Silver based photography now an alternative process?

I believe as tim pointed out that they are indeed "photographs".

Any image captured to me is a "photograph".

Is it art though? Photography is the red-headed step-child of the art world. I believe that a digitally manipulated image has its place. Photojournalism, portraiture, commecial etc.

I have entered the digital world this year, I have been impressed what I can do with it but I am also realistic. I know that nothing I shoot with it will ever grace my walls in the form of a fine B&W print.

Sure its easier, I can scan a 4x5 neg and make it look better on my screen that I would have thought possible, but thats not a print is it? Its intangible to me and even if I were able to print it and have look every bit as good as a fiber print on the newest printer, I wouldn't.

There is something to be said for craft. I respect someone who can go into a darkroom and make a stunning print. It glows. I also know that it took years of practice and I know that his/her hands have molded it into the print I see before my eyes.

The digital world is very seductive. It makes life easy, but is easy better?

I believe for most of my color needs digital will fit the bill, but I still prefer to make my B&W prints myself.

All this happened 15 years or so ago in the computer world. Hackers were highly regarded, skilled programmers and general wizkids. Then the general press got hold of the term, misunderstood it and applied it to the then new breed of computer baddies. Much wailing and gnashing of teeth from the insiders of the computer world ensued. Letters To The Editor were dispatched. Emails were sent. Comp.os.linux.admin filled with posts... But all to no avail. To 99.999% of the population a hacker is someone who breaks into other people's computers - that fight is over.

When it comes to language, the many overrule the few - however misinformed the many may be. It is pointless bewailing the status quo: it is a digital fait accompli (where's all this Latin & French coming from all of a sudden???). You can quote dictionary definitions until your tongue drops out, but everyday usage operates at many orders of magnitude faster than the printing of new dictionary editions. If most people call an inkjet print originating from a 2 megapixel cameraphone a "photograph", then that is what it is - by definition. Getting involved in semantic arguments about what constitutes "a photograph" or "a photographer" is fruitless and as with all things in the real world, fraught with complications and exceptions that will rapidly have you spinning in ever decreasing circles until the universe realises you have passed your own event horizon and you disappear completely (this happens more often than people think - I mean, who has heard from Scarpatti recently?)...

We wet/chemical/traditional/analogue/call-it-what-you-will photographers need to differentiate our methods on their own merits, and not try to maintain sole ownership of a term that no longer belongs to us alone. That fight is also over.

Cheers, Bob.

Amen Bob.

When was the time people started to call alternative process alternative ? and who did ?.
I wouldn't call silver gelatin alternative, because silver gelatin was standard process when I started photography and it still is for me.
Someday, people who started photography with digital thingies would call silver gelatin alternative, but I wouldn't. I wouldn't care.

I thought music CDs have marks like AAD ADD DDD meaning record/edit/or something. People who loves to classify something should have made those marks for photography.

AAA, DDD or whatever, music is music, photograph is photograph. I just love to have my photographs to be AAA.
For me, digital things are much more alternative than silver gelatin.

tim atherton said:

Because he does montage or because he uses some digital?

If the former, photographers have been doing that since the beginning.

Click to expand...

The latter. Of course we know that montage has been done forever.

Rouse's prints are made from 4x5 negatives which are enlarged on to silver gelatin paper.

So is a photogravure a photograph?

My point is, that one goes down a slippery slope when we start splitting hairs about what does and does not conform to a strict narrow definiton about photographics prints.

Just to clarify, my prints are not drum-scanned. A full-size digital negative is prepared and contact printed on FB paper, which is wet processed in the traditional way.

To differenciate it from a digital and from a traditional print, I would refer to it (like Don suggested) as a hybrid. It is the best of both worlds. The flexibility if digital imaging and the longevity of traditional silver-based photography.

To me it proves that we don't need a conversation about either-or, we have a new (additional) tool, and we can freely chose to use it or not. I prefer the traditional method and prepare hybrids rarely, but I do if it helps to create a better output.

The definition of a 'photograph' is clear. It needs to be 'painted' or 'drawn' by light. Consequently, excluding digital cameras is invalid. Inkjet prints, on the other hand, are another matter.

RalphLambrecht said:

The definition of a 'photograph' is clear. It needs to be 'painted' or 'drawn' by light. Consequently, excluding digital cameras is invalid. Inkjet prints, on the other hand, are another matter.

Click to expand...

In Amateur Photographer magazine a while ago, Geoffrey Crawley wrote an article on inkjet printing. He was of the opinion that an inkjet print was not photographic but reprographic. Something I agree with since an inkjet printer uses the same colour CMYK inks as is used in offset lithographic printing (i.e. colour magazines, etc).



Steve.

The need to identify something as 'alternative' should be examined.

For some of us who discovered photography decades prior to the Internet,
the label "Alternative" is sort of a cheesy, art-school label,
calculated to project an "I'm on the margin of society,
I have to fight to claim a place in the world. Respect me,
I'm different ! And original !" kind of attitude.

