[alt-photo] Re: "Altered Photography" - was Re: Re: "Alternative" printing?

[Diana Bloomfield]

Well, I guess I'd prefer to see prints, or images, regardless of  
process and reason for using it, labeled correctly.  Call it what it  
is.  In my book, if it's a print that rolls out of a digital printer  
(no matter how much imagination and alteration was used in the  
making), and that's your final image-- then that's not an "alternative  
process print."   It seems as simple as that to me.

Whether we're "feeling our way," or working in total confidence, we  
can accurately represent what we're doing.  Otherwise, just call it it  
"My image I made all by myself," and leave it at that.  (Or, like at  
least one photographer I know, choose to keep what you do totally  
secretive-- but at least he's upfront about that-- "My process is a  
secret," he says.)

Diana

On Feb 14, 2010, at 12:20 PM, sam wang wrote:

> Maybe we should make the distinction between imagery as captured by  
> the camera vs. those constructed in Photoshop.
>
> Not that there is anything wrong with combining and altering images.  
> I've done enough of it, as well as photographers all through the 140  
> years history. But there are differences between using the process  
> to discover the external world and manipulating them to reflect  
> one's imagination.
>
> This I feel is more important than the printing process used.
>
> Sam Wang
> _______________________________________________
> Alt-photo-process-list | http://altphotolist.org/listinfo