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

[Diana Bloomfield]

Hi James,

I agree that one can make beautiful digital prints.  I've seen  
plenty.  I love the digital prints I've made (and would never  
willingly return to the old-fashioned darkroom to make a straight b&w  
or color print).  But, to my mind, there's a big difference between  
the making of a digital print and what we think of as an alt process  
print.  For me, at least, the 19th c process printing I've done is  
more difficult, more demanding, more labor-intensive and more time- 
consuming than any digital print I've ever made. Of course, I also  
find alt process printing more satisfying to do, and I also like the  
fact that each is a one-of-a-kind print.  In the end, though, it's the  
image itself that really counts, I think-- regardless of how someone  
decided to print it.   And let's face it-- nobody really cares how  
pain-stakingly long it took any of us to make a print.  As long as you  
like the process and the end result, I'm not sure how much anybody  
cares about how you actually got there..

As stated before, though, digital certainly seems to be a widely  
accepted art form these days.  So, for those who are dedicated to  
making digital prints, why not embrace that technology-- rather than  
calling themselves "alternative process" printers?  I find that not  
only just a little bizarre, I also find it misleading and downright  
dishonest-- and, of course, annoying as all get-out.  But maybe that's  
just me.  :)

Diana


On Feb 13, 2010, at 10:42 PM, Romeo wrote

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