From: peter fredrick (pete@fotem.demon.co.uk)
Date: 06/01/00-10:46:05 AM Z
Jeffrey D. Mathias wrote:
>
> Paul Jordan wrote:
> > ... I'm just wondering why you do not consider digital as "alt" process.
>
> I too do not consider digital an "alt" process as it is the mainstream
> commercial image process.
>>There are lists and newsgroups everywhere that concern themselves with
digital equipment, digital photography, digital output. I agree with
Jeffrey; digital is not an "alt" process and there is no reason for this
list to be used to discuss digital issues other than the production of
digital contact negatives for alternative processes.
Katharine Thayer<<
Whilst I hate to disagree with both Jeffrey and Katharine. I feel this
issue has been oversimplified. The problem lies in what we understand as an
"alt" process which is by its very nature a two stage process rather like
a horse and cart. The first or prime photographic stage, which Judy
describes as factory orientated, ie our film and cameras and the second
post factory stage that is the actual hand crafted light sensitive
processes, ie Platinum, gum carbon cyanotype etc, these processes are
often seen as the prime process, there is however one snag with this
assumption ,Like the horse and cart example the cart wont move without the
horse, so we cant make "alt" process prints without factory generated
equipment or materials, with the exception of course of the Photogram,
Cliche Verre, and similar methodologies. Personally I see no difference
between prime photographic manipulation and prime digital, it is just a
horse of a different colour, it still pulls the cart !
We could if we wished describe the two as Photo/alt light sesitive
printmaking and digital/alt light sesitive printmaking but this may just
confuse the issue even more.
Pete
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 07/14/00-09:46:43 AM Z CST