Page 10 of 267 FirstFirst ... 891011122060110 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 100 of 2669

Thread: post alternative techniques

  1. #91

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Czech Republic
    Posts
    1,026

    Re: post alternative techniques

    I've not made any alternative print yet, but I feel I have to step up and voice an opinion of outsider from this field:

    1) Steve M Hostetter has posted several instant film images - and they are considered fit for inclusion here.

    2) Sandy King has posted several alternative prints (in the strict sense of the term) - and they are not considered fit.

    To me, both of these are wrong. Now why:

    ad 1) there is totally nothing alternative in an instant print. It's just a straight capture, like using a digital camera attached to the LF gear and then printing the image. Steve has said it's alternative to darkroom work in his view. Well, then all of us having a hybrid workflow are producing alternative work - it's alternative to the darkroom. And that is untrue in the strict sense of what alternative print means to the majority of us. If I were the moderator of the forum, I'd delete those posts (if any at all). But I'm not and that is only my opinion.

    ad 2) To me it does not matter how many [mega]pixels the input for the digital negative has - it might be created with the G9 as Sandy has, it might be scanned from a 10x12" ULF film. Once the digital negative is prepared, it's only a source for the personal work, that is highly individual, relatively variable (at least from what I understand) and impossible to duplicate exactly. There is a lot of patience, knowledge, skill and work of the artist/photographer included then. And this is what producing alternative print means to me. That is also what Sandy has done. Again, if I were the moderator, I'd certainly not delete the scans of his prints. But I'm not.

    This forum has served me immensely in learning what I can do with my LF camera now, what kind of images I can produce. Not only the verbal information in the different sections of the forum, but also with "sample"/"example" images of the work that can be achieved. Now as I view the images/prints in this thread it has again planted a bug in my mind. It would be a shame if it really was a rule here to exclude digital negatives of any origin.

    (As a side note: using same logic, digital SLR cameras attached via adaptors to a LF camera should also be excluded - the capture format is small, no matter how you attach it)

    My humble opinion.

    Jiri

  2. #92

    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Sweet, ID
    Posts
    400

    Re: post alternative techniques

    Quote Originally Posted by sanking View Post
    Good point. There is really no good discussion site that is open to all aspects of alternative printmaking. At APUG you have restrictions on digital, but any camera system goes. Here the discussion is limited to camera system, and digital is ok in certain circumstances, say when if it is combined with a LF camera.

    The hubrid forum comes to mind but I bet that if someone went over there and posted an image of a beautiful pt/pd print made with an in-camera ULF negative somebody would bitch that there was no digital involved in the work flow.

    Sandy King
    I'm in your camp on this one Sandy after reading all of the comments, FWIW. The irony in all of this is that in order to post the images to this forum (or any forum for that matter), a digital image has to be made.
    The only trouble with doin' nothing is you can't tell when you get caught up

  3. #93
    Kirk Gittings's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Albuquerque, Nuevo Mexico
    Posts
    8,356

    Re: post alternative techniques

    Kirk Gititngs elected to delete one of the prints I posted to this thread because it was not made with a large format camera, even though I said nothiong about capture type when I originally posted the image. Sandy King
    from Sandy's original post:
    This is a small carbon transfer print, 9X12" in size. Capture was was an IR converted Canon G9.
    Sandy King
    Sorry those were great images, and I would love to see the originals, but this has been discussed many times and the people who complained were right.
    Thanks,
    Kirk

    "When did photography become a desk job?" Kirk Gittings 2009

    KIRK GITTINGS
    WEBSITE

    LIGHT+SPACE+STRUCTURE (blog)

  4. #94
    Paul Cocklin
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Roseville, CA
    Posts
    242

    Re: post alternative techniques

    Early attempt at Bromoil. Loving the process, just wish I had more time.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails BromoilColorado0001web.jpg  

  5. #95

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    4,616

    Re: post alternative techniques

    Quote Originally Posted by Kirk Gittings View Post
    from Sandy's original post:


    Sorry those were great images, and I would love to see the originals, but this has been discussed many times and the people who complained were right.
    You are moderator and entitled to make that decision. However, if you don't mind please erase all of my comments to this thread, and any other images that I posted in this thread.

