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

[Diana Bloomfield]

Yes, Paul-- that was more my point, and what I tend to see a lot.  And  
speaking of those fake brush marks, now that we're talking about it--  
really-- you think Photoshop could have come up with a more random  
pattern to those.  I mean, it's so obvious.  I saw a print recently  
that was made to look like a watercolor painting, all done digitally.   
That still doesn't make it a painting, nor do I think the photographer  
who printed it that way can call him/herself a painter.

Diana
On Feb 15, 2010, at 2:24 PM, Paul Viapiano wrote:

> Without getting further into whether we consider prints made with an  
> inkjet step valid, we should just go back to what Diana was  
> questioning in the first place and that is printers who make  
> straight inkjet prints, maybe printing with brush borders, coloring,  
> etc all done in Photoshop and then calling that an alternative  
> process print.
>
> Paul
>