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

[Diana Bloomfield]

Hi Judy,

I was out teaching an alt process class today.  Oh wait . . .  or was  
that digital??   ;)  Otherwise, I would have written sooner.

I understand your comments below, and when I am asked to give a  
written description of my work, or a verbal description, I do readily  
explain that my negatives are digital, made from scans of original in- 
camera negatives.  I have no problem stating that, never try to hide  
it, and-- in fact-- I typically carry on about the wonders of making  
digital negatives. I'm happy to have that technology so readily  
available to me.  I do not, however, view the use of digital negatives  
in the making of a gum print or a pt/pd print or a cyanotype, etc, as  
a "digital print," because-- well-- it's not.

I have no problem describing the work (and the process) exactly as it  
is, though. I can even understand differentiating among digital prints  
regarding inks (eg, pigment, dye, etc).  And with the proliferation of  
digital, the importance of being clear about a b&w print takes on even  
more importance.  If I've made a gelatin silver print, for instance, I  
wouldn't want to simply label it a b&w print, but rather I would want  
to make clear the distinction between that and a b&w print made  
digitally, or in any other way.

And while Roger is correct that, technically, nearly everything could  
be "alternative," since whatever we do is an alternative to something  
else we might choose to do,  I think most photographers do understand  
the term "alternative processes," and what that traditionally means.   
Alternative (at least, for me) also means what I've always understood  
it to mean-- that which goes against the mainstream, or the  
established, or the standard.  I juried a local photography show  
recently that had somewhere around 400 entries.  I can literally count  
on one hand the number of prints that were *not* made digitally (from  
start to finish).  When I start seeing 19th c printing processes  
consistently represented to the same degree, I won't see the need to  
call these "alternative" anymore, either.

And, really, when we're all dead and gone- but our archival alt  
processes are out there living on forever-- and someone (a researcher  
of all things photographic maybe?) discovers the work in a museum  
archive somewhere, or, you know, in a tattered dusty shoebox in the  
local "antique" store-- wouldn't it be useful or helpful  if we  
actually labeled these prints accurately in the first place?

On a slightly related note,  I'm looking for fabric to reupholster a  
sofa.  Do you think I care whether the fabric is labeled polyester, or  
cotton, or silk, or some combination of those?  You bet I do.   
Sometimes I can tell just by the touch when a fabric has no organic  
substance, or if it contains linen or silk, for instance-- but not  
always.  And when I can't tell, I tend to want to trust the  
manufacturer to have labeled the contents accurately and honestly.  Of  
course, I have the feds on my side in this case, and while I'm not  
advocating that we get a federal requirement going to label our prints  
accurately, it's sure a thought.  :)

Diana








On Feb 15, 2010, at 12:22 AM, Judy Seigel wrote:

>
> Tho this "alternative printing" thread has had many valid,  
> insightful and interesting comments, the problem I found when going  
> through -- how many?-- 50 or 870 of them when I logged on tonight,  
> was that the terms are not defined..., with different meanings  
> seemingly used interchangeably, and/or same terms (apparently or  
> possibly) given different meanings.
>
> For instance (naively of course) when the term "digital print" first  
> appeared I thought of a print made with a digital negative....  
> Strictly speaking, that also is a "digital print."  Though I thought  
> also of "inkjet prints" -- recalling a photo magazine (PhotoVision?)  
> that has an annual photo competition open to all the world &  
> reproduces the [100?, or anyway many] of the prints, naming their  
> medium, in a subsequent issue. I recorded the medium of each and  
> added them up (as I recall, reporting totals to the list [???]).
>
> As it happens, yesterday, in a doomed effort to control the mess in  
> the studio, I threw that list (among other detritus) out... but  
> haven't emptied the trash yet (who empties trash?), so when I'll  
> rescue it and report the (newly relevant?) results.
>
> As I remember however, what struck me was that the medium most often  
> reported was "archival inkjet print."  Whether the "archival" word  
> is omitted from this discussion because all inkjet prints are now  
> alleged to be archival, or .... the distinction is simply being  
> fudged, I have no idea... nor do I care:  For me, the FUN (and  
> "art") of the printing is making the print, while "digital" means  
> (or used to mean, or could also mean) that the NEGATIVE was made  
> digitally.
>
> Since long hours of standing in the dark have lost their charm for  
> me, and making enlarged negs by contacting same-size prints onto  
> lith film is certifiably one of the most delicate and tedious  
> processes known to humanity, & my former inkjet printer has gone  
> belly up, I will make my "digital negatives" henceforth via the  
> Epson 3800 sitting at my elbow (as soon as I find the manual, around  
> here SOMEWHERE I'm sure)...  Meanwhile, I think of the prints as  
> hybrids -- digital negatives, printed by hand-applied media. Tho,  
> given the centrality of the negative, it seems to me that "digital"  
> is, while not essential, still a valid part of the designation.   
> (Eg: "Digital neg, gum bi print," or "gum bichromate print from  
> digital negative," etc.)
>
> Nor does the term "digital print" seem adequate on its own... among  
> other reasons because there are now so MANY forms of "digital  
> print"... (and surely will be more).
>
> Judy
> ___________________________