From: Paul Jordan (jordan@loop.com)
Date: 06/01/00-07:31:54 PM Z
on 6/1/00 12:02 PM, peter fredrick at pete@fotem.demon.co.uk wrote:
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
well said Pete! Bravo.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 07/14/00-09:46:43 AM Z CST