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

Mon Feb 15 18:55:55 GMT 2010

Inkjet prints.

--
Best Wishes,

Mark Nelson
Precision Digital Negatives
PDNPrint Forum @ Yahoo Groups

Mark Nelson Photography

On Feb 15, 2010, at 10:11:08 AM, Romeo <jamesromeo at mac.com> wrote:

From:   Romeo <jamesromeo at mac.com>
Subject:    [alt-photo] Re: "Alternative" printing?
Date:   February 15, 2010 10:11:08 AM CST
To: "The alternative photographic processes mailing list" <alt-photo-process-list at lists.altphotolist.org>
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 