Re: reason for alt. photo?
Judy Seigel (jseigel@panix.com)
Fri, 19 Jun 1998 13:08:24 -0400 (EDT)
On Fri, 19 Jun 1998 C4N2H5O@aol.com wrote:
> For me what I love about photography, silver and alt, is the process from
> start to finish, not just the final print. That's what I find missing the
> most in digital photo. As the quality of digital improves, silver based photo
> is going to become an alternate form, for better or worse. By the time I'm
> out of school, in just a few years, a lot of what I've learned about
> "chemical" photo will be obsolete, or close to it. Yeah, I'll learn digital,
> but I won't respect or enjoy it like I do silver and alt.
First of all, in the interests of full disclosure, I think we're entitled
to know what c4n2h50 means. Second, let me comment that I agree and
disagree with the above. I always told my classes in "non-silver" that
their "regular" photo processes would be obsolete in 5 years -- and that
was before digital was a contender. The history of photography is a
succession of processes.
On the one hand, the learning curve and prerequisites for digital are
steeper and costlier. To repeat myself, I could teach a class to make a
passable enlarged negative in 3 hours with a $30 box of lith film and a
$300 used enlarger... but, on the other hand, there's photo shop. What
you can do in *straight* photography in photoshop just to dodge and burn
to present a perfectly literal image most expressively is awesome.
Of course zonie types have perfect negatives to begin with, so they don't
need those strategies, but from a practical point of view it is of a
higher order. (Now I fully expect Bob Maxey to come on and say that an
*expert* could do that in *real* photography. No doubt. But I'm not an
expert-- and all's fair in art.)
Arguably the best of both worlds would be the digital negative with the
"alt" process... assuming you have plenty of hardware and software and
the stamina -- or desperation -- to learn to use it.
Judy