For the folks who call digital fauxtography...

[jp]

Nothing new under the sun...



In "New York to Hollywood - The Photography of Karl Struss", by McCandless, Yochelson, & Koszarski:

122747

[jb7]

Nothing new under the sun...





not another portmanteaux thread...

[Willie]

Still like what a friend calls it: Pixelography

[jcoldslabs]

I imagine that when the printing press was invented the makers of illuminated manuscripts shook their heads in disgust.

Jonathan

[Maris Rusis]

I imagine that when the printing press was invented the makers of illuminated manuscripts shook their heads in disgust.

Jonathan

The printing press has not entirely superceded the manuscript just as computer print-outs of electronic files have not entirely superceded the making of pictures out of light-sensitive substances. For example the Jewish Torah and the Moslem Koran are ultimately authentic only if error free and totally hand-written by a scribe.

[Drew Wiley]

As far as I know, I coined the term Fauxtography, so you must be referring to me. I use it as a contemptuous term for people who abuse adolescent technologies in an adolescent self-conscious way, showcasing all the zits, simply because they're too lazy to learn to paint. I have no complaints about people who use these technologies thoughtfully and tastefully.

[Struan Gray]

I use 'Fauxtography' for my own digital work because I like to wind Drew up.

[paulr]

I call it super-pseudo-quasi-helio-lumo-quantum-electro-estheto-anarchic-grapho-plasty.

But that's just me.

[lecarp]

Mocktography, adjective (or noun if you prefer).

[Kirk Gittings]

So as not to appear to be a self-righteous, old fart curmudgeon with my head up my arse and my finger in the dike (I can put on a good act), I call it the same thing the general public and Webster calls it-photography :).

[Bob Salomon]

I imagine that when the printing press was invented the makers of illuminated manuscripts shook their heads in disgust.

Jonathan

And look what papyrus did for the clay tablet! And did the clay tablet replace cave paintings and rock petroglyphs? Or what about the chalk horse in the UK or the carvings on the Nazca plains? All those mediums are long gone. The only thing left are those strange patterns stomped in corn fields.

[Drew Wiley]

With the exception of a few well-known pro friends of mine who actually know how to use PS as a tool instead of a dirty bomb, I was simply resigned to the fact of
color inkjet images looking like the inks had been either stenciled, troweled, or aerosol-canned by gangbanger "street artists" onto the picture plane. Monochrome
images looked even worse at time, with all that wannabee pseudo split-toning that looked like an accidental encounter with the wrong bowl of Kool Aid. But I was
very pleasantly surprised the other day to finally see some work by local advanced amateurs that wasn't over-saturated, over-sharpened, and over-enlarged relative
to the original capture size. Certainly not remarkable stuff in terms of either composition, content, or that kind of high detail and tonality I'd expect from real photographs (in the sense of this expression deliberately designed to tweak Kirk! - And I never knew Mr.Webster had time to do photography or was even interested in it, so in his case, Fauxetymology as far as I concerned! Do dictionaries have pictures in them these days?) - but nonetheless tastefully printed. The monochromes knew what they wanted to be - nice use of black with no unrealistic prints, at least till I put on my reading glasses and looked close. There's no need for anyone
to become a curmudgeon in order to despise Fauxtography. Even young folks can enjoy skipping cell phones over ponds and calling ink what it really is, instead of
pretentious misleading terms like, "archival pigment print". Now you have to excuse me, I need to check my e-mail to see if my sister has sent me any of her cellphone shots of the Albequerque balloon festival yet.

[Drew Wiley]

Johathan - study your history. The whole concept and prototyping behind the printing press came about by crooks attempting to mass-counterfeit valuable handpainted manuscripts and sell them to the kings and nobles who collected such things, and were often themselves illiterate. This was prior to Guttenburg. Faux has a long history of precedents.

[Kirk Gittings]

With the exception of a few well-known pro friends of mine who actually know how to use PS as a tool instead of a dirty bomb, I was simply resigned to the fact of
color inkjet images looking like the inks had been either stenciled, troweled, or aerosol-canned by gangbanger "street artists" onto the picture plane. Monochrome
images looked even worse at time, with all that wannabee pseudo split-toning that looked like an accidental encounter with the wrong bowl of Kool Aid. But I was
very pleasantly surprised the other day to finally see some work by local advanced amateurs that wasn't over-saturated, over-sharpened, and over-enlarged relative
to the original capture size. Certainly not remarkable stuff in terms of either composition, content, or that kind of high detail and tonality I'd expect from real photographs (in the sense of this expression deliberately designed to tweak Kirk! - And I never knew Mr.Webster had time to do photography or was even interested in it, so in his case, Fauxetymology as far as I concerned! Do dictionaries have pictures in them these days?) - but nonetheless tastefully printed. The monochromes knew what they wanted to be - nice use of black with no unrealistic prints, at least till I put on my reading glasses and looked close. There's no need for anyone
to become a curmudgeon in order to despise Fauxtography. Even young folks can enjoy skipping cell phones over ponds and calling ink what it really is, instead of
pretentious misleading terms like, "archival pigment print". Now you have to excuse me, I need to check my e-mail to see if my sister has sent me any of her cellphone shots of the Albequerque balloon festival yet.

