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

[Paul Viapiano]

Ugh...slippery slope here.

Unfortunately for digital printers the terms digital and inkjet take away 
the mystique of imagemaking, so they're always on the lookout for some term 
that camouflages the technique, at least that's my view. But "alternative", 
no way, not ever, at any time.

I think "pigment print" might be a good neutral moniker, but you have to be 
in the know to realize it means inkjet.

But when all is said and done, the image is really the thing regardless of 
process. I'm just hopelessly biased towards prints hand-crafted with blood, 
sweat and tears that have been printed by the photographer him/herself.

There's a lot more I'd like to say but will save it for another time.

Paul


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Diana Bloomfield" <dhbloomfield at bellsouth.net>
To: "The alternative photographic processes mailing list" 
<alt-photo-process-list at lists.altphotolist.org>
Sent: Saturday, February 13, 2010 11:47 AM
Subject: [alt-photo] "Alternative" printing?


> 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
> _______________________________________________
> Alt-photo-process-list | http://altphotolist.org/listinfo