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

Mon Feb 15 17:37:15 GMT 2010

I will never lie and say this is a alternatve pross but is more than a  
digital done with your cell phone
The world is changing there is a mix
If I hand colored the vandyke it would
be kosher by photoshope no
I have Ben a photographer over 55 years
It is the beauty that I want

Sent from my iPod

On Feb 15, 2010, at 11:54 AM, Loris Medici <mail at loris.medici.name>  
wrote:

> :) They're digital prints, or digital reproductions of actual
> alt-process prints. You would be lying if you name them genuine
> alt-process prints, since the final "medium" isn't an alt-process... I
> would seriously feel like my goat was taken (thanks for the
> interesting / colorful idiom Katharine!) if anyone tried to fool me
> with a digital reproduction of an alt-process print.
>
> I did that myself once, I had an image that the customer liked much
> and I presented them several options: gum dichromate, gold-toned
> vandyke or argyrotype, "digital (and enlarged) reproduction" of a
> gold-toned argyrotype print I had already on my hands. (Last
> suggestion was as a guarantee to not loose a potential customer due
> the price point of the genuine alt-process prints and I also wanted
> them to be able to but the image since they liked it so much...) Since
> they were more interested in the image than the process they opted to
> buy the digital reproduction both because it would cost them a
> fraction of the genuine print and they needed a larger image. (Final
> price was USD 170 for the unmatted digital print on Hahnemuehle paper,
> and a small surplus for packaging and shipment...)
>
> Regards,
> Loris.
>
>
> 2010/2/15 Romeo <jamesromeo at mac.com>:
>> 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
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Alt-photo-process-list | http://altphotolist.org/listinfo
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Alt-photo-process-list | http://altphotolist.org/listinfo