Still comparing the best traditional photography to the worst digital photography I see. At least you are consistent.

[Peter York]

Johathan - study your history. The whole concept and prototyping behind the printing press came about by crooks attempting to mass-counterfeit valuable handpainted manuscripts and sell them to the kings and nobles who collected such things, and were often themselves illiterate. This was prior to Guttenburg. Faux has a long history of precedents.

Drew the printing press originated in the Tang dynasty, China. I don't know enough to say anything meaningful about the uses to which it was first applied there. In Europe the first uses were to "mass"-produce Bibles, as a manuscript on vellum would cost about as much as a Ferrari today.

[Struan Gray]

I imagine that – in a fair fight – you'd just have to back the Willendorf Venus over Kim Kardashian.

[jnantz]

As far as I know, I coined the term Fauxtography, so you must be referring to me.

when was that drew?

[jcoldslabs]

Johathan - study your history.

Derw - study your spelling. ;)

J.

[jp]

Do dictionaries have pictures in them these days?)

yes I saw your picture next to "curmudgeon". You're in good company though with the likes of Karl Struss.

(A close friend already has his picture as an illustration for gullible.)

[Alan Gales]

I used to like to paint. I favored acrylics but I also enjoyed oils and water colors. It's all painting.

I used to draw a lot with pencils, charcoal, pen and ink, and chalk. It's all drawing.

Now I like to take photographs. I use both film and digital. If I tried alternative processes it would be the same but a different medium. It's all photography.

[Drew Wiley]

Guess we could set up a Fauxtofinish camera to see who is the first to look up all this on Fauxcyclopedia. But Struan, the Venus of Willendorf has looked the same
for thirty thousand years - hasn't aged a bit. In less than thirty years, that K. bimbo will probably either look worse than Willendorf or be 60% silicone, speaking of Faux.

[paulr]

The first use (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?14037-Why-not-just-call-it-an-Inkjet-Print&p=116299&viewfull=1#post116299) of that clever pejorative in this forum was by Ellis Vener in 2005

But we can't even give him credit. The Museum of Fauxtography (http://www.fauxto.org/about) was started in 1985. Maybe you can find earlier uses than that. It might take some work ... this already predates the web by a decade.

[Kodachrome25]

Fauxtography?

Who cares, what about Freetography as a small part of the new Freeconomy? I came up with those two words during the Great Recession thank you very much...

[Struan Gray]

Can I bag the rights to 'Fauxtogravure' ?

[Drew Wiley]

Good comparison, Struan. I was hoping someone would bring that up, given that this nonsense is all about faux-semantics anyway! Gravure is one of those potentially
beautiful reproduction processes which were classified as graphics prints, just like photolithographs, etc etc, and now hypothetically inkjet and "giclee" prints - things photomechanically reproduced from photographs, but not traditionally labeled as "photographs" themselves, which darkroom prints generally were. Even halftone images in books can be beautiful if well done, though I'd never consider them as actual photographs, but as reproductions of photographs. I know... I know... I've started another faux-foodfight with that comment.

[Struan Gray]

One day, I will be making colour Woodburytypes. For now though, they're Would-burytypes.

I have the Richard Benson book on the printed image. There are lots of ways of making beautiful prints. I like his way of seeing the good in all of them, even the cheap-as-chips commercial printing methods.

[Drew Wiley]

It was sad to learn that the lab in NYC which revived Woodbury using lead intaglio went out of business. I discussed reviving it around here, but neither I nor the folks
who could potentially do it well thought that either lead or epoxy would pass muster in relation to local hazmat regulations. There are also very real related personal
health risks either way. And the epoxy route has not worked very well in the prototyping stage. They might try an alternate path by laser-engraving plates, something they specialize in, but then it would probably have to be named Fauxbury!

[Struan Gray]

I've looked into 3D printing of plates, but the technology isn't quite there yet. CNC machining of acrylic or other substrates works, and would be accessible to hobbyists. My impression (ho ho) is that you only need the supremely high pressures for duplicating a hardened emulsion in lead – the actual printing process can proceed with a normal intaglio press. Laser-milling of glass or fused silica wafer blanks would be perfect, but not cheap. For large print runs it might be workable for creating a master from which to cast working moulds.

All need a fauxtograph as input though....

[Drew Wiley]

It's all already been tried, Struan. There's something about actual lead in a high-pressure press that does it right to begin with. The folks I have contact with have
a specialized alt lab that would make most people's eyeballs pop out. They literally have the ability to laser-etch a photographic image on something the size of a
Stonehenge pillar, and have done so repeatedly. CNC is nowhere near the same level of control, and certainly not 3D printers. A true Woodbury has a subtlety to
the highlights and shadows that is just, well... just what it is, and nothing else quite is, at least in terms of a mechanical image. But unfortunately, Stinkjet is getting
to be good enough in monochrome to make R&D ventures like Woodbury a distinct commercial risk - just not enough potential clintele, apparently. Expensive.