Page 22 of 403 FirstFirst ... 1220212223243272122 ... LastLast
Results 211 to 220 of 4030

Thread: post alternative techniques

  1. #211

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    5,506

    Re: post alternative techniques

    Quote Originally Posted by gandolfi View Post

    that's one of the reasons bromoil was invented... to be able to make a darkroom print in a normal way, using any negative format, and then turn that into a bromoil..

    I have also asked twice now (not to you but in this thread), whether using liquid emulsion is regarded as an alternative printing technique. (no answer yet). Here the same story.

    All in all: do you think that a technique that falls under the category "alternative printing" (I use the term alternative technique) has to be contact printing only?
    Without question bromoil falls under the category of "alternative printmaking". In fact, it was one of the most important of the alternative processes in the day of Pictorialism. And of course, bromoils were usually made by enlargement from small and medium format negatives. If one rejected the use of small and medium format negatives for bromoil we would have to throw away most of the bromoil work that was done in the past. This to me is just another absurdity of the very attempt to limit our discussion of alternative printmaking to original LF capture. It is absurd, to say the least. Perhaps stupid and ignorant would be a better choice of words to describe this. And bromoil is of course an alternative process, even though it is not a contact printing process.

    BTW, I have a book on the Spanish bromoil artist Schmidt de las Heras, entitled Schmide de las Heras: Fotografía 1944-60, published by the Xunta de Galicia in 1995. The book contains my text on pictorial photography in Spain, and many large four-color plates of the bromoil prints of Schmidt de las Heras. Virtually all of Schmidt's work was done with medium format cameras.

    BTW, most of the bromoil work that was done in Spain was bromoil transfer, in which the bromoil print was inked and passed through a press which put the ink on a special art paper. The result is very much like photo gravure.

    My point again, if you are going to allow discussion of alternative printmaking on this site, please allow it to be discussed within the context of its historical and present day use, not with these idiotic restrictions that some want to impose.

    Sandy King

  2. #212

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Gresham OR
    Posts
    1,374

    Re: post alternative techniques

    It is important to understand that alternative printmaking does not belong to any type of photography, be it small format, medium format, or large format, nor can it be classified by its analogue or digital origins. Rather, it is a marriage of the old and new with no disciplinary borders. Alternative photography may involve equally pin hole and zone plates on digital and large format cameras, and the sharpest lenses on 35mm and ULF formats. As a long time alternative printer (from the 1980s) the idea that discussions on alternative printing should be limited by type (digital or analogue) or format (small format versus large format) of the taking camera is to me utterly absurd. I don’t accept these limitations for my work, and I am sure that my feelings are shared by the great majority of persons who do high quality work with alternative printmaking.

    I have no issue with the general guidelines on the LF forum regarding the prohibition in the galleries and discussion forums of work done with small format cameras, both digital and film. That is to be expected.

    However, alternative print making is different from general photography in at least two very important ways whenever it involves digital processing, either when the capture is with film and a scan is made of the film, or when the capture is with a digital camera. First, with alternative printing, whether original capture is made in the camera or with a film scan. it is only an intermediate step. In order to make an alternative print you must first learn how to take this file and make from it a digital negative of the same size needed for the final contact print. It is only at this point that you are back to the same base line with direct capture with LF film. And making good digital negatives is pretty much an art to it self, as most people who have worked this way know very well.

    The second way in which alternative printing is totally different from printing with digital files on inkjet printers is in the process itself. When printing digitally, one can take the image file, adjust it a bit, and print directly with an inkjet printer. It is a very fast and direct method of making a print. With alternative printing, one must 1) first learn to make the digital negative, and 2) learn control of a very complicated wet processing system. The time required for each step is on the order of hours, even after one has acquired mastery of both steps.

    You are free to disagree with my point of view, as you like, but my credentials as an alternative printer are there for you to see. I have many articles on the web on alternative printing, a book on printing with carbon transfer, and I have exhibited my work widely. I have printed with ULF in-camera negatives (see p 203 of the second edition of Dick Arentz’ book Platinum and Palladium Printing, 2nd edition for a palladium print printed directly from a 20X24" in-camera negative, directly from LF negatives and from digital negatives made of scans of large format negatives, from digital negatives made from scans of medium format film, and from digital negatives made from digital files of DSLR and another direct digital capture.

    Finally, it really bothers me that some people claim that I don’t want to play by the rules. I have made over 2800 informative and opinion posts to this forum over the past six or seven years and all of them were made in accordance with the rules. However, when rules don’t make any sense to me please do not expect me to stand by blindly and ignore the absurdity.
    Sandy, I agree with most of your last post, i know that you have made a large contribution to the photography community and i know very well that you are a perfectionist in the creation of alternative print making and many other photography related matters. I use with great satisfaction your Pyrocat developer and am thankfull for your free contribution of these formulas.
    However, if i were to base my opinion on this it would not be objective and i don't want to go there.

