Digitally simulating alternate processes

[Mark Erickson]

I've been playing around a little in Photoshop with simulating conventional chemical methods for creating image effects. For example, sometimes I shoot color film and doing filtered black and white conversion in the computer. I've also been working with ways to give prints a luminous "lith" look via Photoshop.

This all brings up some philosophical questions: How do you feel about digital simulations of chemical processes ? Are they "authentic"? Does authenticity really matter? Is there something intangible to be gained by mastering a delicate, tricky chemical art in the darkroom that is simply missing when staring at a CRT? How does the difficulty of the creation process influence the value you give to the result? Thoughts?

[Ralph Barker]

This feels like one of those deja vu all over again topics as it has been brought up so many times. Here are my thoughts.

How do you feel about digital simulations of chemical processes ?

Most digital processes emulate a corresponding traditional technique. Some digital effects then carry the maniuplation further or in new and different ways. That sort of evolution is inevitable, I believe.

Are they "authentic"?

Authentic digital, yes, but not authentic to the traditional process. Thus, for the sake of honesty, digital manipulation should be clearly identified as being such

Does authenticity really matter?

Of course. Integrity is a key element in any endeavor, whether based on a traditional process or a digital one.

Is there something intangible to be gained by mastering a delicate, tricky chemical art in the darkroom that is simply missing when staring at a CRT?

Yes. Until one can walk on the rice paper, one doesn't understand the lightness of the soul. ;-) But, that doesn't mean that traditional techniques, and the mastery thereof, are going to be of interest to everyone.

How does the difficulty of the creation process influence the value you give to the result?

Naturally, "hand made" results reflect the skills of the artisan and should be valued differently than those created mostly by a machine with a little nudging. That is true in virtually all creative and "manufacturing" processes - from suits to shoes to furniture to cars and motorcycles. Those who value the "real" thing will pay accordingly for the work. Those who don't, will opt for the "artificial" substitute, and pay much less.

Some digital processes require as much skill as their analog predecrssors, but a different skill. Digital artists have a significant problem, though, in my opinion. Public perception, and the perception of those with checkbooks, often view digital work, even if very complex, as quick and easy. As such, it's a hard sell to get them to pay for it. They figure they can do it themselves with their own digital camera, so how hard can it be. They just don't recognzie the difference in quality.

[Jay Lnch]

Another question to think about....

Will the value of hand made silver prints by known artists go up? Since they will become more and more rare will they comand a higher price?

[Bruce Watson]

IMHO, the best way to get an alternate process look is to do the alternate process.

Digital printing is an alternate process in its own right. I think you would be better off mastering the process you have, than spending time trying to simulate a process you don't have.

One of the more common questions that continues to come up here and various other forums is the question of whether digital prints are "as good as" silver prints. It is, IMHO, a silly question. As silly as asking whether platinum prints are "as good as" silver prints. Or gum bichromate prints are " as good as" silver prints.

Inkjet printing is it's own medium, with it's own look. It's not wanna be silver printing. Just like platinum, it is stronger in some areas and weaker in others. My advice is to spend your time learning these stregths and weaknesses, and how to use them to express the image you want to print. Your prints will be better for it, and it's really all about the prints anyway, isn't it?

This from a guy to prints inkjet exclusively.

[Gary Gibson]

Go ahead an try it - it doesn't really matter one way or the other.

An awful lot of alternative processes are basically just a gimmick and generally a little bit twee. (I'm not referring to the likes of Platinum here or even carbon prints - rather the semi-revived obselete processes or their modern copies)

Basically the idea seems to be take a fairly mundane image and then produce it in an alternate process in the hopes that someone will take a second look at it.

There really isn't much point in making, say, tintypes (unless you spend your weekends dressing up as General Lee). It's very rare to see as salt print or cyanotype or whatever that isn't more of an attempt to make a silk purse out of a sows ear.

I've recently been reading a detailed study of Francis Frith's massive projects in the Near East. He was someone who made use of the most up to date techniques to make his many wonderful images. That happened to be things like Mammoth Plates coated on the spot at 115 degrees in the desert in a dark tent with hundreds of pounds of equipment carted along the way. You can be sure if light weight sheet film existed at the time, he would most certainly have used it. And the photographs would have been just as good (perhaps even better).

