such concern about a tempiss in a teapot...let it go....it don't matter.

This reminds me of a really stupid movement here in the USA, many years ago: HarleyDavidson motorcycle owners tried to sell this BS that only Harleys are real "motorcycles" and all the other makes are not....they emotionally pushed this kakaa for decades and in the end it didn't matter one bit. See what I mean?

Make some photographs, real or fake, and post them so we can share the joy you must have over the making of a nice picture.

[SilverGlow]

So when you look at an image, where is the deception? Do you then not look at an image?

Now if you would start to imagine things, things like that what you see is a real part of a real world, or an imaginary part of a real world, or a real part of an imaginary world, or... [you fill in whatever you like - you already have done so, reading more into the thing you called udder craap. ]
Then you may find that deception might cross your way. All your fault.

But when you are looking at an image, you're looking at an image. Something to look at.

The difference between how the scene REALLY is and your rendition of it (your picture). THAT is the deception....not a bad thing either...and I say this with no complaint.

[SilverGlow]

In the nearly twenty years that my work has been exhibited in galleries and museums no one has ever asked me if I used film or a digital camera, or if my print was a silver-based print or a digital print. Nor could they tell the difference (I shot digital for a few years then went back to film; my early prints are from the darkroom, my later ones from scanned negs) The simple fact is that

NO ONE CARES

The narrow mindedness of some of the people here is sickening. Maybe its because I graduated from a university art program that exposed me to all forms of art and to the history of art and photography. Photography is now nearly 200 years old. The silver-gelatin print process that so many of you worship like some silly idol is only about 100 years old. There are hundreds of different chemical processes for capturing an image and printing it and several digital processes, not to mention the hybrid processes that have evolved. There is no such thing as a 'genuine photograph'. Photography, like painting and like sculpture, is a term that embraces a number of diverse mediums and methods of working. Painters, for example, can choose watercolor, oil, acrylic, egg tempera, fresco, or alkyd. Oil pastels and dry pastels are often referred to as painting media as well, though they also share much with drawing. No one gets nasty about choice of painting media in the world of painting. Why do photographers so often act so stupid and prejudiced? The type of print or choice of film or digital is something that truly means very little; your work will be judged by the image not the process.

AMEN TIMES 5,000,000!

[Chazzy]

In the nearly twenty years that my work has been exhibited in galleries and museums no one has ever asked me if I used film or a digital camera, or if my print was a silver-based print or a digital print. Nor could they tell the difference (I shot digital for a few years then went back to film; my early prints are from the darkroom, my later ones from scanned negs) The simple fact is that

NO ONE CARES

I care. So you'll have to modify your statement to "almost no one cares."