Alternative Processes

[dimento]

An interesting little film on a guy shooting Tintypes :

A couple of guys I went to college with shot alternative processes, Van Dyke Brown (I think) and exquisite small ambryotypes in the second instance. Always wrote these processes off as gimmicks and questioned the reasons for doing them, enjoyable little film though.

Recommend anyone who hasn't seen to watch "What Remains", Sally Mann, it's on youtube in parts, interesting insight not only into the various processes, but also the thinking and reason behind the work, which for me is more important than the mechanics.

Here's the first part of the Sally Mann film: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gu0m2CY_Kb0 enjoy!

[davehyams]

Why would you write them off? It's just another facet of our medium and another way to express one's self visually. Most people probably don't have life changing reasons for shooting Tri-x or digital, but people make good and bad work with both. I'm a fan of photography, from the daguerreotype to digital and everything in between, and for me the medium really sings when process and concept are symbiotic, like some of Sally's work.

[dimento]

Why would you write them off? It's just another facet of our medium and another way to express one's self visually. Most people probably don't have life changing reasons for shooting Tri-x or digital, but people make good and bad work with both. I'm a fan of photography, from the daguerreotype to digital and everything in between, and for me the medium really sings when process and concept are symbiotic, like some of Sally's work.

you misunderstood my poorly constructed sentence, what I meant was, I had always written them off & was beginning to seem them in a new light. For me, as long as there's a compelling reason and the person enjoys them, the process doesn't matter. I think the distinction is when the work is really good and would be good regardless of the technique/medium/film type/method versus work which is all about "the technique", a subtle distinction.

And I probably should have added, the guy who did ambryotypes did amazing work, whilst the Van Dyke Browns guy was photographing something that was old and decaying with an old technique, just for the sake of it.

[George E. Sheils]

you misunderstood my poorly constructed sentence, what I meant was, I had always written them off & was beginning to seem them in a new light. For me, as long as there's a compelling reason and the person enjoys them, the process doesn't matter. I think the distinction is when the work is really good and would be good regardless of the technique/medium/film type/method versus work which is all about "the technique", a subtle distinction.

Well said Damian, I agree totally that some people seem consumed by 'the technique' often at the expense of the visual quality of the image and what they are trying to convey.