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

Mon Feb 15 16:11:08 GMT 2010

You all must be sick of this topic
I did a number of photos 5 +7 pinhole
B and W of ruined bldgs along the
Hudson made van dyke prints than
added color and size Photoshop
Made digital prints
What do I call ??

Sent from my iPod

On Feb 15, 2010, at 3:56 AM, permadocument <info at permadocument.be>  
wrote:

> Dear list members,
>
> I, myself, fully agree with Diana's analysis of this frustrating  
> situation.
> Whatever we do, we are always "alternative" to something else. Back  
> in the
> 1800's the ambrotype was alternative to the daguerreotype, with the  
> tintype
> following close behind. Digital photography is an alternative to  
> analog
> work. It is my opinion that we, alternative (historic) process  
> printers,
> should shy away from the term alternative or else, fully explain  
> what we are
> alternative to.
> I wish and hope you we all will continue to make beautiful  
> photographs.
>
> With my warmest greetings,
> Roger
>
> Roger Kockaerts
> Atelier pH7
> 7 rue des Balkans
> B-1180 Brussels
> www.permadocument.be
>
>
>
>
> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : alt-photo-process-list-bounces at lists.altphotolist.org
> [mailto:alt-photo-process-list-bounces at lists.altphotolist.org] De la  
> part de
> Diana Bloomfield
> Envoyé : dimanche 14 février 2010 5:35
> À : The alternative photographic processes mailing list
> Objet : [alt-photo] Re: "Alternative" printing?
>
> Hi James,
>
> I agree that one can make beautiful digital prints.  I've seen
> plenty.  I love the digital prints I've made (and would never
> willingly return to the old-fashioned darkroom to make a straight b&w
> or color print).  But, to my mind, there's a big difference between
> the making of a digital print and what we think of as an alt process
> print.  For me, at least, the 19th c process printing I've done is
> more difficult, more demanding, more labor-intensive and more time-
> consuming than any digital print I've ever made. Of course, I also
> find alt process printing more satisfying to do, and I also like the
> fact that each is a one-of-a-kind print.  In the end, though, it's the
> image itself that really counts, I think-- regardless of how someone
> decided to print it.   And let's face it-- nobody really cares how
> pain-stakingly long it took any of us to make a print.  As long as you
> like the process and the end result, I'm not sure how much anybody
> cares about how you actually got there..
>
> As stated before, though, digital certainly seems to be a widely
> accepted art form these days.  So, for those who are dedicated to
> making digital prints, why not embrace that technology-- rather than
> calling themselves "alternative process" printers?  I find that not
> only just a little bizarre, I also find it misleading and downright
> dishonest-- and, of course, annoying as all get-out.  But maybe that's
> just me.  :)
>
> Diana
>
>
> On Feb 13, 2010, at 10:42 PM, Romeo wrote
>
>> I have ben a photographer for over 55
>> years
>> I have worked alternative for my own
>> work a long time
>> I feel it is working mixing chem. making your paper not buy a box of
>> paper
>> All this put down on digital is wrong
>> I was a great silver printer
>> I feel a digital I make now is as good
>> as a silver that I made than
>> No it as great as a palladim or gum I
>> made
>> I do not have a darkroom now
>> Am at a age where working my apt now or log around lorge format eq
>> I sit at a desk and make lovely prints
>> with contral that is more than I would
>> Dream of
>> Sent from my i
>>
>> On Feb 13, 2010, at 8:29 PM, Paul Viapiano <viapiano at pacbell.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Ugh...slippery slope here.
>>>
>>> Unfortunately for digital printers the terms digital and inkjet
>>> take away the mystique of imagemaking, so they're always on the
>>> lookout for some term that camouflages the technique, at least
>>> that's my view. But "alternative", no way, not ever, at any time.
>>>
>>> I think "pigment print" might be a good neutral moniker, but you
>>> have to be in the know to realize it means inkjet.
>>>
>>> But when all is said and done, the image is really the thing
>>> regardless of process. I'm just hopelessly biased towards prints
>>> hand-crafted with blood, sweat and tears that have been printed by
>>> the photographer him/herself.
>>>
>>> There's a lot more I'd like to say but will save it for another  
>>> time.
>>>
>>> Paul
>>>
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Diana Bloomfield"
> <dhbloomfield at bellsouth.net
>>>>
>>> To: "The alternative photographic processes mailing list"
> <alt-photo-process-list at lists.altphotolist.org
>>>>
>>> Sent: Saturday, February 13, 2010 11:47 AM
>>> Subject: [alt-photo] "Alternative" printing?
>>>
>>>
>>>> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> Alt-photo-process-list | http://altphotolist.org/listinfo
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Alt-photo-process-list | http://altphotolist.org/listinfo