Label for Genuine Photographs

[Ulrich Drolshagen]

Hi all,

together with two friends I have created a label to mark pictures on the web and elsewhere as genuine photographs



Our goal is to give to all photographers a means to show that their pictures are created with a camera and not on a computer. We will in future mark all our pictures as genuine photographs to show all beholders what they get. On the related web site genuine-photograph.org we explain what to us is a 'genuine photograph' .
It is important to emphasize that we do not have any objection against photoshop created pictures of which many may be considered as art. But we think that this kind of graphics should not be associated with the term 'photograph'. Our effort is not about analog vs digital. It is about photography vs photoshop-art.
Please read our statement and if you sympathize with our goals help to spread our label. Our dream is that in future every picture in a magazine or on the internet not carrying the label is questioned by the beholder whether it may be an offspring of photoshop.
Additionally we plan to publish interesting essays and articles related to our topic. We begin with an article by Maris Rusis found here on apug.org about the misleading English term 'print' for photographs. An anglicism which is increasingly made use of in my own language German (I must admit even by me) too.

Thank you all for taking the time

Ulrich

[Maris]

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".

Any logician would point out that the set of "non-genuine photographs" is an empty set. There is no such thing as a "non-genuine photograph" although there are plenty of pictures that are routinely mistaken for or misrepresented as photographs.

The problem is not down to Ulrich Drolshagen or me or APUG. I'm pretty sure that every one here knows a photograph when they see it. And they know why it is a photograph rather than something else. The difficulty lies with our need to be understood in a world that is largely naive about photography. Plus we need to use a language that has not yet evolved consistent nouns for distinctive picture making processes. That's why anything that looks superficially like a photograph tends to get called one kind of photograph or another.

Other cumbersome expressions like "analog photography", "digital photography", and "Kirlian photography" (to name a few) get foisted on us by our need to communicate rather than stay mute. There really is only "photography" and everything else is something else that needs a different name. Perhaps we should be aggressively assertive, say the word "photograph" with pride and confront, without cringing, such swindles as "digital photograph" or "giclee photograph".

I think "genuine photograph" is a step in the right direction but it needs more. That extra step could be to name the actual light sensitive process used. For example, "genuine gelatin-silver photograph", "genuine photograph - cyanotype process", or " platinotype-genuine photograph".

Once the "genuine photograph" business is sorted out we could consider the "genuine photographer" concept. At present it seems difficult to distinguish between those who do only camera work (camera play?) and those who actually make photographs. But that could be another rant entirely.

[keithwms]

Ulrich, my first thought was: wait, you want me to photoshop in this label so that people will know that my photograph is genuine?

Nevertheless, I am with you in spirit!

Underlying much of the tension regarding authenticity of digitally reworked images, there is an ever increasing separation between the viewer and the photographer. These days, a commercially successful photographer may never even make a print.... much less sign one or exhibit it in an actual, physical gallery. Instead, a lot of work goes directly to the web or is scanned, and that may well be its final destination. There also seem to be fewer magazine willing to reproduce fine art photographs with the kind of individual care that represents them fairly. And with all the information in a digital photograph encoded in a file that can be printed any number of times, some people have reasonable doubts about the value of what they see, as a collectible piece.

Given all of those things, it is hardly surprising how distant the relationship now is, between the photographer and the viewer.

One solution? Print and show your work. Talk to people about it... in person. Take them inside your thinking and your technique. Teach those who want to be taught. When they understand what you did to create a photograph, they will see that it is genuine.

Anyway, it's an interesting idea, Ulrich, good luck with it. It harkens back to the "f/64" label though; some will think this is good, and others will object strenuously to any haughty limits on art....

[Ektagraphic]

Great idea. Will this go on non-photoshopped digital prints or will it be for analog only? It would be awesome if it was only for photos of analog (film) origin.

[2F/2F]

Holy moly, man.......This should get good! I am just going to preemptively hit the ignore thread button.

[keithwms]

Holy moly, man.......This should get good! I am just going to preemptively hit the ignore thread button.

No you're not! You're going to watch it closely, like a rubbernecker on the highway

[iandavid]

Nice idea, but seems misconceived to me...
Ask the French - they have long had problems trying to stifle the evolution of language.

[clay]

I think this is sheer genius. I have a bunch of photos I did a while back that are black and white silver gelatin prints contact printed from 8x10 negatives that I am unsure what to do with. Most of them are of rocks, trees and peeling paint on the side of white churches in New England. I would like to show them, but I want people to only buy them if they understand what I really put into their creation. So I have borrowed your idea, and will stick this label on the back of every print:

[jnanian]

who is to say that someone who is making ungenuine images
isn't going to suggest that the images are genuine ?

people lie all the time ..

is there some sort of governing body that will make sure
people are telling the truth ... and in the end, after an image is made
numeric it isn't an authentic genuine analog image anymore is it ?
in order for it to look normal, some apr has to be done to it
( apr - analog photoshoppery resuscitation ) ...

just wonderin'

[Barry S]

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