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

[Diana Bloomfield]

Hi Rene,

I agree that it's the photographer and his or her vision that makes  
the image, certainly-- though the chosen printing process has a huge  
impact and influence on that final image, in both how it looks and how  
it's received.  If it didn't have such an influence, then everybody  
would simply choose the same printing method.   And, actually, I have  
to admit-- sometimes the camera does help make the image, or, at  
least, impacts it hugely (think toy or pinhole).  Of course, that's  
the photographer making that choice, but still . . .

Like you, "I don't hold it against digital photographers who don't  
know the history of alt processes," but I think there are (primarily)  
digital printers, who know exactly what they're doing when they say  
their printing (not their photography) is "alternative processes" --  
most especially when the language is manipulated in such a way that it  
"sounds like" they're printing in what we think of as alt processes;  
when, in actuality, they're making digital prints to sort of look like  
what they consider an "alternative chemical printing process."   It  
really is both manipulative and dishonest.  And in my experience, a  
lot of gallery owners/curators don't even know what they're looking at  
when they see an alt process print, so for digital printers to now  
come up with this description of what they're doing as "alt process  
printing" really just makes the attempt at educating gallery owners,  
and others, about these processes, almost impossible.

Most of the photography I see these days, in galleries and elsewhere,  
is the result of digital printing (usually BIG BIG digital prints), so  
it really stretches the imagination-- at this point-- that digital  
printers are still unsure about what to call themselves, or their  
chosen printing process.  I don't quite get that.

Diana

On Feb 14, 2010, at 11:35 AM, Rene Hales wrote:

> All generalizations are dangerous including this one. (have  
> forgotten who
> said that)
>
> I do both digital AND some alt processes (a fledgling in this are  
> though I
> am taking workshops and trying to learn). I unashamedly label my  
> digital
> work as Archival Inkjet Prints as do many of my friends living in  
> this area
> - some being highly regarded photographers with credentials.
>
> I recently sponsored an alternative processes show (with international
> entries) and we clearly spelled out the processes that would be  
> acceptable.
> We had a wonderful response with many types of alt-photography  
> represented.
> It was an opportunity to educate the local community on the  
> background of
> photography and the exhibit was extremely well received.
>
> I think we are feeling our way in the digital age. And, I don't hold  
> it
> against digital photographers who don't know the history of alt  
> processes. I
> think the categorizations and intent will become more clear. And, it  
> is not
> the process or the camera that makes a photograph, it is the  
> photographer
> and their vision.
>
> Rene
> -------------
> http://www.pbase.com/halesr