    Sandy King

  6. #96

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Denmark, Europe
    Posts
    1,570

    Re: post alternative techniques

    Quote Originally Posted by sanking View Post
    You are moderator and entitled to make that decision. However, if you don't mind please erase all of my comments to this thread, and any other images that I posted in this thread.

    Sandy King
    Sandy - please don't. It makes no sense, and we (or at least me...) really value your posts, and comments.

    I am confused though..
    tell me if I am right or wrong:
    IF I decide to post an "illegal" image here, but don't tell the truth about the choise of original camera - then it is ok?

    But if I am honest, it is getting deleted?

    How can anybody see a difference in the final image?

    Inlighten me please...

    (PS: just to avoid any confusion: I am (almost ) all analouge in my works, but I am with you here, Sandy. This thread is not about choise of camera - it is about choise of technique.)

  7. #97

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    4,616

    Re: post alternative techniques

    Quote Originally Posted by gandolfi View Post
    Sandy - please don't. It makes no sense, and we (or at least me...) really value your posts, and comments.

    I am confused though..
    tell me if I am right or wrong:
    IF I decide to post an "illegal" image here, but don't tell the truth about the choise of original camera - then it is ok?

    But if I am honest, it is getting deleted?

    How can anybody see a difference in the final image?

    Inlighten me please...

    (PS: just to avoid any confusion: I am (almost ) all analouge in my works, but I am with you here, Sandy. This thread is not about choise of camera - it is about choise of technique.)

    I am sorry but long ago I decided to be honest with myself and to not participate in frauds. If Kirk and the LF community want to be a part of that, fine, but don't count me in. Don't ask don't tell is not part of my make up.

    It would be obvious to virtually anyone with good knowledge of alternative printing that many of the images submitted in this thread were not made with LF cameras, but it was OK so long as that fact was not stated. And that was in fact perfectly fine with me because there should be different rules for alternative printmaking.

    I guess the most absurd part of this is that a fellow posts a straight polaroid print and that is all right with Kirk as alternative. But my work, which is generations removed from the digital capture is not? I think that is kind of like getting stuck on stupid.

    Sandy

  8. #98
    joseph
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    1,307

    Re: post alternative techniques

    Sandy, re-think that request,
    the thread would be the poorer if more of your contributions were to be removed-

    I'm sorry I didn't get to see the picture-

    joseph

  9. #99

    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Vancouver Island
    Posts
    421

    Re: post alternative techniques

    Why not just move the thread to the lounge?

    Problem solved, you are all welcome.

  10. #100

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    4,616

    Re: post alternative techniques

    Quote Originally Posted by jb7 View Post
    Sandy, re-think that request,
    the thread would be the poorer if more of your contributions were to be removed-

    I'm sorry I didn't get to see the picture-

    joseph
    Joseph,

    I appreciate your kind comments.

    But, to put things in perspective, I am not asking that all of my comments to the LF forum be deleted, only those to this particular thread. And since there are only one or two in question, and perhaps one image file, I don't think the forum would be all that much poorer.

    But I would feel much better at getting out of what to me is an obvious farce.

    Sandy King

Similar Threads

  1. Recommend a book on Alternative Processes
    By Anupam in forum Style & Technique
    Replies: 42
    Last Post: 28-Oct-2010, 19:17
  2. Replies: 41
    Last Post: 17-Jan-2009, 01:58
  3. Depth of Field, Depth of Focus, and Film Flatness
    By steve simmons in forum Cameras & Camera Accessories
    Replies: 65
    Last Post: 7-Jan-2006, 18:30

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •