From: Nick Makris (nick@mcn.org)
Date: 07/10/01-11:57:34 AM Z
Jeffrey and all, While I agree that prints from inkjet printers are not Alt
and that inkjet negatives for Alt processes are more than suitable for
discussion, I have to distinguish between the inkjet as a process and as
that of a tool.
We are all familiar with the changing methods and tools available to
artists/photographers beginning on day one and how throughout time, great
discourse has been generated with regard to how those methods sometimes make
the resulting product tainted, at least in the minds of the various peer
groups. Be it through the control of contrast control, masking, montage or
knives vs. brushes somehow, the purists from any given dicipline always seem
to have a negative perspective.
I for one am in favor of the use of any tool that gets the job done.
Nick
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeffrey D. Mathias" <jeffrey.d.mathias@worldnet.att.net>
To: <alt-photo-process-l@skyway.usask.ca>
Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2001 6:49 AM
Subject: keeping on topic
> Bob Maxey wrote:
> > >>Does anyone consider inkjet prints to be alt-photo?
> > ... To answer your question, ALT is anything other than conventional
silver
> > systems we have had for decades. Ink-jet is an Alternative process in my
> > view. ...
>
> To the contrary, I feel that one should consider also the second part of
> alt-photo. And that is the photographic ability of the process.
> Ink-jet is not a photographic process. So even though one may wish to
> claim Ink-jet as an Alternative process, it is still not an
> Alternative-photographic process.
>
> That the final print is produced by a photo-sensitive process should be
> an important criteria for the limitation of discussion to keep this list
> focused. Otherwise any printmaking, painting, or drawing process could
> be discussed ad infinitum.
>
> And yes there are elements of these other arts which may be used in
> arriving at an alt-photo, but should be discussed only as they pertain
> in their application.
>
> As example: I certainly feel that Ink-jet as a component of producing an
> alt-photo print (such as a digital negative) can be of worthy discussion
> on the alt-photo list, but Ink-jet prints as a final product is really a
> topic for another list.
>
> But the Ink-jet lovers should not be chastised too harshly, for they
> have hardly contributed as much gibberish as those turf-ego-echo
> warriors.
>
> And why should it be important to keep the list focused? Because there
> are many individuals bringing valuable information, advise, and
> questions to this list with the expectation of a professional forum
> focused on the topic of alt-photo.
>
> --
> Jeffrey D. Mathias
> http://home.att.net/~jeffrey.d.mathias/
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 08/02/01-11:56:46 AM Z CST