    Where we disagree is on the forums guidelines or rules or whatever we choose to call them.
    Since both you and i don't own this Forum i believe we should respect QT's decision whether absurd or not.
    With this i have nothing further to say but to accept that we disagree on this one issue.
    I look forward to see many more contributions to this thread, it's been great so far.

    jan

  3. #213

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    5,506

    Re: post alternative techniques

    Quote Originally Posted by Jan Pedersen View Post

    Where we disagree is on the forums guidelines or rules or whatever we choose to call them.
    Since both you and i don't own this Forum i believe we should respect QT's decision whether absurd or not.
    With this i have nothing further to say but to accept that we disagree on this one issue.
    I look forward to see many more contributions to this thread, it's been great so far.

    jan
    Jan,

    Of course, we have no choice but to accept QT's decision on this. That is not in question. But since one long term moderator (Barker) has expressed an opinion that is different from that another moderator (Gittings) I don't really understand why you consider the matter closed. In my world when people disagree it is necessary to reach some kind of consensus, which might be to agree to some sort of compromise, or to reject entirely one or the other points of view. But so far as I am concerned, that situation has not been reached.

    Whether you agree or not with me is not important. I am merely expressing my view of the nature of alternative printmaking, and what it is and is not. Hopefully at some point the moderators will weigh in and bring closure to the issue. Until that happens I will continue to express my point of view. I have nothing against Kirk Gittings, in fact am on record as giving him credit for being a good moderator. But my feeling is that he has made a mistake here, perhaps out of ignorance for the history and practice of alternative printmaking. But whatever, my major interest will continue to be alternative printmaking, not camera format.

    BTW, I do regret that my contributions in this thread have become words rather than images. But that matter was taken out of my hand by the actions of Gittings.

    Regards,

    Sandy King

  4. #214

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Gresham OR
    Posts
    1,374

    Re: post alternative techniques

    Sandy,
    I may have expressed myslef a little unclear, i don't consider this issue closed in anyway. I do as you want to see a closure to this discussion.
    What i meant to say was that i don't have anything more to ad to the discussion, i believe i have stated my opinion and it serves no purpose to continue just for the sake of continuation. The number of posts here witout any art attached is already to high.

    Best.
    jan

  5. #215

    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Sweet, ID
    Posts
    523

    Re: post alternative techniques

    Quote Originally Posted by Colin Graham View Post
    BTW, I can't recommend Sany King's kallitype article enough -http://www.alternativephotography.co...kallitype.html A fantastic resource for kallitypes.
    Thanks Colin. I've read this article many times and it is good. Question on exposure - is the Kallitype a POP process like saltprints or vandykes? Do I review the progress of the exposure and pull it from the UV source (sun for me for now) at some appropriate time? Should this be over exposed like VD's to allow for some loss of density during fixing? thanks. Paul
    The only trouble with doin' nothing is you can't tell when you get caught up

  6. #216

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Kalamazoo, MI
    Posts
    637

    Re: post alternative techniques

    For exposure of Kallitypes, the image should be evident but not complete. Christopher James calls it a stage whisper.
    van Huyck Photography
    "Searching for the moral justification for selfishness" JK Galbraith

  7. #217

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Denmark, Europe
    Posts
    2,165

    Re: post alternative techniques

    As said before, I like to "play" with photopolymer gravure ("Solar plate" in american?).

    here are two examples.
    Image painted with light - then the negative (polaroid 665 pos/neg) was manipulated with sand paper - transferred to a polymer plate and printed with several colours (only one print)



    and same story here, except, that the negative also has been treated with some bleach...

    Last edited by Emil Schildt; 27-Jul-2009 at 05:24. Reason: lack of info

  8. #218

    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Joyce, Washington
    Posts
    1,437

    Re: post alternative techniques

    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Metcalf View Post
    Thanks Colin. I've read this article many times and it is good. Question on exposure - is the Kallitype a POP process like saltprints or vandykes? Do I review the progress of the exposure and pull it from the UV source (sun for me for now) at some appropriate time? Should this be over exposed like VD's to allow for some loss of density during fixing? thanks. Paul
    It is a developing-out process. Like Doug says, just barely evident during exposure, just as the midtones become visable. But exactly how visable will depend on how dry the paper is- I've printed some that almost act like POP if the sensitizer is still somewhat damp. You do loose some density both in the clearing and fixing stages. You do get quite a bit back if you tone after the clearing stage with a noble metal, and what you loose after that in the fix is countered by drydown, so I tended to go for something that looked about right after toning when I was using a split-frame printer and judging exposure visually.

    I think you also regain some dmax toning after fixing with selenium, but it's been so long since I've used selenium I can't remember.


    Here's another pd-toned kallitype. From a 3800/QTR digital negative scanned from a 5x12 incamera original. A nice thing about digital negatives you can achieve a target density and get rid of the exposure variable altogether.

  9. #219

    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Sweet, ID
    Posts
    523

    Re: post alternative techniques

    Quote Originally Posted by Doug Howk View Post
    For exposure of Kallitypes, the image should be evident but not complete. Christopher James calls it a stage whisper.
    thanks Doug and Colin. Sounds a bit like exposing a van dyke with the image becoming stronger during development, which makes sense now that I think about it. Time to give it a try.
    The only trouble with doin' nothing is you can't tell when you get caught up

  10. #220

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,952

    Re: post alternative techniques

    Quote Originally Posted by Jan Pedersen View Post
    Agree with Jim, Excellent work Don.
    Thanks guys, it's always rewarding to receive praise from ones peers.

    Caio,

    Don

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, 02:58
  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, 19:30

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
  •