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

[Laura V]

I just call myself a printmaker (at least when talking to ordinary 
folks). If someone wants to know more, I explain the process. I've also 
used the term "handmade photos" as the heading of my press release when 
I had an exhibition, and the text explained the process. If I were 
contacting a gallery, I would just say they are gum bichromate prints. 
They are done with digital negs, but that's just part of my process - 
they are still gum bichromates and still handmade prints. I wouldn't 
consider an ink jet print "printmaking" or handmade, and each print is 
not unique. I've used the term archival inkjet print before to describe 
inkjet prints done on fine art paper and see nothing demeaning about 
that term. The person buying it is getting a good quality piece of 
art...not one of a kind, but not mass-produced like a poster on 
commercial paper, so I guess that's the "alternative" part. I agree that 
it's misleading though.
Laura

Romeo wrote:
> 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?
>>>>>