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

[Romeo]

Yes if you make a gum or pt/pd from a digatal neg it is a alternative  
print
is alternative printt
For years I had to make enlarged neg
a pain you know where digatal neg great
I have shown at the Leica gallery for
about 20 years all my prints made from
35 mm or 6./6
I wish I could have made dig negs in the past
Sent from my iPod

On Feb 15, 2010, at 6:31 PM, Diana Bloomfield <dhbloomfield at bellsouth.net 
 > wrote:

> 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
>> ___________________________
> _______________________________________________
> Alt-photo-process-list | http://altphotolist.org/listinfo