The immediate irony was that the 'fine arts' takeover of Photography in the '70s
disenfranchised people who made photographs. "Alternative Photography" is rooted not in Traditional Methods, but in Post Modern, cut-and-slash nihilism, devoted to selectively adopting bits and pieces of photographic technique to spice up other forms like painting and sculpture.

The delicious irony is that most of the Photo programs that were born in the '70s were IN the art department, administered by establishment artists, and excluded photographers without MFA degrees, which is of course what the Art School's product was. What photographers had MFA degrees ? Weegee ? Yeah, OK, he was dead, but you get the point. Photography WAS the out-of-the-establishment art form, and practitioners did not normally receive establishment endorsement.

And who needed an art school degree when any yahoo with a cigar and a bad attitude could go out and make great pictures ? There had to be a new product, a synthesis of non-photographic forms, which could be managed.

The fruit from this synthetic garden was "Alternative Photography", no less than a redefinition of what Photography is, brought into line with other forms of "Fine Art". The absurdity of calling Art School Photography "Alternative" is as ridiculous as ANY power group marketing itself as marginal, grassroots, or downtrodden.

.........

Where do we see the boundary between Alternative and Traditional methods ? That's tough, because it IS attractive to agree with David that alternative is anything not made in factories.

I want to answer the question "Alternative to what ?".

There is an anti-inkjet printing bias that threatens Photography's tradition. I think this is a good place to look for that boundary.


Photography has accepted Gravure and other forms of mechanical printing for over a century. PH Emerson and Paul Strand, among many, were acknowledged as masters of gravure. There is no place ( in either the metaphysics or tradition of Photography ) to ground the logic that ink-jet printing should be excluded.

I'll suggest that Ink-jet printing, and hybrid forms, fit squarely within the Tradition of Photography while falling outside the "Alternative Photography" domain.

The Tradition of Photography can be summarized in Weston's motto, "I'll print on a bath mat, if it gives me the picture I want !". Anything is acceptable in order to fulfill the Photograph. The Photograph is the point.

Pictorialism failed because it placed false, painterly constraints on what was an acceptable picture. Composition, papers, presentation, lenses were all controlled. The Alternative Photography movement has more in common with the puritanical snobbery of Pictorialism than it does Traditional Photography. The Anti Digital Bias is no more than Neo Pictorialism, saying quite boldly that the artist cannot call something a photograph unless the Alternative Church of Purity decides to call it a photograph.

Weston would puke.

Even the notion of "Alternative doesn't come from a factory" falls down.

Do we make our own paper ? Slaughter our own animals for gelatin ? Mine our silver, refine our own pyro ? Uh, no. We already spend to much time on APUG to have time for that !

I look forward to making platinums, and albumens, of my 35 mm portraiture. It really is the fulfillment of my nearly 40 years in photography. I'm an arch traditionalist, and yet the BEST way to make the internegatives is digitally. Why not ? Where does Emerson, Weston or Strand say I cannot ? They don't, and everything good and valuable we bring forward from our tradition says we are obliged to do ANYTHING and EVERYTHING to make a good picture and present it.

The tradition is what lives, and inspires new photographers, and moves the people who see the pictures we make.

Neo-Pictorialism, and all the other potholes of convention, are simply attempts by third-raters to control the medium. I think the notion of Alternative Photography is worn out, unless we use it to describe those who would tell us what we can photograph, how we can do it, and what it has to look like.

Photography uses a camera of some sort, a photosensitive media of some variety, to produce an Image. Traditional photography uses film, or a plate, to make whatever the h*ll kind of image the photographer wants to make.

.

donbga said:

Yeah, they are the ones who have purchased color ink jet prints that have faded in just a few years.

.

Click to expand...

and they sure got taken for a ride by that Pollock guy as well.... !

severian said:

I think the time has come. B&W photography can now be classified as an alternative process along with platinum, cyanotype etc. My beginning photography class used to be process based, all wet darkroom. I don't think I can justify that any longer. It must be concept based almost totally and using all the tools available. All the things that produce the beautiful B&W prints that we all love now go into the same class as the platinums etc. But I think this can be a positive thought. You still can't make an oil painting with a computer and I hope the students will realize that you cannot make a real silver print by any means short of a wet darkroom. Appreciate your thoughts.

Jack

Click to expand...

"Alternative" seems like a vague term to me, and I'm not sure what it means in terms of processes. When I was in art school, the beginning photo classes were b/w darkroom based classes. Then there was "non-silver processes" which covered cyanotypes, kallitypes, gum printing, etc. It also covered making enlarged negatives in the darkroom. The platinum class was just that, and I had it with the same instructor as a large format class. Both classes met the same day of the week.

There's certainly more to learn, these days, but I think a good working knowledge of exposure, development, and some fundamental understanding of darkroom printing will give any beginner a leg up on learning hybrid and digital processes.

RalphLambrecht said:

The definition of a 'photograph' is clear. It needs to be 'painted' or 'drawn' by light. Consequently, excluding digital cameras is invalid. Inkjet prints, on the other hand, are another matter.

