From: peter fredrick (pete@fotem.demon.co.uk)
Date: 06/02/00-05:21:02 AM Z
KatharineThayer wrote
>>We still have little disagreement as long as the goal is the production
of a contact negative as part of the two-step process of making an
alternative process print. What I object to is the prospect of this list
being taken over by folks who have no interest in alternative processes
and for whom digital output is not a means to an end but an end in
itself.<<
I am in complete agreement with you on this point, but is this invasion
going to take place ? there are many strong highly intelligent members of
this list who are hardly likely to let this happen !
>>Discussions about digital output as a final product don't belong
here, in my opinion, and there are plenty of other places for such
discussions to occur. This list is supposed to be about alternative
processes. As long as that's the ultimate goal, I agree with everything
you've said.<<
Katharine
Again we are in broad agreement concerning the ultimate goal of this list,
but I personally feel it is healthy for the list to veer off subject from
time to time to discuss associated subject matter after all everything
impinges on everything whether we like it or not . Otherwise we are
encouraging a ghetto mentality.
Pete
Ps I take your point Sil see new subject title
peter fredrick wrote:
>
> 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 : 07/14/00-09:46:44 AM Z CST