[alt-photo] Re: "Alternative" printing?

[etienne garbaux]

Diana wrote:

>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?

To paraphrase a former US philanderer-in-chief, it all depends on 
what your definition of "alternative" is.  Originally, "alternative" 
as applied to photo processes meant "not silver gelatin or any of the 
silver-based color processes."  Often, it was used in an somewhat 
broader sense, so that highly manipulated silver-gelatin images were 
included.  Back then, digital inkjet prints were alt, at least if 
they were called "giclee."

Now that digital has taken over as the mainstream photo medium, one 
might think that digital prints wouldn't be alt anymore -- but it 
usually takes some time for a term to shed its old meaning and adopt 
a new one, so, linguistically speaking, digital "giclee" prints have 
at least some claim to the term "alternative."

Best regards,

etienne