We agree on the fact that we visit certain sites, and threads and categories at those sites, with certain expectations. From that perspective you should undestand the controversy and I would think agree with my position. This thread is called "Post Alternative Techniques" which to me suggests two concepts: 1) that it will be about alternative printing, not equipment, and 2)there will be discussions of modern methods of printmaking. With that in mind I joined the thread to look at the work of other alternative printmakers and to post some of my own images. I had no expectation at all of discussing equipment, and the first image I posted did not mention equipment. However, when I posted the IR images I thought it would be nice to mention how they had been made because there are very few sources of LF IR film around these days and I suspected that some might be interested in the technique.
The very last thing I expected was that someone would complain to the moderators that the image capture was with a digital point and shoot camera. Why would that be a problem to anyone? Is there someone out there with the misguided notion that it is easier to make carbon transfer prints if you start with a piece of film or with a digital MF back on a LF body than if you start with a smaller camera. If so, that person is plenty ignorant of what it takes to make high quality carbon transfer prints and all I can say is that I am glad that I don't think that way.
Anyway, I have said my peace on this. The moderators can address the issue or ignore it -- makes no difference to me at all at this time.
Sandy King
Bookmarks