[alt-photo] Re: 返: Re: Official press release about HPlarge formatnegatives
Terry King
terryaking at aol.com
Fri Jul 16 19:16:22 GMT 2010
I have never had any hang ups about 'digital'. I made my first gum print from a digital negative in the eighties. I am amazed that people are still fussing about it. It is just another tool which gives us greater freedom. Sometimes it's appropriate and sometimes it isn't. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. It has taken a long time to get digital negatives which are capable of achieving the full potential of the platinum process in terms of tonal range and gradation but now the inks and the translucent materials on which to print them are available from Epson and Agfa.
Terry
-----Original Message-----
From: Alan MacKellar <amackellar at qx.net>
To: 'The alternative photographic processes mailing list' <alt-photo-process-list at lists.altphotolist.org>
Sent: Fri, 16 Jul 2010 13:39
Subject: [alt-photo] Re: 返: Re: Official press release about HPlarge formatnegatives
Joe and Terry,
You are both totally right. But I think everyone is trying to find fault or
mistakes. I am totally involved in Pt/Pd and hope to get better at gum, subject
to my physical (emotional?) constraints. I used large format (4x5 and 8 x 10)
wet process photography for most of my life, always aiming for the best image,
regardless of process. First, I accept your statement that inkjet prints, for
the images I want, are crap.!! But I have seen inkjets by others that I
wouldn't change.
I also love the feel, the smell (with good exhaust), the physicality of the wet
part(even with digital camera) of the process. Given my problems with a major
back surgery, I see nothing wrong with taking (not scanning) a good photograph.
I disagree with the analogue vs digital aura of apparent superiority, and I take
what I can get. My back still allows me to mix chemicals (for shorter periods,
I used to spend 10-11 hours in the darkroom with breaks for peeing and eating,
now 3 is my limit, maybe twice a day when I am rushed with deadlines for a show.
I rarely try to sell my prints, hate when a favorite image is bought, because I
don't feel like repeating myself.
My personal eye will accept and love a print that has been brushed onto the
right paper (there is where silver gelatin fails ME) with care, exposed to the
right kind of radiation for the right amount of time. That is my idea of a
personal lifestyle that is fun and rewarding.
I also have done a lot of Mordancage messing with gelatin prints. That is not
19th century alt-processing (except for a brief time of experimenting with
creating positives from negatives), but the results are often unexpected,
certainly expand the two-dimensional result of the original print, and sometimes
could be called art.
Alan
-----Original Message-----
From: alt-photo-process-list-bounces at lists.altphotolist.org [mailto:alt-photo-process-list-bounces at lists.altphotolist.org]
On Behalf Of Joseph Smigiel
Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2010 9:44 PM
To: The alternative photographic processes mailing list
Subject: [alt-photo] Re:返: Re: Official press release about HPlarge
formatnegatives
> On Jul 15, 2010, at 3:42 PM, Alan MacKellar wrote:
>
> Are we not talking about art? No matter what the process, it's the
> image that counts.
Uhh, no. If I were confined to making prints from digital negatives
or using a digital camera to produce images, I would take up oil
painting in a greater capacity and create my images in that medium.
I consider myself a photographer/artist working in antiquated
processes that are unequivocally photographic, i.e., exposure to
light affects the material in use. Digital cameras and inkjet prints
& negatives may be popularly considered photographic, but not to me.
They are something else and, for the record, the only time I feel
there might be something wrong with those products and processes is
when the digital image masquerades or is marketed as something it is
not (e.g., an inkjet print is not a platinum print or a carbon print
regardless of whether they are marketed as such by a gallery or artist).
So the process is very important to me and it does no good to argue
the point about the image being paramount. I wlll never be convinced
of that and I have little hope of changing the opinion of those who
have embraced the digital imaging technology. But, from what I've
seen, the choice of medium is important to the final image. Degas,
Magritte, etc., were not that good at photography but otherwise were
great artists with images only successfully realized through a
different medium. Their choice of medium made a difference to the
ultimate product. Ever seen an Ansel Adams' in color? Tell me the
process isn't important to the vision... Do you think Vermeer would
use an Epson or an HP with Photoshop or GIMP on a MAC or PC, Coke or
Pepsi, or do you think he still might choose oils?
When I think of digital negatives, I always come back to thinking
they are technologically advanced, non-photographic light attenuators
akin to the materials used to make photograms. Most of us have made
photograms, but with rare exception, it is not something we have
pursued. I know how to make photograms (and BTW have made a few
9'x9' cyanotype photograms) and I know how to create digital
negatives and how to make prints from them (in Van Dyke, cyanotype,
gum, platinum, etc.,) and those light-attenuating methods seem very
similar to me and of equal (dis)interest. And then there are artists
such as Man Ray and several contemporaries on this list who obviously
were/are both successful and prolific with the methods. More power
to you. It's not where my head is at. YMMV. But, I'm also not
going to dis you or somehow diminish your choice of medium.
As far as the recent announcement, hooray that HP is finally working
with those who wish to use that technology to produce prints from
inkjet negatives. Go for it & have fun. Create whatever is in your
mind's eye. Print them big, print them small. Fill the wall. Sell
a million of them through the gallery of your choice. Do what you
enjoy and be successful. Live long and prosper \\ // _
But please don't insist that the process isn't important.
Joe
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: alt-photo-process-list-bounces at lists.altphotolist.org
> [mailto:alt-photo-process-list-bounces at lists.altphotolist.org] On
> Behalf Of Jeremy Moore
> Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2010 2:57 PM
> To: The alternative photographic processes mailing list
> Subject: [alt-photo] Re:返: Re: Official press release about
> HPlarge formatnegatives
>
> Terry, surely the print is just the physical manifestation of the
> image so
> why does it matter how it's made?
>
> This is alt PROCESS and for some of us it does matter what that
> process is.
>
> On Jul 15, 2010 12:24 PM, "Terry King" <terryaking at aol.com> wrote:
>
> Hello Geoff
>
>
> Surely the negative is nothing more than a tool. If it does it
> does its job
> in making the print does it matter how you make it?
>
>
> Terry
_______________________________________________
Alt-photo-process-list | http://altphotolist.org/listinfo
More information about the Alt-photo-process-list
mailing list