Re: Actual photograph

From: Joe Smigiel <jsmigiel@kvcc.edu>
Subject: RE: Actual photograph
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 09:28:07 -0500

> The reason I have persisted in this discussion is because I feel that
> Photography is being redefined, and in my opinion erroniously so, as
> digital at the expense of conventional silver halide and historic
> processes. Now, one could pooh-pooh that trend as being something not
> to worry about, justified as technology marches on, etc., and my
> reaction as, well, reactionary and very old school, academic, etc., but
> I think there is a real danger in terms of potential loss of materials.
> Witness the reduced availability and production of certain films and
> papers, while at the same time the popular photographic literature has
> swung over to being primarily about digital capture and output devices.

How does guarding your definition of photography help securing supply
of commercial wet process products? I think they are separate
problems. For this I don't know if there is a shortcut other than
continuing to use currently available materials to make good work, and
also to find ways to lessen dependency to manufactured products.

> Is there really something wrong with calling the output a "pigment
> inkjet print" or "dye-sublimation print" ?

To me these are at the same level of details as "silver-gelatin print"
or "cyanotype print." Should they be included in a larger class of
photography is where you and I may not agree.

--
Ryuji Suzuki
"Well, believing is all right, just don't let the wrong people know
what it's all about." (Bob Dylan, Need a Woman, 1982)