From: peter fredrick (pete@fotem.demon.co.uk)
Date: 06/01/00-01:02:29 PM Z
Katharine Thayer wrote
>>I don't see that we disagree at all. I said that creating contact
negatives by digital methods is on topic in my opinion; I think that's
what you said too.
Katharine<<
No that is not what I meant , possibly I may not have explained it as well
as I should, for this forgive me .If you wish to make an excellent
technical /creative alt process print you need to know all about the
technical /creative possibilities of the prime imaging process ie to use
my simile, with the horse you will need to look in its mouth and and
inspect its teeth, this applies to both photographic and digital
methodology. You cant just say I only need the information which will
produce a fine contact negative.
There is in my opinion a genuine need to try and master as much
information as possible however hard and stony the learning curve. If in
gaining this information we as a list from time to time veer off topic so
be it . So you see I
do have reasons for this list to be used to discuss digital issues other
than the production of digital contact negatives for alternative
processes.The prime one being holistic. The pursuit of excellence in image
making ! not just negative construction.
Pete
peter fredrick wrote:
>
> 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 sensitive
> printmaking and digital/alt light sensitive 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