Thanks for the info and the link Loris. I thought carbon was time consuming!!
Jim
There is a 3-color carbon printing process. Yellow-, Magenta-, and Cyan-colored tissues are printed in registration, one after another. It's a marvelously beautiful process.
On another point: I hope no one posting on this thread still thinks digital can't be beautiful or at least a legitimate photographic expression.
Ha ha, "interacting with the model, with the final image being nothing more than a side effect." I wonder what that means.
The think that gave her away was not only the identical frame edges, but also that not all the images were 4x5" or even the same aspect ratio.
If this upsets you, wait until you see "content aware" in CS5.
juan
Going back to the OP's post, what's more distasteful is that after excellent articles on alternative processes the magazine (if it's the one I subscribe to) then has an article on how to do the same with digital.
Ian
For those of us who honour the craft of photography we have nothing to worry about. On the many forums across the internet, I run into more and more people completely ignorant of what photography is or the skills and talent required to produce outstanding images. And it is all about producing outstanding images. I would say that 99 per cent of the images I see on the internet are complete garbage. Digital photography has made everyone think that an image that is in sharp focus and exposed properly is an award-winning image. This includes many of the "pros" I see out there. I just laugh at these fools. We live in a world where the tools and the process are more important than the outcome. Hell, we teach it in our schools. I've learned to ignore it all. I live with the satisfaction of knowing I can out shoot almost anyone I come across because I have the skills, the talent and knowledge which comes from hard work, dedication and passion for photography.
I've said it before and will say it again: If you're work is good, it'll be good no matter if you printed it on silver-gelatin paper, cyanotype, platinum, or inkjet.
I forget what it's called, but the photoshop plugin that "emulates" different black and white film grains is the one that burns me up. It's amazing to me that someone would pay money for this. It's also amazing to me that people pay $20-$100+ for rice cookers, because the idea of dumping rice into hot water is too much for them to grasp. Photoshop has become the new rice cooker.
It's not going away. I think the best we can do is continue to work on our art work, walk respectfully among our digital peers, and hope for some respect in return.
Personally I don't really care how anybody gets to their end results. A good picture is a good picture regardless of how it was printed.
And a good cup of coffee is a good cup of coffee no matter how the coffee was ground.
- Thomas
Rice cookers produce cooked rice in a way that just boiling will not do.
It is the one you subscribe to, and that last issue was the reason why, after many years I've stopped subscribing to it. Instead I've taken out subscriptions to "Silvershotz" and "Lenswork" magazines.
But silver-gelatin paper, cyanotype, platinum and carbon look better and feel better than stink-jet.
Why doesn't an artist be honest about his/her work. Call it what it is and if it is quality work who cares how you get there!! If it's good it's good! But let's be honest about what process it is. What is so hard about that???
Jim
Just thought I would mention one of those buffoons is a very well know carbon printer.There have been some buffoons calling their inkjet prints "carbon"
Could you explain what you mean by provenance? Provenance is typically defined as the history of ownership of an object or original location of an object, the object being a piece of art or photograph.The biggest strike is the lack of, or flat out misrepresentation of provenance. Photography will continue as an immature and regressive art form so long as photographers refuse to provenance their work correctly.
After struggling into the light over the turn of the century amid much skepticism and naysaying, photography managed to take a place. The last 15 years have been a slide backwards, if for no other reason than the rush and goal to sell and homogenize all techniques under a single heading "photography" instead of the rightful provenance of an individual piece of work. Tools may not matter, but materials do insomuch as they identify the work beyond a brush or a camera. No one quibbles when an oil or watercolor is identified as such, and because it is not a big deal the painting is revered or reviled as what it is. To those that refuse to provenance their photography or clown provenance it because "it doesn't matter", well, if it doesn't matter, why all the BS about what it is?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?