Gang, I hate to say it, but I sarted out several years ago with a digital in my hand. It was a first generation Kodak DC265. At one point in time, I also tried to reproduce the look of the old image. The years went by, and I gave myself the education I needed to roll myself into analog. To make a long story even longer, I no longer even own a digital camera. I have just recently purchased my first 8x10, and im killing myself trying to perfect the calotype. The moral of the story......keep doing what you do, and educate the public. I am one of the people that you have educated, and I thank you all for it. One year ago, I joined a camera club, and I was the only person in the club shooting analog. After winning most of the monthly photo contests, I now have another member joining my ranks. Keep sharing your talent, and keep the processes alive. By the way, I hand grind my coffee, and love it perked. Cheers.
Welcome to the dark side!
Steve
Honestly, I can not be upset by a digital photographer who is willing to create convincing whatever-o-types. I only get upset if they mislabel the prints when trying to sell/show. Being deliberately misleading is wrong (even with art). Despite how wrong is sounds for those who have made a real cyanotype, a 'digital cyanotype' is probably the best name that kind of forgery can have.
Same thing for Giclée Its a stupid stupid evil word! Just say archival inkjet. I just graduated with a degree in fine art photography, and nearly everyone labels their prints as Giclée. I even saw a 'fine art Giclée once'. (I happen to love my inkjet prints, and anyone who says its not as involving as a darkroom print is daft or ignorant)
My teachers were very well informed in alternative processes and would never let a student label their digital print as a 'carbon print'. Haha
I find "digital cyanotype" highly misleading
Oddly, I find "digital cyanotype" highly misleading, as if a digital negative was involved with making a cyanotype, instead of it being a stylized inkjet in blue. But I find "giclée" to be a harmless and commonly-understood (if somewhat giggle-inducing for the Francophone crowd) term. "Carbon print" applied to an inkjet is outright wrong.
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.
You sure you don't mean dark slide?
Be careful with the use of Piezo! Not all inkjets are piezoelectronic - some purists might get upset with a thermal print masquerading as genuine piezo.
i believe that most of the mislabeling of medium is from ignorance, rather than from intent to deceive ..... anyone who has juried or curated an invitational photo exhibit realizes that many photographers have no clue what to put down when asked for the 'medium' of their work -- you get everything from simply 'photography' or even the simply stupid 'color photograph' (like, what, i'm blind?), to the brand names of the inkjet paper used, as in 'silver rag print' ..... but you can't blame them for being confused, because the issue of photographic media has been turned in its head in recent years ..... i think the solution is to advocate a complete identification of process when prints are exhibited or otherwise presented, from the genesis of the image to the final artifact ..... for example: 'silver gelatin print from film' ..... or 'inkjet print from film' ......or 'inkjet print from digital image' ....... or 'platinum/palladium print from digital negative' ...... or even 'platinum/palladium print from scanned film negative' ...... i've even used 'platinum/palladium print from pinhole camera negative', tho i suppose that's getting a bit too anal ....... anyway, there are so many ways to make a print these days, i think that how you got there is useful and honest info to provide the viewer
rich
I don't think it's possible to give too much information.
I once saw a photo on display that listed out the digital camera's body make/model, the lenses make/model/focal length AND the equivalent focal length on 35mm film. Al this aside from the details tech specs on the print. The whole thing was about two paragraphs long.
IMHO, that was too much unnecessary information.
I once saw a photo on display that listed out the digital camera's body make/model, the lenses make/model/focal length AND the equivalent focal length on 35mm film. Al this aside from the details tech specs on the print. The whole thing was about two paragraphs long.
IMHO, that was too much unnecessary information.
I don't think anyone should necessarily be compelled by rigid convention to reveal the technique used to make any image. ... But if someone chooses to ... in the context of selling the image, it must be accurate; otherwise, it's fraud.
I don't think anyone should necessarily be compelled by rigid convention to reveal the technique used to make any image. It's the artist's/photographer's choice. But if someone chooses to, most especially in the context of selling the image, it must be accurate; otherwise, it's fraud.
That really wraps this up. Misrepresentation is the issue. As long as there is full disclosure as to how the image was printed, it is indeed up to the photographer to add any of the fluff (camera, film used, apertures, developer, etc). Some people care to read/know that and most do not.
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?