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

[Romeo]

You are right I think you put it in words
better than I

Sent from my iPod

On Feb 13, 2010, at 11:35 PM, Diana Bloomfield <dhbloomfield at bellsouth.net 
 > wrote:

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