>>4076751>Also, if you scan your film, just cut out the middle man and just shoot digital.This is an ignorant take, no offence, for several reasons.
From the medium experience to the proficiency in an established workflow, passing through tonality,
dynamic range in a single exposure, detail, noise fingerprint, material archive, and so on.
>>4076751>If you shoot fine art, you have to make great prints to taken seriouslyTo be taken seriously by who? Most people have an attention span of a few seconds,
and are certainly incapable of judging whatever "fine art print" you shove under their nose.
Or better say, they don't have sufficient background to judge at all.
And to expand on the concept even more, when is the background enough to be the judge?
Fine art is everything and nothing, it's whatever you want it to be.
>>4076751>Inkjet is fine, silver gelatin or pl/pd>better, obscure printmaking techniques are better stillBetter based on what? To be frank, this sounds like something someone who just read about the history of photography would say.
When you discover color carbon transfer printing, are you going to put that on top of the list and can everything else too? Like someone I know.
There is a "fine art" photography gallery I visited a few years ago in San Quirico d'Orcia, Tuscany, which features digital and analog prints
from iPhone 4S to 8x10. Who is going to tell him that only his platinum palladium 8x10 prints are worth a thing?
I've seen incredibly well-done inkjet prints, and some of the best prints in history are
"standard" silver gelatins. The point is that there is nothing "standard" when the workflow is pushed to all time heights.
Example:
https://www.instagram.com/p/CCzX1vFnmso/Finally, saying "obscure printmaking techniques" doesn't really play in your favour. There is nothing obscure about
alternative techniques, there is only how much you know about it and how much you can push it.
Pic related, 6x6 print I bought at that gallery.
