> From my perspective this is a most devisive issue. On the (dreaded and
> maligned) PhotoArt list the issue of sincerity in photographic process
> being replaced by a (digital) simulation has been a constant source of
> flame-warfare. I've been in it off and on; it becomes a waste of
> bandwidth.
>
> Whether there are other topics of "why" that would appeal to the list on
> a whole, I'm doubtful. There hasn't been much support in the past.
Darryl, I've been one of the contributors to similar issues and to
questions of aesthetics on the alt-photo-process list. I found interest,
but I believe flaming caused discussions to cease.
I find that aesthetic and evaluative issues and even more basically the
question of what range of questions can be dealt with on a list, all these
**can be handled in a civil manner**. That's now possible on the photohst
list. It wasn't easy at times, but it did emerge. It came when members
began to respect each other, when they combined analytic and evaluative
comments, when they showed that they were willing to change their thoughts
and judgements, and most important, when they began taking responsibility
for what they declared. I think we can achieve this. It's a continuous
fragile possibility.
> I'd like to know why some use gum over cyanotype, VD, platinum, etc. I
> personally am heavily commited to exploring digital technology for the
> purpose of expanding my ability to make art; I'm here on alt-processes
> for exactly the same reason!
Yes, I'm here for the same reasons. I'd also like to know whether people
see the potential of a process when viewing a negative, or earlier when
taking the photograph. As most of my work is with historical negs, I'm
especially interested in the former issue.
> whiz-bang prints? What's really wrong with nice tonal ranges or good
> saturated color/tone on lovely art paper? If his work was mediocre, no
> process will make a real difference. FWIW, I can certainly make a better
> digital negative than I can burn or dodge or copy to enlarged negatives.
Don't have the chug, chug of a computer to make digital negs. But I
wonder about the effect of each process, each medium. When it comes to
printing, I've found that each process I've worked with has a distinctive
look. In fact if I change the paper support within a process, I again
achieve a distinctive appearance for the photograph. Moreover, as much as
we try, I find that we cannot control the materials without immunity. Our
values and perception are effected by the processes we work with. WE MAKE
OUR TOOLS AND OUR TOOLS MAKE US...as the saying goes.
I've only seen a couple of pieces of ink jet work, and they were early
works from students. So, I really can't comment on the potential of this
process. But, I'll be interested to see what exhibition quality looks
like.
Ron