Is "alternative process" and excuse for boring subject matter?

[bill schwab]

"I'm all blue, on purpose."

I got no fish to fry here and I mean no disrespect to cyanotypes, but this one line is one of the funnier things I've read in this whole thread.

B.

 

[clay]

ROFLMAO

Let's just call a spade a spade here.

ALL alt process is pretentious, self conscious, posturing and almost always boring as hell.

If it weren't, why would every print need to shout out that is alt process, and therefore a very special print.

It has to do this because it can't stand alone on merit but need the alt process label to prove its meager worth.

"I only print platinum, I must be an artist"

" I suck as a image, but never mind I'm bromoil"

"I'm all blue, on purpose."



Give me a break.


Michael

 

[catem]

Let's call a spade a spade here... [etc]

That's the other important thing to have in these discussions - sense of humour

ROFLMAO

Wassat? I know I should know, showing my lack of forum cool :rolleyes:

 

[unregistered]

Rolling On the Floor Laughing My Ass Off.

Obviously you aren't a gamer

 

[John McCallum]

Let's just call a spade a spade here.

ALL alt process is pretentious, self conscious, posturing and almost always boring as hell.

If it weren't, why would every print need to shout out that is alt process, and therefore a very special print.

Silver Gelatin anyone?


Regarding the boring subjects bit. Probably been said but I suspect it's evolved that way. Slow methodical intensely contemplative. You need a subject that won't move much. And it's bound to be desirable to choose subjects with characteristics that will exploit the benefits of the process and materials.

Of course it's more convenient to photograph stuff on the kitchen table with a huge, delicate old camera too. Not many people lugg the woppers out into the wilds or make models wait while they set the thing up in the studio. There are other film methods more convenient for that.

Obviously it wasn't always that way. There used to be no choice. So perhaps alt process photography today has lost something to that.

 

[scootermm]

Im throwing in the towel... anyone want a 7x17 and a a couple hundred negatives and shoudy prints?



I think Blansky is a internetforum-lyrical genius.

 

[sanking]

Let's just call a spade a spade here.

ALL alt process is pretentious, self conscious, posturing and almost always boring as hell.

If it weren't, why would every print need to shout out that is alt process, and therefore a very special print.

It has to do this because it can't stand alone on merit but need the alt process label to prove its meager worth.

"I only print platinum, I must be an artist"

" I suck as a image, but never mind I'm bromoil"

"I'm all blue, on purpose."



Give me a break.


Michael

Giclee anyone? How about a nice carbon print from your inkjet? Or for color, maybe a C-print is more to your liking?

Or would your just prefer one of "them pictures"?


Sandy

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

I suppose any process or tool can become a gimmick--alt-processes, Holga, Leica, Hasselblad, disposable cameras, Velvia, Tri-X in Rodinal, whatever.

 

[rfshootist]

I think anybody pointing fingers at one group of photographers should first cast a critical eye towards the group they belong to. Me thinks the ratio of so-so to amazing work is the same for every genre.
Murray

Overall ? Maybe. There is a bunch of boring stuff everywhere. But we speak about what happens in this community here, which is, concerning craft ,knowledge and artistic concepts above the average level of other web galleries.

bertram

 

[Claire Senft]

Having to use an alternate process is just too extreme. Just being Blansky is alrerady way more pretension than any human being should ever even aspire to. Mike why not reveal your secret pudding head process?

 

[catem]

Rolling On the Floor Laughing My Ass Off.

Obviously you aren't a gamer

Thanks I got the last half but not the first

 

[RAP]

It is very easy to duplicate, simulate alternative processes either digitally or by anolog just by controlling exposure, density, contrast and print color. So what then is the artist selling and what is the public buying, a process, an image , marriage of both?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4715106.stm

Here is a print by Steichen,who was known for working with experimental processes, that sold for a record $2.9 million at auction. Read the article and look at the image and ask yourself, why would someone pay that much for a photograph? Is the image itself that great, is it the process; "autochrome - a revolutionary method of producing colour photographs," the rarity-only 3 prints inexistence, by a world renouned, dead artist?

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

It is very easy to duplicate, simulate alternative processes either digitally or by anolog just by controlling exposure, density, contrast and print color.

Oh Contraire, mon frere. Silver gelatin does NOT have the tonal range of platinum or albumen. You MIGHT be able to fake some of the alt processes digitally on an inkjet printer, but it is still an analog to, and not an exact replica of, an alt process print. Alt processes are labor intensive enough - mimicking them in silver or inkjet requires an exponentially greater effort and investment in time and materials than just doing it the right way the first time around. You're suggesting that you can use a shovel as a screwdriver - theoretically it is possible, but just use the tool that was designed to do the job you want to do instead of forcing something else to fit.

 

[unregistered]

...why would someone pay that much for a photograph? Is the image itself that great, is it the process; "autochrome - a revolutionary method of producing colour photographs," the rarity-only 3 prints inexistence, by a world renouned, dead artist?

Just so they can say they have a Steichen most likely. The shot itself isn't anything special, and one has to wonder if he shot it just as a test for the process, since it has the full range of values in it...from bright sunlight to deep shadows.

3 prints are probably all he needed to get the answers he wanted about the technique. But to pay that amount for it...someone should have their head examined.

