[alt-photo] "Alternative Printing": Terms to define

[Judy Seigel]

Tho this "alternative printing" thread has had many valid, insightful and 
interesting comments, the problem I found when going through -- how 
many?-- 50 or 870 of them when I logged on tonight, was that the terms are 
not defined..., with different meanings seemingly used interchangeably, 
and/or same terms (apparently or possibly) given different meanings.

For instance (naively of course) when the term "digital print" first 
appeared I thought of a print made with a digital negative.... Strictly 
speaking, that also is a "digital print."  Though I thought also of 
"inkjet prints" -- recalling a photo magazine (PhotoVision?) that has an 
annual photo competition open to all the world & reproduces the [100?, or 
anyway many] of the prints, naming their medium, in a subsequent issue. 
I recorded the medium of each and added them up (as I recall, reporting 
totals to the list [???]).

As it happens, yesterday, in a doomed effort to control the mess in the 
studio, I threw that list (among other detritus) out... but haven't 
emptied the trash yet (who empties trash?), so when I'll rescue it and 
report the (newly relevant?) results.

As I remember however, what struck me was that the medium most often 
reported was "archival inkjet print."  Whether the "archival" word is 
omitted from this discussion because all inkjet prints are now alleged to 
be archival, or .... the distinction is simply being fudged, I have no 
idea... nor do I care:  For me, the FUN (and "art") of the printing is 
making the print, while "digital" means (or used to mean, or could also 
mean) that the NEGATIVE was made digitally.

Since long hours of standing in the dark have lost their charm for me, and 
making enlarged negs by contacting same-size prints onto lith film is 
certifiably one of the most delicate and tedious processes known to 
humanity, & my former inkjet printer has gone belly up, I will make my 
"digital negatives" henceforth via the Epson 3800 sitting at my elbow (as 
soon as I find the manual, around here SOMEWHERE I'm sure)...  Meanwhile, 
I think of the prints as hybrids -- digital negatives, printed by 
hand-applied media. Tho, given the centrality of the negative, it seems to 
me that "digital" is, while not essential, still a valid part of the 
designation.  (Eg: "Digital neg, gum bi print," or "gum bichromate print 
from digital negative," etc.)

Nor does the term "digital print" seem adequate on its own... among other 
reasons because there are now so MANY forms of "digital print"... (and 
surely will be more).

Judy