Click to expand...

No, that is the origin of the word. What a word means today is defined by it's general use, not by whatever combination of Latin, Greek or other words were combined to create the word originally.

How many people now would use "perverted" in its original sense, or any one of the thousands of other words that have changed meaning, or have had extra meanings added to them, over the years? 10 minutes with a dictionary will illustrate the point. Language does not stand still: what something means today is no guarantee that it will mean the same thing in six months time.

Bob F. said:

How many people now would use "perverted" in its original sense, or any one of the thousands of other words that have changed meaning, or have had extra meanings added to them, over the years? 10 minutes with a dictionary will illustrate the point. Language does not stand still: what something means today is no guarantee that it will mean the same thing in six months time.

Click to expand...

and, of course, as a result, "photography" includes digital photography and "photographs" includes ink prints

tim atherton said:

and, of course, as a result, "photography" includes digital photography and "photographs" includes ink prints

Click to expand...

If that is what the general mass of people decide to call them, clearly yes, by definition. A couple of years ago I might have argued against the suggestion: might have argued in favour of Ralph's point, but now it would appear to be a done deal. The meaning of "photograph" has evolved. I think it's a bad move but, as I find happens distressingly often these days, no one consulted me on the change before they implemented it...

Taking the Humpty Dumpty approach to language does not get you very far and eventually you end up looking slightly absurd and start embarrassing your younger family members as you hold forth (you also tend to lose your balance and tumble off walls a lot)...

Cheers, Bob.

Linguistically speaking, you have a point. The images in a magazine, reproduced by offset printing are also referred to as 'photos', and who still remembers what 'pornography' has to do with writing. Nevertheless, the meaning of words change according to general use (that's why 'fat' means 'good' these days), but there doesn't seem to be a general agreement for the word 'photography' among photographers.

I found this somewhere:

The search for the mot juste is not a pedantic fad but a vital necessity. Words are our precision tools. Imprecision engenders ambiguity, and hours are wasted in removing verbal misunderstandings before the argument of substance can begin.

Bob F. said:

We wet/chemical/traditional/analogue/call-it-what-you-will photographers need to differentiate our methods on their own merits, and not try to maintain sole ownership of a term that no longer belongs to us alone. That fight is also over.

Cheers, Bob.

Click to expand...

Totally disagree with you Bob, and with most of what Tim says as well. I think its important to differentiate regardless of what the misinformed public dictates. I'm not that misinformed. And I will explain the difference semantic or otherwise to anyone who wants to listen. If they choose to clump digital imaging in with photography.... well, in my opinion, they are wrong. Its not the same on many levels, and just because a majority of the public doesn't understand the difference, its not reason in my mind to go along with them.

Regards,

tim atherton said:

surely a purist wouldn't be using film though? They'd still be using plates at best.

Click to expand...

Nope. It is the idea of using a silver salt that makes the difference here.

df cardwell said:

.

Click to expand...

Just a few of points in your post that I would like to reply to.

First, although Strand certainly had many of his prints presented in photogravure, I don't think he actually printed a one of them. You mention that he was a master, but I never read that anywhere. You may very well be right, but I think I would have seen that somewhere in all the Strand and Steiglitz that I have read over the years.

Second, I attended a photo school in the late 70's. It was RIT. There were many photo degree programs . Two were professional photography with a BS degree and Photo Illustration with a BFA degree. There was also an MFA program. All of these programs were in the Photo college. Many of the classes crossed degree programs, although the programs were philosophically different. So Your blanket statements concerning the art schools having these programs is not completely accurate with my experience.

Third, I'm not sure if Weston would adopt digital in todays world. Granted, he would give it a try, but I think he would reject it. Just like he did color. Of course there's no way to know.

Regards,

tim atherton said:

and, of course, as a result, "photography" includes digital photography and "photographs" includes ink prints

Click to expand...

Maybe your definition, but not mine. I suppose you have a modified definition of "archival" as well.

don sigl said:

Maybe your definition, but not mine. I suppose you have a modified definition of "archival" as well.

Click to expand...

Having worked as an archives professional for many years, I'd be interested to know if yours is correct....

don sigl said:

Third, I'm not sure if Weston would adopt digital in todays world. Granted, he would give it a try, but I think he would reject it. Just like he did color. Of course there's no way to know.

Regards,

Click to expand...

he didn't 'reject" colour (it rejected him) - essentially he admitted he couldn't do it well enough

I've seen digital referred to as 'fauxtography'. Works for me!

Don,

RIT had a well founded photo program long before the '70s. RIT had photographers directing and teaching. They were the gold standard, and the program which should have been emulated. Few new photo programs did, and merely expanded the existing art program to assimilate cameras. And sucker students.

tim atherton said:

he didn't 'reject" colour (it rejected him) - essentially he admitted he couldn't do it well enough

Click to expand...

I think what you're saying here is you have determined that Weston said he could not do it well enough without Weston ever saying that.