U of S | Mailing List Archive | alt-photo-process-l | Re: Users of digital negatives

Re: Users of digital negatives

Hi Catherine,

Cassandra here -- that is, the time that any kind of large format film material will be available will no doubt be measured in years... very few of them.

Besides which, if Sandy says he switched, we should hear the bell tolling. Some of us may be more adorable than Sandy, or kinder to our webfooted friends, but not many will beat him in righteous exactitude. And in my admittedly imperfect and incomplete experience, digital is more controllable and versatile than those large sheets of wet blubber. True, the digital learning curve causes brain damage, and some of us must deal with enemy computers, but nothing is perfect.

I think by the way I mentioned a couple of months ago that I'd seen a show at John Stevenson Gallery that consisted of large digital prints -- rich, vivid and nearly abstract, Joel Grey's photos printed at Laumont Labs in NYC. There will be more like that. At the same time, the young man in charge kindly showed me the exquisite gum prints made by Keith Taylor for Cy de Cosse -- in a way the two opposite poles of photo printing facing each other. But, even discounting the fact that these were a special process, ie, gum printing, not "regular" photography either, I don't think there will be many more like that -- too arduous. people learn to do that to keep the factories going?

I remember well the moment (probably Photoshop 3) when it dawned on me that you could take a small piece of an image and darken the darks (for instance) with one tool and and brighten or clear the lights in the same small area with another, or the other way around. Which is to say you don't have to be Ansel Adams to get that control.


On Mon, 23 Apr 2007, Catherine Rogers wrote:
Hi All

Thanks so much to all who have replied to my request for
photographers and printers who use digital negatives. I have had a number of
responses - all of which are most interesting and very helpful. The variety
of approaches to making images in these responses means that I have been
able to better refine my own thoughts - which is a terrific bonus - and part
of the process for me too I guess.

Briefly, the project again:
I am curious about the extent to which artists, photographers and those who
print work for other
photographers, are using digital negatives and inkjet printers to make fine
photographs. I am hoping that some photographers and printmakers in the
processes arena might be willing to give a view (no matter how brief because
we are all so busy!) on how the combination of digital negatives and inkjet
printers has enhanced, expanded or changed their artistic practice and
craft - commercially and/or professionally - compared to working in the
darkroom making silver based, chemical generated, enlargements.

I am wondering what other possibilities an inkjet printer combined with
negatives offers the individual artist and printmaker - both conceptually
and practically - and  if digital
technologies have changed what you do, and how you think about what you do.

If any more of you have a moment to comment briefly from your own experience
or you have
any other thoughts on the subject of hybrid photography, I would most

Once again, thanks to all who have so kindly responded. (I will reply
off-list to all who have contacted me off-list.)

cheers and happy printing