[alt-photo] Re: new website and show

[Alan MacKellar]

 I'm somewhat confused about the issue.  I have given up making wet
negatives because of my back and the fact that a modern digital camera can
make good digital negatives.  But I do print digital negatives on Pictorico
(either by QTR or PDN), and then go to the darkroom for the rest of the
process.  Those are my "real" unreproducable (because of my paper and brush
strokes, humidity, etc.) prints that I show in galleries.  If I want to put
them on the web I use a copystand to get digital prints (I compare the real
print to what shows up on the screen, then (gulp) might do minor curve
alteration to the digital print to make it look as much like the "real"
print as possible.)  Since the prints are bigger than my scanner, I can't
use that reproductive method.

How close am I coming to being correct?  If you want to see my "real" print,
you need to pay your way here.

Alan (if this message doesn't get printed, could someone at the office let
me know how to get the alt-list procedure right)?

-----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
Jon Lybrook
Sent: Sunday, June 12, 2011 3:06 PM
To: The alternative photographic processes mailing list
Subject: [alt-photo] Re: new website and show

Hi David,

My opinion is how you display your work on the web should be determined by
your audience and the degree to which your process is integral to the work.
If your main audience is people who understand and appreciate process and
the work is hand-worked or reflects the process to a large extent, as with
gum or bromoil, then showing images of the actual print is the way to go.

With monochromatic prints that closely reflect the original photo, I'd say
less than 1% of people who view such images on the web neither know nor care
anything about the process' affect on the final print.  They care about the
subject and composition, not the nuances in the actual rendering, again, at
least with monochromatic work that is faithful to the original photograph's
tonal and granular nature.  These nuances can't be properly conveyed over
the web, as you pointed out, so why bother going to the extra time and
trouble to rephotograph prints to satisfy that 1% (which I realize is 100%
of the readership of this forum).

Better to spend your time making more beautiful photographs.  I don't think
any collector who buys your work over the web will feel cheated when they
see it is grainier or with a little less tonal range than found in the 100%
digital images displayed on your website.  They should know it's integral to
any handmade process, and I'm sure you would tell them such a difference
exists, just to be safe.

That said, I'm sure many of us are interested to see how accomplished you
are in the process after 3 years by seeing the actual prints sometime.

Best wishes,
Jon Lybrook
http://intaglioeditions.com



On 6/12/2011 11:06 AM, David Ashcraft wrote:
> Thanks for the kind responses.  All the photos are from the digital 
> files, I wanted to put up the finished prints but would have to do so 
> using a camera and just didn't want to hassle with all that.  Might 
> get to that later.  What is the usual way people are going about this?
>
> Thanks,
> David


--
This message was sent from a non-secure email account.
To communicate with us securely, please use our company's private Word
Secure system at:
https://wordsecure.com/?did=XfUsSxYzMC9LDDLY

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