[alt-photo] "Alternative" printing?

[Diana Bloomfield]

Hi all,

Maybe this has been discussed before, but I wonder if anyone else has  
noticed this recent trend (at least it seems recent to me). I've  
noticed-- especially lately-- that I seem to either hear about or see  
photographers' work (and websites), where the photographers refer to   
themselves as "alternative process" printers.  I always take a second  
look, because I'm interested in what they're doing.  Then when I take  
a closer look, I see that nine times out of ten, all their printing is  
actually digital.  No hand-applied processes, no chemicals, no  
laborious painstaking work involved (except, of course, learning  
Photoshop)-- nothing except a seemingly thorough knowledge of which  
Photoshop buttons to push to simulate what might pass for the look of  
an "alternative process" print.

So have I just been out of it, or is this a new thing-- photographers  
who use Photoshop extensively, calling themselves "alternative  
process" printers?  I'm really curious about this and, I admit, also  
find it somewhat annoying.  (Okay. I find it really annoying, on many  
levels.)  It also seems a bit like false advertising to me, but I'm  
not buying their work, so I guess I shouldn't really care.  At this  
point, though, I can't see anything about digital as being  
"alternative."     So . . .  is it just me?  When did this start?

Diana