Silvershotz magazine

Mainecoonmaniac · Nov 8, 2010

I just picked up volume 6 edition 6 of Silvershotz magazine. I think it's a beautiful publication. In this edition, there's an article "Darkroom to Lightroom, exploring Ways of Mimicking Alternative Processes" by Ray Spence and Tony Worobiec. Excellent article. As you probably can guess, it's article on mimicking these processes digitally. There's a brief explaination on what the old process is then it goes on how to get the look using Photoshop and an inkjet printer. I just started doing cyanotypes and I'm not sure you could "mimic" the process. I think digital is too repeatable and is missing the element of chance. I don't have a problem using ink jet film to enlarge an image for alternative processes, however I'm ambivalent about imitating old photo processes. What are your opinion about this subject?

jovo · Nov 8, 2010

Mainecoonmaniac said:
I don't have a problem using ink jet film to enlarge an image for alternative processes, however I'm ambivalent about imitating old photo processes. What are your opinion about this subject?

Those who say it's only about the image might also be happy with a knock-off Rolex they can buy cheaply on the street in a large city. It may fool you superficially, but, as an artifact, it will always betray itself eventually.

hadeer · Nov 8, 2010

I am not opposed to using hybrid processes, e.g. using a digitally prepared negative for gum printing. I wonde, however, why so many articles propose mimicking analog processes. It will always be a copy, not the real thing. Rather, digital should develop its own unique ways of expression. I think it's another medium.

hadeer · Nov 8, 2010

I am not opposed to using hybrid processes, e.g. using a digitally prepared negative for gum printing. I wonde, however, why so many articles propose mimicking analog processes. It will always be a copy, not the real thing. Rather, digital should develop its own unique ways of expression. I think it's another medium.

mesh · Nov 8, 2010

hadeer said:
I am not opposed to using hybrid processes, e.g. using a digitally prepared negative for gum printing. I wonde, however, why so many articles propose mimicking analog processes. It will always be a copy, not the real thing. Rather, digital should develop its own unique ways of expression. I think it's another medium.

Beautifully articulated.

Dan Henderson · Nov 8, 2010

hadeer said:
I am not opposed to using hybrid processes, e.g. using a digitally prepared negative for gum printing. I wonde, however, why so many articles propose mimicking analog processes. It will always be a copy, not the real thing. Rather, digital should develop its own unique ways of expression. I think it's another medium.

Imitation, the old saying goes, is the most sincere form of flattery. You are correct: digital imaging is a different medium than traditional photography, and its practitioners should utilize its unique aspects to create unique images. But it seems that every photography magazine has one or more articles on duplicating traditional techniques. It sort of reminds me of how some early photographers attempted to imitate painterly effects.

I continue to believe that the explosive growth of digitally-imaged art, coupled with the fact that nearly everyone now owns a digital camera and computer (leading to the assumption that digital imaging is "easier" and that "I could do that"), increases the monetary and intrinsic value of traditional photography.

Mainecoonmaniac · Nov 8, 2010

Is this an example?

hadeer said:
I am not opposed to using hybrid processes, e.g. using a digitally prepared negative for gum printing. I wonde, however, why so many articles propose mimicking analog processes. It will always be a copy, not the real thing. Rather, digital should develop its own unique ways of expression. I think it's another medium.

I love the work of Maggie Taylor. I don't consider her a photographer, but more of an illustrator. None of the less, her work is done digitally and clearly stated so.

http://www.vervegalleryofphotography.com/?p=artist_biography&a=MT

hadeer · Nov 9, 2010

Mainecoonmaniac said:
I love the work of Maggie Taylor. I don't consider her a photographer, but more of an illustrator. None of the less, her work is done digitally and clearly stated so.

http://www.vervegalleryofphotography.com/?p=artist_biography&a=MT

Interesting work. Would be hard to realize using classic techniques. I think it indeed is a good exemple of the new possibilities digital provides. Tried a hand of it myself a few years ago but it did not satisfy me, others do it better. Now I do what I think I can do best: catch the light and shadow of landscapes and scenes and people that come on my way. On film, that is.

jp80874 · Nov 9, 2010

Dan Henderson said:
Imitation, the old saying goes, is the most sincere form of flattery. .... But it seems that every photography magazine has one or more articles on duplicating traditional techniques.

It sort of makes you wish you could find the magazine they are copying.

John Powers

Dan Henderson · Nov 9, 2010

Mainecoonmaniac said:
I love the work of Maggie Taylor. I don't consider her a photographer, but more of an illustrator. None of the less, her work is done digitally and clearly stated so.

http://www.vervegalleryofphotography.com/?p=artist_biography&a=MT

I admire Maggie Taylor's work as well. One of my girlfriend's favorite shows is "Ghost Whisperer," which features Maggie's work while the opening credits run.

She is also married to Jerry Uelsmann. So see, digital and analog photographers can coexist!

winger · Nov 9, 2010

Dan Henderson said:
I admire Maggie Taylor's work as well. One of my girlfriend's favorite shows is "Ghost Whisperer," which features Maggie's work while the opening credits run.

She is also married to Jerry Uelsmann. So see, digital and analog photographers can coexist!

When I watched Ghost Whisperer, I really liked that opening sequence and wondered how to do something like that. I had no idea it was Maggie Taylor.

I also think that if they're trying so hard to copy traditional looks, why not just do it the traditional way? It's always going to be a copy and not the actual technique.

TheFlyingCamera · Nov 9, 2010

I've not heard her talk about exactly how she makes her work, so I'm not sure, but to me, I don't even know where photography enters in to what she does. She's a brilliant illustrator, but I can't even see the photographs in it, it's so heavily manipulated.

I didn't know she was married to Jerry Uelsmann, but having both of them represented at Modernbook now makes more sense.

