New Category for Alternative Printmaking via various digital means

[Oren Grad]

Really, do we have to penalize large format photographers on the off-chance that some people would be able to use the same processes for non LF originals?

We don't do that now, and we don't intend to do it in the future. Any methods that our members use to process images and arrive at a print are fair game for discussion in the main sections, so long as 1) the original capture is large format and 2) the discussion is focused on application of the methods to large format captures.

The restriction that is relevant works the other way around: threads that are purely about applying alternative methods to original captures that are not LF belong in the Lounge. For example, the fact that an inkjet internegative is large, or a final alt-process print is large, doesn't make the process "large format" for purposes of this forum if the original capture was not.

A separate section to discuss alt-process printmaking for pictures that started as LF captures would certainly be within our scope. Whether there is enough interest among members to justify such a section is a good question to raise and discuss here.

[bob carnie]

Hi Oren

I think that there would be great interest , as now we are seeing many alt prints being desired by collectors and gallery's. I think this will only grow and I would love to see a dedicated area here on Large Format Forum.

I understand the LF aspect , in my case for my personal work I comply, but I do have to admit that over the next few years the bulk of the work I do for a living using these methods do not fall into original LF capture.
I am hoping we can make some room for any and all capture as it relates to wet alt prints.

I have been trying my best to convince another site to allow just this topic and it seems that will be fruitless.

I would hate to be told to go somewhere else as the two sites I frequent has most of the wet workers in the World, unless there is something else out there I am not aware of.

We don't do that now, and we don't intend to do it in the future. Any methods that our members use to process images and arrive at a print are fair game for discussion in the main sections, so long as 1) the original capture is large format and 2) the discussion is focused on application of the methods to large format captures.

The restriction that is relevant works the other way around: threads that are purely about applying methods to original captures that are not LF belong in the Lounge. For example, the fact that an inkjet internegative is large, or a final alt-process print is large, doesn't make the process "large format" for purposes of this forum if the original capture was not.

A separate section to discuss alt-process printmaking for pictures that started as LF captures would certainly be within our scope. Whether there is enough interest among members to justify such a section is a good question to raise and discuss here.

[Oren Grad]

I understand the LF aspect , in my case for my personal work I comply, but I do have to admit that over the next few years the bulk of the work I do for a living using these methods do not fall into original LF capture.
I am hoping we can make some room for any and all capture as it relates to wet alt prints.

I have been trying my best to convince another site to allow just this topic and it seems that will be fruitless.

Both APUG and LFF were created to support specialty interests. As the market has evolved, both of these specialty interests have become smaller niches, and more vulnerable to being overrun by other interests if their original purposes are not carefully delineated and sustained.

Hand-crafted alt-process work is different from digital in the sense that it's unlikely ever to have anywhere near as large a market presence. But in its core, defining focus it really is a different interest from both film-capture photography per se and large-format-capture photography per se. I think ideally, alt-process printing as a core interest would have its own discussion community, while specialty forums with a different core focus such as APUG and LFPF could have subsections addressing the application of alt-processes to their respective domains. Yes, that means there would be overlap, but I think fruitful exchange as well.

Those of us who are members of both are well aware of the flak that APUG sometimes gets for trying to maintain a distinctive focus. It's not our place to tell them how best to pick their way through this minefield, though we wish them well however they proceed. But for our purposes here, I think we do need to worry about the risks that would posed to the core mission of the Forum by tacking on a new mission that is fundamentally different and might potentially, over time, grow to become a tail that wags the dog.

[bob carnie]

Those of us who are members of both are well aware of the flak that APUG sometimes gets for trying to maintain a distinctive focus. It's not our place to tell them how best to pick their way through this minefield, though we wish them well however they proceed. But for our purposes here, I think we do need to worry about the risks that would posed to the core mission of the Forum by tacking on a new mission that is fundamentally different and might potentially, over time, grow to become a tail that wags the dog.


I am one of those agitators, I admit. .. I have been researching this alternative printmaking wormhole for quite a time and as a long time member I do think a sub forum would be a great asset to this site.

I think you are saying the same thing Yes / No? I think the risks are minimal.. There will come a day when large format sensors will be available for all our big ass cameras and a discussion form that relates to a way of printing them in a permanent artistic method would be a natural fit here.

[Oren Grad]

Hand-crafted alt-process work is different from digital in the sense that it's unlikely ever to have anywhere near as large a market presence. But in its core, defining focus it really is a different interest from both film-capture photography per se and large-format-capture photography per se. I think ideally, alt-process printing as a core interest would have its own discussion community, while specialty forums with a different core focus such as APUG and LFPF could have subsections addressing the application of alt-processes to their respective domains. Yes, that means there would be overlap, but I think fruitful exchange as well.

In fairness to APUG, I should clarify that their mission is defined not in terms of film capture, but rather end-to-end analog processes. So whereas alt-process methods that include digital processing and/or output stages are considered on-topic here so long as they relate to LF captures, APUG excludes alt-process approaches that involve digital processing and/or output techniques.

[Doug Howk]

Bostick & Sullivan maintain a forum on alternative processes which, as far as I can tell, allows discussions that include digital capture.

[bob carnie]

I am aware of that I purchase the bulk of my alt materials from them..
But I am hoping to discuss it here in a dedicated forum?

Bostick & Sullivan maintain a forum on alternative processes which, as far as I can tell, allows discussions that include digital capture.

[lecarp]

Hi Oren


I am hoping we can make some room for any and all capture as it relates to wet alt prints.

Why, when it goes directly against the point of this forum, which is large format photography, arguably the most traditional form of photography. Large format photography is about film and negatives, like it not. Negatives that can be used to make alt process prints.

I also find it odd that people who defend the original purpose of this forum against digital intrusion are the bad guys. It would be different if
this forum had been started to promote digital and we were trying to now ban digital. I have nothing against digital in its proper place, I don't personally believe this should be that place.

[Oren Grad]

Why, when it goes directly against the point of this forum, which is large format photography, arguably the most traditional form of photography. Large format photography is about film and negatives, like it not. Negatives that can be used to make alt process prints.

I also find it odd that people who defend the original purpose of this forum against digital intrusion are the bad guys. It would be different if
this forum had been started to promote digital and we were trying to now ban digital. I have nothing against digital in its proper place, I don't personally believe this should be that place.

We are not APUG. Digital methods are within scope here so long as they relate to large format capture and/or processing of large format captures.

Bob is raising an entirely different question: whether LFPF should host a forum whose core interest is not large format but rather a defined set of printing methods and associated processing techniques.

[Corran]

"Alternative Processes / Printmaking (Large Format Capture)"

Y/N?

Still restrictive but on the other hand, how many people here are shooting smaller formats / digital and making larger digital negatives, compared to shooting LF / ULF and making direct contact prints with alt processes?

Personally, the more I think about this, the more I think the forums here could benefit from a bit more inclusion by adding an additional subforum - a catch-all for small formats that almost all of us shoot in addition to LF. Perhaps placed below the "Community" subforum. But that's a topic for another thread, I guess. I don't post at APUG and have no interest in it, so this affects my perspective (and I also quit RFF earlier this month due to what I consider censorship).