So go ahead and try the digital route. There's a reason daguerreotypes went out of favour - something better came along

[Frank Petronio]

A few commercial illustrators have made gobs of money by simulating alternative techniques, paper negatives, and distressed prints. But I think these fall into the realm of "illustration" due to most of the work being done in the post-photography phase. The end results can be nice, but the end results are rarely anything like traditional, detailed, rich photography. Nine times out of ten it's some blurry still-life with dirt, frays, and rough edges added ever-so intentionally. Which defeats the whole notion of random - and sometimes magical - splotches that you get with real hand coated, paper negatives, and other alternative processes.

[Mark Sawyer]

Twenty years ago, a "digital print" *was* an alternate process. Twenty years from now, gelatin silver prints will be an alternate process. A century ago, platinum printing wasn't an alternate process. Two years ago, the alternator on my car went out.

[Henry Ambrose]

Wood grain plastic or real wood?
Vinyl or leather?
It ain't the same but you can make a purty pitcher lots of ways.
Enjoy your process, whatever it is.

[Kirk Gittings]

Digital imaging is simply a new tool and process to be mastered. It is not an easy way to do simulated alternative processes. It should be approached as a new medium rather than an easy way to fake old mediums.

If you have actually tried to master digital imaging you know that it is as complex and as difficult as any process ever invented. It has its own strengths,weaknesses and "look". I never thought I would say it but after 25 years of printing silver that there can be something exquisitely beautiful about a really fine inkjet print on a matt art paper.

Digital printing has not lowered but raised the bar. Those that think it is an easy route to fine prints are taking the easy route and are not pushing this new process to its limits.

Did you know that Dick Arentz is experimenting with digital negatives? Dick will push the boundaries and no doubt exceed and refine his mastery of platinum by taking advantage of what digital can contribute to his art. More power to him.

[Erik Sherman]

I'm about to do some alternative process work because I want a look that I can best achieve that way. There are times I print digitally. Ther'es no right or wrong if it works for you. However, remember that alternative processes haven't gone through simulated aging tests - they actually do hold up well for a looooong time.

I've been reading The Book of Altenrative Photographic Processes by Christopher James. Not only is there solid information (I never realized that cynotypes don't *have* to be blue), but many examples of art images using the processes. It's practical and aesthetic at the same time.

Oh, and you get to go outside as part of the processing, which beats sitting in front of the monitor any day.

[Brian Ellis]

If you like the look and can do it in Photoshop why not? Nobody is suggesting that a print that"looks like" albumen or gum or whatever "is" an albument or gum print, clearly it's not. As Popeye might say if he used Photoshop, it is what it is. But if you like the look and don't try to foist it off as something it isn't, what's the problem? I use duotone and tritone options in Photoshop fairly often. I'm not trying to duplicate any alternate process, I'm just getting a look that I think works well with the print exactly as I used to do in the darkroom using stinky toxic toners (ugh!). If it happens to resemble some alt process so be it. I'm pretty sure it's not yet illegal to make a print that looks the way I want it to look by whatever means I choose to use.

[Mark Sawyer]

"BRIAN ELLIS, THIS IS THE PHOTO POLICE. PUT DOWN YOUR TONER CARTRIDGE AND STEP AWAY FROM THE PRINTER..."

[Brian Ellis]

Gee, with John Ashcroft leaving office I wasn't expecting a message like that. I guess we're never safe from the Photo Police. : - )

[Bob._3483]

"I wasn't expecting a message like that. guess we're never safe from the Photo Police. : - )"

NOBODY ever expects the Photo Police!

Our weapon is fixer... fixer and stopbath... stopbath and fixer....

Our TWO weapons are stopbath and fixer... and Selinium....

Our THREE weapons are stopbath and fixer... and Selinium... and an almost fanatical devotion to Silver....

Our FOUR ... no...

AMONGST our weapons.... Amongst our weaponry... are such elements as fixer, stopbath....

No wait, I'll start again...

.

Apologies to Mr M. Python of Lower Nether Wallop, Widdlington, Berkshire, Englandshire.