Re: Actual photograph

From: Joe Smigiel ^lt;[email protected]>
Date: 03/17/05-04:15:51 PM Z
Message-id: <>

>>> 03/17/05 3:42 PM >>>
>>How does guarding your definition of photography help securing supply
of commercial wet process products? I think they are separate
problems. For this I don't know if there is a shortcut other than
continuing to use currently available materials to make good work, and
also to find ways to lessen dependency to manufactured products.<<

If the popular press, budget administrators, marketing execs and
accountants, and the general population are overwhelmingly exposed only
to digital imagery and begin to think that is what solely encompasses
photography, then demand for other conventional products disappears as
more and more people become less and less aware that these products
exist. It is advertising and supply and demand. I lament the loss of
Ektalure paper which was in my opinion and experience the best enlarging
paper made by Kodak during the time I have been doing photography. I
think that paper disappeared because it was not marketed well. When was
the last time anyone ever saw an advertisement for Ektalure?

> (Me) Is there really something wrong with calling the output a
> inkjet print" or "dye-sublimation print" ?

>>To me these are at the same level of details as "silver-gelatin print"
or "cyanotype print." Should they be included in a larger class of
photography is where you and I may not agree.<<

When you say "cyanotype print" I know exactly to which process you refer
and I know its qualities. If an inkjet print is referred to simply as a
"pigment print" or "carbon print", I'm no longer sure what that
encompasses. I would say the larger class here is Printmaking rather
than Photography. Otherwise I think we are in overall agreement: Shoot
more film and roll your own.

Received on Thu Mar 17 16:13:15 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 04/08/05-09:31:01 AM Z CST