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

[Romeo]

I have ben a photographer for over 55
years
I have worked alternative for my own
work a long time
I feel it is working mixing chem. making your paper not buy a box of  
paper
All this put down on digital is wrong
I was a great silver printer
I feel a digital I make now is as good
as a silver that I made than
No it as great as a palladim or gum I
made
I do not have a darkroom now
Am at a age where working my apt now or log around lorge format eq
I sit at a desk and make lovely prints
with contral that is more than I would
Dream of
Sent from my i

On Feb 13, 2010, at 8:29 PM, Paul Viapiano <viapiano at pacbell.net> wrote:

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