> Ah, wonderful. It wasn't convincing as Rosen until FIDO, DIDO etc. showed up.
> Don
Dear Colleagues,
When I left there was a general consensus among the honest photographers that a statement should accompany any photograph used anywhere. I am heartened to see that my contribution remains fresh in the minds of some.
As I tried to point out at the time, I left this group to more fully engage in this project, one that would benefit all photographers everywhere. I felt that as well as working in the dark, I could gain further insight by working in a vacuum.
I recall that there was so much confusion about FIDO and DIDO that an entire business evolved with my acronyms presented on Tee-shirts and other articles of clothing. And later, my work spread to the music industry with a performer even taking on one of my acronyms as her name! This IS NOT what I intended.
So I have refined my original work, and I present it here to you all now. These are the classifications I beleive you will all want to use as shorthand when preparing your statments:
I found FIDI (FIlm to DIgital) to bee to general -- the public was clamouring for more. So I have broken it down as follows
1) For where a true negative (such as a b&w, C41 or transparency) is scanned direct to digital with no human involement. This is the Film Unsupervised to Digital, or FUD.
2) For when digital output from a true negative is produced with supervision -- i.e. the operator has control over the process, but makes NO CHANGES. This is Supervised, Helped, or Assisted Film Transfer with no Editing to Digital, or SHAFTED
3) When a true negative is scanned and any changes are made, the result is what I have called graphics, consequently any digital work that is manipulated is Digital Output to Graphics, or DOG
I have also seen the rise of a phenomenon where people try to produce a true negative (and this includes prints) from digital images. The public NEED to know this, and I have a series of acronyms to assist you:
1) For where the digital image is written to a true negative without operator intervention (I believe there are machines to do this now). This is Digital Output to Film UnSupervised, or DOFUS
2) In some cases a digital image is used to assist the printing of a true negative onto a chemical print. In this case the digital image never appears on paper, but IS involved. The public WANT to know. This is Supervised Digital Involvement to Negative, or SPIN
3) In some cases aDiigital image is captured (no matter how) and manipulated before printing (by any process). Clearly this is als Digital Output to Graphics, or DOG -- DOG is a general term.
Note that there may be some confusion over the DOG, so this is subdivided into
a) Film In Digital Out, or DOG FIDO,
b) cases where there is multiple scanning (for work in progress) -- Film In Film In, or DOG FIFI
c) or cases where it is an output process -- Digital Output of Film Input Subtype), or DOG DORIS
So clearly, colleages, your submissions to photoforum should be accompanied with a primary statement that the public can see that will classify you as a photographer.
Are you a DOG? Or has your work been SHAFTED? My personal preference (and I spread this as far and wide as I can) is for FUD.
When you go to pick up prints, you can now easily refer to the process (with complete clarity for the operator) by teling them you've come to pick up your FIDO's FIFO's or DORIS'
I am sure that Andy will embrace this as completely as he embraced my prototype efforts and will upgrade the gallery to subdivide it into DOFUS and FUD (I can't imagine him accepting any DOGs).
Best
Bob
