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

[Loris Medici]

Wet plate positives (tintypes/ambrotypes) are already in the category of
alternative process. S/G (or other process) prints from wet plate negatives
can also easily qualify as alternative process since the image forming
medium is historical and/or hand crafted. OTOH, *in my highly subjective
view* pinhole photography "alone" wouldn't qualify as an alt-process at all,
simply because "it's not a process" in the sense I get it. Sorry.

BTW, that comment (that you've quoted below) wasn't about what is an
alternative-process or what isn't. It was about labeling prints. And I
definitely don't object to give information about the specifics of
image-making, but I often find it unnecessary and sometimes distracting.
BTW, I don't find "cyanotype from pinhole image" as excessively informative;
since pinhole is a special case. But still, it's not a process in itself, at
least unless you present the negatives like some do...

I mean if pinholes alone would qualify as alt-process then lensbaby images
alone would also qualify as well, since lensbaby images can't be categorized
among mainstream imaging styles. You see what I mean?

Now, that's a can of worm indeed, and I don't accept responsibility since my
original comment wasn't about what you actually bring into discussion. Since
you've opened it, I felt to jump...

Regards,
Loris.


-----Original Message-----
From: alt-photo-process-list-bounces at lists.altphotolist.org On Behalf Of
Earl and Patty Johnson
Sent: Monday, February 15, 2010 2:40 PM
To: The alternative photographic processes mailing list
Subject: [alt-photo] Re: "Alternative Printing": Terms to define

To get back to the original thought, is it only the print that categorizes
it as 'alternative' or 'alt-process'? That seems to be what I am hearing
from most of these posts. While this is a useful limitation of the scope of
an imprecise term, it leaves out some of the work that has long been
included in the alt-process category. Pinhole photographers and wet-plate
practitioners (I'm sure there are others) whose prints do not fit the
definition might object to being left out.

Loris Medici wrote:
> I think it's the "medium" that *has to be* clearly designated, to 
> reveal the image forming process depends on personal choice...