From: Judy Seigel (jseigel@panix.com)
Date: 09/21/02-05:07:12 PM Z
On Sat, 21 Sep 2002, Larry Roohr wrote:
> There are several 'digital' lists. Outside of a random blip or two (mostly
> from me) none discuss making digital negatives for alt processes, no one
> else on those lists appear to be interested. Making them work for alt is
> very different than making inkjet prints, and very specific to alt.photo
> purposes. Call them digital-alt issues?
>
> I think it's fair game here.
Actually, Larry,I think it's essential. We have tweaked such matters as
pyro and subtleties of whichever emulsion, mourned the passing of dearly
beloved graphic films, etc., into the ground. Other issues, including
"ethical" ones, tend for the most part to be rehashes. (Not without
interest as the personalities change, but still, not new ground.)
The big hurdle/challenge at this point is exactly digital negs. Steve may
not want to go there. Actually I don't WANT to go there myself. It's
awful. But put it this way: if LIAM LAWLESS is doing digital negatives,
you shouldn't need binoculars to see the handwriting on the wall.
I suppose I know personally about three "alt" photographers resolutely
holding out. I respect that, being a resolute hold-outer myself (trying to
stay with Word 5.1 in System 9, for instance).. Whether that cramps or
protects their style is between them and their muse... But digital
negatives are the future of the past... If you can hold out a while
longer, the territory may be a bit easier when you get there.... or
possibly worse, everything having been etiolated. Whichever, that's
absolutely alt territory.
(Guess I should stop here before I stick my neck out.)
Judy
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 10/01/02-03:47:09 PM Z CST