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

Katharine Thayer kthayer at pacifier.com
Mon Feb 15 02:49:00 GMT 2010


I think this isn't quite the same thing, but in a way this reminds me  
of the time someone wrote to me and asked what Photoshop filters I  
would recommend to digitally alter an image to simulate the look of a  
gum print, as she liked the look of gum prints but didn't want to  
bother learning how to actually make them.  I'm not sure whether the  
person was just trying to get my goat, or what.  I don't remember  
what I answered, but my goat was probably got.

As to the issue at hand, I'm with Diana; digital printers should be  
upfront about the nature of their prints.  It's funny, people are  
always saying, or were a few years ago when I was still paying  
attention to these debates on photo forums, that there's no  
difference in difficulty of execution, in aesthetic qualities, in  
inherent worth, between digital prints and any other kind of  
photographic print, that it's the image people buy and no one cares  
how the print is made, and so forth.  But if that's the case, then  
why are these people always mumbling into their chins when asked how  
their prints are made, or co-opting the names of traditional  
processes, instead of saying proudly, "It's an inkjet print!"  I  
suspect the reason they are so evasive about it is that regardless of  
all the bravado about equality of value, people (buyers) do care how  
a thing is printed, and they do value an inkjet print less than they  
would value a handcrafted print of the same image.  I know this is  
true of myself and of friends who collect art.


Katharine





On Feb 14, 2010, at 5:47 PM, Diana Bloomfield wrote:

> Hi Dan,
>
> Well, not to beat a dead horse here (though I may be too late), I  
> have actually noticed this a lot lately-- and on closer inspection,  
> the work described as such is nearly always solely digital.
>
> But what caught my eye this time was someone who lives in my  
> general area (which is why I won't provide the link here, but I'll  
> send it to you off-list), who is presiding over some public art  
> event, and touted not only as someone who is adept at digital, but  
> also as someone who is knowledgeable in "alternative chemical  
> processes."  The added word of "chemical" made it unambiguous to my  
> mind.
>
> Where I live, those of us who do hand-applied alt processes seem to  
> be few and far between, so most of us know each other-- or are  
> certainly aware of each other's work, even if we haven't actually  
> met.  So since I'd never heard of this person-- I was intrigued.  I  
> had no idea there was someone so close by, also doing alt  
> processes.  Naturally, I go into the website.  I first looked at  
> the work, which I really liked and found pretty interesting.   
> However, none of the images is labeled as to process.  So I then go  
> into the bio, and this person is described as a "digital artist and  
> printmaker."  But the bio goes on to say that for the last decade,  
> the imagery is done "entirely using digital processing  . . . while  
> further extending an interest in alternative processes."   Later,  
> Adobe Photoshop and Corel are mentioned as the "tools" this person  
> uses to create the images.
>
> The impression I got from reading all this, is that this person  
> likes alternative processes and might certainly have a "knowledge"  
> of them (which I do think differs from actually carrying out the  
> work itself), and maybe even did some at one point-- and that  
> interest has carried over into influencing the current work (all  
> printed digitally).  If there is, indeed, any hand-applied process  
> added to these digital prints, I think it would have been  
> mentioned.  I'm not even sure it could be classified as "mixed  
> media," because I really think it's  all digital.
>
> I do think this is manipulative use of language, and and attempt  
> to, perhaps, alter how we understand and view photographic prints--  
> and also have us view digital "printmaking" as something other than  
> what it is.  In this particular instance, one has to read closely  
> to see what this person is actually saying about the work.
>
> Though I do digital printing myself and see no issue with doing so,  
> I damn well know the difference between a print that rolls off that  
> printer and one that is painstakingly hand-applied and created,  
> from start to finish.  I personally find alt process printing to be  
> extremely rewarding, on many levels.  I like doing it;  I like the  
> creativity involved, the infinite possibilities for interpretation,  
> the feel of the brush and the paper and mixing the chemicals, and I  
> like the challenge.  I would never call my final alt-process prints  
> digital prints, or even digitally-inspired, simply because they're  
> not. So why imply that a digital print is somehow an alternative  
> process print?
>
>  Again, to educate the general public and even some gallery owners  
> and/or curators about this sort of printing sometimes seems like an  
> ongoing, never-ending job in itself.  So when self-described  
> digital "printmakers" come along and use subtle (or, not so subtle)  
> language to somehow elevate what is a digital print (no matter how  
> well it's done), I find just mind-boggling-- and it serves to  
> further confuse those who are already confused about these ancient  
> printing processes.
>
> Whew. That's how I see it, anyway.  I'll send you the link off-list.
>
> Diana
>
>
>
>
>
> On Feb 14, 2010, at 7:01 PM, Dan Burkholder wrote:
>
>
>> 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
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Alt-photo-process-list | http://altphotolist.org/listinfo
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Alt-photo-process-list | http://altphotolist.org/listinfo
>
>




More information about the Alt-photo-process-list mailing list