[alt-photo] Re: an alternative to alternative

[Diana Bloomfield]

Hey Mark,

Yeah-- I'd like to think that, too (and often have)- but, honestly, I  
do believe there's an element of truth to what he says.

I know people are drawn to images that are printed in an  'alternative/ 
historic/post-factory'  way, especially given the current market over- 
saturation of all things inkjet (and big)-- but they may not exactly  
know why.  In my experience, when they're educated about the printing  
technique used, people seem really interested and intrigued (you know,  
before their eyes start to glaze over)-- but I'm not convinced that  
they fully appreciate that so much of what they may like about the  
image IS, in fact, the printing, too -- that the image itself would  
look very different and, perhaps, not as appealing if made into a  
digital print.  Maybe we would never really know for sure unless those  
images were printed differently, and hung side-by-side.  I will say  
that, through the years, I can count on one hand (maybe 2) the number  
of people who bought an image from me who were collectors,  
specifically, of images printed in an 'alternative' or 'historic'  
way.  They liked the image, too, presumably-- but they don't purchase  
digital prints, only 'alt' prints.   Mostly, though, people may seem  
to like an image, but aren't particularly interested in all the  
details of HOW it was printed.  Again, I'm not sure they fully  
appreciate-- or care-- that an image and the way in which it's printed  
are so closely intertwined and sort of inseparable-- that it all works  
together-- and, hopefully, each strengthens the other in some way.

Of course, that's all my limited experience, and  it's also possible I  
don't know what I'm talking about, either. ;)

Diana

> I really don't think he knows what he is talking about.
>
> Mark Nelson
> www.PrecisionDigitalNegatives.com
> PDNPRint Forum @ Yahoo Groups
> www.MarkINelsonPhoto.com
>
> sent from my iPhonetypeDeviceThingy
>
> On Mar 31, 2012, at 11:10 AM, Diana Bloomfield <dhbloomfield at bellsouth.net 
> > wrote:
>
>> I've had so many conversations with my gallery owner here about  
>> this, and while he shows a ton of printmaking (mezzotints,  
>> monotypes, etc), and certainly makes distinctions there-- he is  
>> insistent that with photography, it doesn't really matter how an  
>> image is printed (nor what camera was used-- which we don't  
>> typically point out)-- what matters is how strong the final image  
>> is, and how it resonates with the viewer.  He admits that the WAY  
>> in which an image is printed is certainly part of the final look,  
>> of course, but he maintains no one really cares-- ultimately--  
>> about the specific printing method.  Yes-- he's a real gem-- but,  
>> sadly, I think he's speaking the truth.
> _______________________________________________
> Alt-photo-process-list | http://altphotolist.org/listinfo