Re: dye sublimation prints

Bill Faulkner (billf@artphiles.com)
Thu, 19 Mar 1998 23:33:15 -0600

In the last three years I have taught Photoshop to a number of people in
the printing trades who had to go with the flow. Many of them had
wonderful, hardwon skills as airbrush artists, dot etchers, type
setters, strippers, etc. which were no longer in demand. A lot of
printing skills are being rendered obsolete by technology and people who
have to earn a living must accommodate. Uniformly, they did not whine
about the old ways being the best, or everyone being stupid who did not
recognize the value of their hard earned abilities. They had a living to
make. Therefore, I was surprised by the anti-technology tone of some
recent contributions.

I have these questions:

I assumed that alternative photographic enthusiasts were primarily
enthusiasts, hobbyists or academics. Is anyone making a living at this
other than those providing services to hobbyists or teaching? My own
interest comes from curiosity and the appeal of the non-commercial.

If it is a hobby, why all the hard feelings toward successful commercial
photographers and others who must use technology? Or, why be angry that
some people are inept? Like the poor, they are always with us.

Do many of you believe that your work is to be appreciated primarily
because it is technologically difficult or might last longer than anyone
cares, and not because it is appealing or interesting or intellectually
challenging? After all, there are more challenging art forms which also
last forever. (Will any photograph last as long as Greek stautues,
pottery or encaustic painting? How about 16 color woodcuts?)

When we get $100.00 printers that give beautiful, permanent prints will
the old photographic techniques then be dead? I hope not.

I know that a hand-written note to each of you would be more polite, but
...

Bill Faulkner