Mainecoonmaniac · Nov 9, 2010

Thanks for the Modern Book link

TheFlyingCamera said:
I've not heard her talk about exactly how she makes her work, so I'm not sure, but to me, I don't even know where photography enters in to what she does. She's a brilliant illustrator, but I can't even see the photographs in it, it's so heavily manipulated.

I didn't know she was married to Jerry Uelsmann, but having both of them represented at Modernbook now makes more sense.

Thanks for the link! Never heard of the gallery. I'm a photography lover that lives only 80 miles away. I'm going to SF in a couple of weeks staying at a hotel near by. I'm going to the gallery.

Even though her work is heavily manipulated, her work has a certain sincerity to it. I think her work would be very difficult without a computer so I hope APUGers can give her a break on using digital media.

Mainecoonmaniac · Nov 9, 2010

One of the reasons...

winger said:
When I watched Ghost Whisperer, I really liked that opening sequence and wondered how to do something like that. I had no idea it was Maggie Taylor.

I also think that if they're trying so hard to copy traditional looks, why not just do it the traditional way? It's always going to be a copy and not the actual technique.

One of the reason they want to do traditional works digitally are the hazards of handling chemicals. But that's part of the craft isn't it? I love the imperfections of hand coated plates and prints. For me, digital is to perfect. Too canned. I think traditional alternative processes allows "imperfections" as part of the media because the human hand was involved. The irony is that the imperfections on a computer has to be created. The added bonus of this cookie-cutter age for computer artist is that the perfections can be duplicated exactly every time. I don't find that appealing at all. Maggie Taylor is one exception for me.

Dan Henderson · Nov 9, 2010

well to my eye, people like Maggie Taylor are using the very strongest aspects of digital imaging to create their art. I assume that many digital imaging artists often begin with a photograph, and then combine it with elements of other photographs and/or with other digital manipulations to produce the final product. I This is why I like to refer to it as "digital imaging" instead of "photography." And to some of the art as "illustrations" rather than "photographs," when the final product has departed so far from the original photograph that, as was said, it can no longer be seen.

davido · Nov 11, 2010

I have that issue and as, alt process printer, I couldn't even ready that article. It just came across as incredibly depressing. What's the point, if it's done digitially you will always be able to tell. It just feels fake and pathetic.
It's like do you want to eat a Betty Crocker cake (full of chemicals) of make that trip to the bakery and get the real thing! I'm sorry, in my opinion digital prints will always be second rate.

david

Athiril · Nov 11, 2010

hadeer said:
I am not opposed to using hybrid processes, e.g. using a digitally prepared negative for gum printing. I wonde, however, why so many articles propose mimicking analog processes. It will always be a copy, not the real thing. Rather, digital should develop its own unique ways of expression. I think it's another medium.

Expression is expression, the clean 'digital' look is actualy the film look of many early colour photography examples.

Photography is photography, if it is being valued as art, then only the expression itself (the intrinsic artistic value) is important - how you got there is not of relevance to the intrinsic artistic value.

Athiril · Nov 11, 2010

jovo said:
Those who say it's only about the image...

Art is expression.

Mainecoonmaniac · Nov 12, 2010

I think how the print is represented

davido said:
I have that issue and as, alt process printer, I couldn't even ready that article. It just came across as incredibly depressing. What's the point, if it's done digitially you will always be able to tell. It just feels fake and pathetic.
It's like do you want to eat a Betty Crocker cake (full of chemicals) of make that trip to the bakery and get the real thing! I'm sorry, in my opinion digital prints will always be second rate.

david

I think that it's ok if the digital prints are represented as such. But the real thing is better than a digital knock off. But it takes educated collectors to know the difference.

Mark Fisher · Nov 12, 2010

They are talented photographers, but I was very disappointed when I saw the article. Mimicing another process somehow seems a bit unoriginal....sort of applying an "oil paint" filter in photoshop to mimic an oil painting. You could do that and it certainly is easier than learning to oil paint, but is it really art at that point? It certainly will never be better than the real thing. They did put out a nice toning and alternative process book before they started with digital......

davido · Nov 16, 2010

Mainecoonmaniac said:
I think that it's ok if the digital prints are represented as such. But the real thing is better than a digital knock off. But it takes educated collectors to know the difference.

Well, I did manage to get through this article and , let me tell ya, the authors were not exactly knowledgeable when it comes to actual alt processes. They were saying that Van Dyke prints were just another name for Kallitypes!

I'm thinking the only way one could confuse and actual Kallitype print with an digital impostor was if they were both printed in a magazine. When you hold an actual well printed Kallitype or Cyanotype up to the light you can see the metal in the print. A real Kallitype can have amazing dmax which a digital print can't come close to. I'm sorry, I can't see how the two couldn't be told apart by anyone with half decent vision!

david

Sowers · Nov 17, 2010

I'm normally not opposed to those who mimic classic techniques digitally. My only problem is when they try to pass it off as the real deal. I enjoy being able to tell people exactly how my prints are done (normally a chemistry lesson they could care less about) instead of "oh, well...I downloaded this app for my phone...i hit a few buttons..."

There's not enough ink in my printer to simulate the shadow density of my Kallitypes, anyway.

Silvershotz magazine

Mainecoonmaniac

jovo

Membership Council

hadeer

hadeer

mesh

Dan Henderson

Mainecoonmaniac

hadeer

jp80874

Dan Henderson

winger

TheFlyingCamera

Membership Council

Mainecoonmaniac

Mainecoonmaniac

Dan Henderson

davido

Athiril

Athiril

Mainecoonmaniac

Mark Fisher

davido

Sowers

Silvershotz magazine

Membership Council

Membership Council

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency