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

[Dan Burkholder]

That is a curious way for a digital printer to describe the work they produce. Can you point us to some URL examples? Thanks. (And I haven't read all the thread so if you've already addressed this just set me straight.)

Dan

info at DanBurkholder.com
www.DanBurkholder.com

On Feb 13, 2010, at 2:47 PM, Diana Bloomfield wrote:

> 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