 

[RAP]

The silver process has quite a bit of latitude and can adapt to contrast needs, toners etc to give the desired results depending on materials, ones skills, the negative, etc.

Still, how many can tell the difference when looking at the final image hanging on the wall and does it really matter? If you saw that Steichen print posted here on APUG, hanging in a gallery, what would be your response? What sort of comments would you give to the photographer who posted it? Too dark maybe, dodge here, burn there? Would you buy it and if so why?

Personally I too, think the image itself is not so great, dark, simplistic, blurry, no detail, no texture, what Weston and AA would have called the fuzzy wussies. In fact, did not AA and Weston form Group 64 in response to what Steichen and others were promoting, the painterly effect in photography as compared to "straight" photography? AA left MOMA for a time in protest to Steichen taking over as head of the photography dept.

Still, The Pond-Moonlight, taken in New York in 1904, that print is worth $2.9 million because someone paid that amount. What has made that Steichen print so valuable now? Was it the autochrome process itself, something I would classify as an alternative process? Right now it seems that silver images are selling very well at galleries, is it because it is considered a dying process, just as the autochrome process is dead. So it seems to me that part of the value of that Steichen print is tied up in the now obsolete autochrome process.

If that is the case, what does that say about the future value of all the analog processes no matter what they are?

 

[clay]

Yeah, no doubt. And all that hoopla about Da Vinci - I mean come on. A picture of some chick in black with barely a smile on her face? What's the big deal? I've seen giclee's of that stupid picture for less than a hundred bucks. Heck, if you can find the right issue, you can just tear apart a National Geographic and frame the print from that. Yeah, don't get it at all. Idiots.

Just so they can say they have a Steichen most likely. The shot itself isn't anything special, and one has to wonder if he shot it just as a test for the process, since it has the full range of values in it...from bright sunlight to deep shadows.

3 prints are probably all he needed to get the answers he wanted about the technique. But to pay that amount for it...someone should have their head examined.

 

[MenacingTourist]

...Let's say, for exmaple, that you do a portfolio on gas station toilets...

I had a very serious discussion about 10 years ago with a buddy who was keen on traveling the "Blue Highways" and documenting restrooms in all the greasy diners and dive gas stations.

Who are you really and what else do you know about my past? Creepy...very creepy. I like it.

 

[smieglitz]

Well, here I go getting hooked into this thread again after I thought I was done with it.

The Steichen print, "Pond-Moonlight 1904" is a multiple gum bichromate over platinum print, not an autochrome.

In my opinion it is one of the top 3 photographic images I've ever seen. I saw the original print during the "On the Art of Fixing a Shadow" exhibition celebrating the 150th anniversary of photography at the Art Institute of Chicago. It is exquisite and the person who bought it obviously has refined taste since theirs agrees with mine. If you don't agree, oh well, and "Tut tut. It looks like rain."

Speculate all you want about Steichen's motives in creating it (I doubt it experimental since gum printing was Steichen's forte), whether an inkjet could match it (blasphemy IMO), whether it is worth 2.9 million (someone obviously thought so and I'm glad, no overjoyed, now that it ranks as the most expensive photograph especially given the ludicrous price paid for Prince's rephotographed Marlboro Man), etc.

The fact remains that it is a recognized masterpiece of photographic art and will only appreciate in value.

Joe

 

[catem]

whether it is worth 2.9 million (someone obviously thought so and I'm glad, no overjoyed, now that it ranks as the most expensive photograph especially given the ludicrous price paid for Prince's rephotographed Marlboro Man), etc.
Joe

Exactly. I can see where the arguments lie for this particular print and am pleased that it's this one one rather than some others it could be (though the amount of money is still, at least in my world, bizarre, and the singling out of this particular print is also to a certain extent random). The art market is a strange beast. It's difficult to define or predict what kind of 'art' (including photography) will command these huge prices.

I think in the end a lot of it comes down to the whim of those who happen to have the big bucks.....They make the winners, the 'celebrity' artists, and pick certain artists from the past above others.

 

[Kerik]

The fact remains that it is a recognized masterpiece of photographic art and will only appreciate in value.

Joe

Indeed. I doubt the same will be true of the rediculous Marlboro man piece.

 

[bjorke]

Is "alternative process" any excuse for boring subject matter?

Obviously

 

[unregistered]

Yeah, no doubt. And all that hoopla about Da Vinci - I mean come on. A picture of some chick in black with barely a smile on her face? What's the big deal? I've seen giclee's of that stupid picture for less than a hundred bucks. Heck, if you can find the right issue, you can just tear apart a National Geographic and frame the print from that. Yeah, don't get it at all. Idiots.

Excuse me, but did you just call me an idiot?

 

[RAP]

So then the conclusion is that the highest price for a photograph at auction went to an alternative process, multiple gum bichromate over platinum print, not an autochrome, according to smieglitz.

If that is where the money is going, maybe we should all start taking alternative process workshops!

PS So I wonder what experimental process used today will command such high prices at auction 100 years from now? Dare I say the "D" word?

 

[clay]

Darn, i keep forgetting to turn on the [sarcasm] tag. Sorry

Excuse me, but did you just call me an idiot?

 

[smieglitz]

I must say this thread has been very helpful in helping me further delineate the two lists.

Buh bye.

Joe

p.s., Bjorke, love the sig but I also wonder "What would Kali do?"