Judy Seigel (jseigel@panix.com)
Wed, 13 Jan 1999 16:27:44 -0500 (EST)
On Wed, 13 Jan 1999 FotoDave@aol.com wrote:
> But since I was the one who started it, I agree to take back all my questions.
> To those who are interested, to those experts on digital imaging, to those
> experts in light and printing system, please do not send your replies to the
> list. If you are still interested, let's discuss it offlist.
Truthfully Dave, although I didn't entirely follow that discussion, which
seemed beyond me and any interest I'm likely to have, I am disturbed by
what amounts to censorship of a valid pursuit. From where I sit, any
nuances that can be parsed out of the relation between digital and analog
are meaningful. So Steve doesn't like digital. His privilege. I don't
think he speaks for the entire list, & I bet if you put the question
that way, he wouldn't want to. We are supposed to be grownups, able to
tolerate a spectrum of things not precisely to order. If not, I'm going to
throw an absolute wingding the next time anyone mentions EDTA.
Anyway, and besides, many of us of all ages are going to be going digital,
partly if not entirely. The differences are VERY relevant in gum printing,
probably in other media. Even if we can't follow the discussion, some of
it is bound to trickle down & possibly help us, indirectly if not
directly.
But getting to the bottom of my mail queue, I find this from Darryl, which
definitely bears repeating:
QUOTE:
While the digital vs. contone thread gets a bit verbose, nevertheless,
I've gained new insight and appreciation for printing variables. Surface
contact and undercutting light isn't an area I'd truly considered before.
That's good enough for me. When I take my week long platinum printing
workshop this summer, using both traditional and digital methods
(negatives), this will surely be a handy thread to recall from my personal
archives.
END OF QUOTE
I'll add, if I may, that that's what editors are for. When a discussion
of that order gets published, you take out the false starts and the
repetition and detours, so just the heart & clear meaning remain. These
discussions are like a first draft.... and as many have said before me,
often you don't see clearly what you're trying to say until you go through
the actual motions of trying to say it.
As for what is or isn't "alternative": I think I even may agree with Bob
Maxey on this one, to some extent, that is -- although I note that Van
Dyke and Liquid Emulsion and salt prints and kallitype (among others) also
contain silver, so you can't say alternative is not silver based, if
that's what he said, which maybe he didn't.
I myself am entering a mixed phase -- digital negatives for analog gum
printing. But could we possibly agree that an "alternative" medium is any
done outside the intentions, directions and purposes of the major
corporations, ie. (do I hear a drum roll?), -- a post-factory process?
That's my definition, anyway, and I'm sticking to it.
cheery Judy
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sat Nov 06 1999 - 10:06:41