Gallery Submissions

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I find myself looking really hard for details of how the results of gallery submissions were achieved.
Some are obvious, like cyanotypes or other hand coated paper processes that have not been cropped to hide the brush marks. Others are not obvious at all, and it's difficult to understand how to think of the images.
I personally think differently of a manipulated neg/pos scan intended for inkjet printing compared to something where a lot more work was put into it, like digital negatives for platinum for instance.
Can some fields be added to the gallery to indicate what the process was?

- Thomas

[Katharine Thayer]

Thomas, I've been having the same problem, and I'm glad you brought it up. I notice that I'm not very interested in images that have been uploaded to the subject galleries if they aren't labeled, because I don't know what they are. I realized, looking at an upload just in the last couple of days, that knowing the process that produced the image is an important part of appreciating the image for me. Which just shows, I suppose, that for me it's definitely not true that the image is everything and the form it takes is irrelevant.

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Hi Katharine, this does tie in nicely with the thread over at APUG. I think a lot of people that hang out here and at APUG are interested in process, but perhaps as a means to get to the final result, not just the process itself.

Beisdes, I also look in the galleries to see effects of various techniques and processes used in the printing or prep stage. I try to learn from it, so the more I can know, the better it is. I hope I'm not the only one feeling this way.

- Thomas

[jd callow]

If an image interests you and the poster did not offer any information about the post the only thing you can do is ask questions. It would be nice if people gave complete information about an image.

[Katharine Thayer]

I think a lot of people that hang out here and at APUG are interested in process, but perhaps as a means to get to the final result, not just the process itself.

Of course; that's my position too.

[dwross]

Hi All,

If anyone hasn't checked out the Gallery recently, you're really missing something. I've been away for awhile and finally got a chance look things over. Wow! Great stuff.

I'd reply to each image, but it would get redundant. How many times can one say, 'Beautiful!' or 'Wonderfully seen and executed!'? I suspect most people looking at the Gallery feel the same way.

I would echo the previous posts that request more process information along with each Gallery submission. It's not always easy for people to know how to ask questions. It should be, but it's probably a fact that most people tend toward shy.

d

[Katharine Thayer]

I would echo the previous posts that request more process information along with each Gallery submission. It's not always easy for people to know how to ask questions. It should be, but it's probably a fact that most people tend toward shy.

Well, I'm not particularly shy, but I can be intimidated. Before the present galleries were set up, when everything was in one gallery all together, I complained about having to sift through a lot of other stuff to find the handcoated prints, and was treated to some backhanded scorn for caring by what process the images were printed. I appreciated it when jd made separate galleries for the different types of prints; that has satisfied my wish to look at handcoated prints separately from other kinds of prints.

But in the subject galleries, there's often no way of knowing what you're looking at. I notice that on some of the uploads there's rather an extensive spreadsheet giving detailed information about the camera, which I couldn't care less about, but nowhere on the upload do I see a specific place to say what kind of print it is, or what final form the image takes or will take. I always put the print type "gum bichromate" in the description field, but other people use that field for different kinds of descriptions. Would it be too difficult to add a field for print type?

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Katharine,
I think a 'print type' field would help free up some of the confusion on my part.
I am not interested in the process of making an image just for the sake of knowing, it's all about learning from others what results might be had from various techniques, so that I can apply that to my own art if I choose to. Inspiration, if you will. But we talked about that already...

- Thomas

[eric rose]

seems the life gallery in particular needs some policing. Appears to be just a bunch of digi camera images. Maybe I'm missing something.

[Katharine Thayer]

seems the life gallery in particular needs some policing. Appears to be just a bunch of digi camera images. Maybe I'm missing something.

The above comment, which I notice hasn't been honored with a response, serves as a case in point re my comment earlier today about confused and conflicting perceptions about the hybrid site. A year ago or so we discussed what hybrid meant, and the one thing we agreed on, as I recall, was that there had to be an analog component in order for it to be hybrid. But at the same time, there was also a lot of talk about wanting no boundaries, no prohibitions (we, by gum, were not going to be like APUG and draw lines that shut anyone out). Can we have it both ways?

Katharine