# More inkjet lifts...



## windrivermaiden (Aug 30, 2007)

not too bad of a job... little heavy with the back of the spoon in places and not quite enough on others. This is gel side transfer.







ink lift...off smooth acetate vs....







ink lift off gel transparency. I like the crispness of the emusion gel but getting the transfer is more difficult than just off plain smooth acetate. each has its own charm.  The brayer marks are interesting too. Now that I've lived with them a few days. I wasn't really happy with them at first.

the back of a large silver serving spoon is gives the best transfer but getting it done evenly is a trick.


----------



## terri (Aug 30, 2007)

You've gotten good with this! :thumbup: The brayer marks aren't bothering me at all; they're inherent to the charm of the image, to me. 

The top one, with the telltale speckles, looks close to my husband's few successful efforts with this technique. He couldn't get over not having as smooth as transfer as could be obtained the "regular" way.  To me these imperfections are almost the point; they add to the whimsy and pseudo-Impressionistic quality of the technique. It might be the flawless plastic-perfection of the digital age that makes it harder for some folks to enjoy these images. Dunno.

I like all of them - I agree, each has its own charm!


----------



## windrivermaiden (Aug 30, 2007)

Sun, finally, glorious sun. :sun::heart::sun::heart::sun:Making gum prints and playing around with some more lifts.


----------



## glaston (Aug 31, 2007)

What are these?
Never heard of lifts or gum prints.


----------



## windrivermaiden (Aug 31, 2007)

glaston said:


> What are these?
> Never heard of lifts or gum prints.


 
I rest my case...


----------



## glaston (Aug 31, 2007)

What case?
I should be saying that.
Because I asked a simple question, and you still won't even give a straight forward answer even to a direct inquiry.

Obviously if I ask about these, I find them interesting enough to want to know more about them.
But since I'm a digital user, you seem to have nothing but contempt for me and sharing knowledge is simply not going to happen.

I enjoy photography, film AND digital.
I don't have a bias as to what one is better. They both have their places.

Why is it that you have nothing but contempt for me?
You and Teri both?

There's no reason to be so defensive.
I never questioned the validity of your craft.
I actually think your images are good, and unique.
I give you credit for being good at what you do.

So why can't you just answer even a simple question?
This film forum is like the friggin Twilight Zone!


----------



## terri (Aug 31, 2007)

Gaston: if you want respect you have to show it, first. You'd have done a lot better with me, for instance, if I hadn't opened up the Alt forum and read the following (unsolicited) comments sprinkled about:



> Are you afraid of technology? I think you are.


 


> When it comes to digital, it's not just about the camera and the film, it's about technical skill with a computer and software.
> That's intimidating for people who don't have confidence in using that technology.
> 
> You can always fall back on the self-righteous indignation that you are a purist, and your images can't be compared to digital.
> ...


 
This is hardly the way to start a relationship based on mutual respect for one's chosen method of artistic expression, is it?



> It's an emotional response to something you don't understand. THAT'S what shows your age. Not the fact that you still shoot film.


 


> It's the film purists such as yourselves who create the problem by jumping up on that high horse!
> You've arbitrarily created a situation that does nothing but feed your emotional needs.


 
:scratch: Who are you, again?



> IF the world were still all film, you wouldn't be anything special.


Yeah, well, even when the world _was_ all film, I couldn't claim to be anything special. There are too many film-based photographers and artists out there whose work will always be superior to mine. I will forever be in their debt for being so inspirational as I continue to practice my own craft - and I continue to learn, with great appreciation and respect for those who came before me. 



> People who shoot digital don't have a problem with people who shoot film.


Except for you, apparently. Your comments seem gauged to give exactly that impression. 



> However, I don't see why a blatant disrespect for other forms is inherent with that.


 



> There's no reason to be so defensive.





> I never questioned the validity of your craft.


Really? Sure reads that way. If I've misread you, you may want to try again. With a bit of humility, maybe, and an honest admission that you just might not know much about the work you find appealing on this forum - or the artistic motives behind the people who are doing the work. 

You came into the Alt forum, replied, as quoted above, in a few different threads, and then wonder why you're not getting any respect....? 

Let's start over. Stick with the questions about process and show your admiration for these people's cleverness and, chances are, you'll encounter no further problem. People's reactions _do_ tend to be defensive when they have to wade through disparaging commentary such as yours, only to THEN get asked to explain their technique. Do you really want to understand these processes, or are you trolling for a tiresome digital/film debate? That isn't going to fly here. 

I must apologize to Windy for hijacking her thread. She has shown great talent with her gum prints as well as these injket transfers (a hybrid process, btw), and I have always found her to be most engaging and willing to talk about her art. If you are sincerely interested in her technique, I am certain she will be glad to share it with you.


----------



## glaston (Sep 1, 2007)

I understand why you're not being respectful to me personally based on my comments.

The disrespect I have witnessed doesn't have anything to do with me personally.

The disrespectful comments I'm talking about were here before I even came to this part of the forum.
And then immediately after I inquired about it.

I'm talking about the way many in here in general don't respect the "plasticity of digital" for what amounts to no reason at all.
That's what I'm talking about. I could care less if people respect me on a personal level.



> With a bit of humility, maybe, and an honest admission that you just might not know much about the work you find appealing on this forum - or the artistic motives behind the people who are doing the work.


I've already said I don't know much about that, and asked what they were.

The name "alternative techniques" attracted me, then I saw some nice images.
But then I saw multiple jabs being taken at digital, and a general disrespect for digital in general.
A couple of those jabs were then directed at me, by YOU.
Before any of the other stuff was ever posted.

And I have never taken a jab at anyones chosen methods.
Anything I said was directed toward peoples attitude toward digital.

There's no escaping the FACT that there's a general contempt shown in this forum for digital, that's indisputable.
I have no contempt for film, gum prints, inkjet lifts, cross process, nothing.
I haven't made a jab at anyones craft, only their contempt for digital.
The ONLY problem I have with anyone here is due to a general contempt for digital which was here LONG before I even came here.

This is something that many people on this forum have noticed.
There's been other discussions about it, and everyone pretty much agrees that it's mainly the film folks who have a problem with digital and post processing done by people whose chosen method is digital.
Many film folks don't give the deserved amount of credit for excellent work, merely because it was done with digital and involved alot of post processing.

And it can only be from a lack of understanding.
If even film folks knew how much work actually went into a good digital manipulation, or a good composite, they wouldn't feel that way.
But many of you refuse to hear it at all.
Many of these works involve just as much work as a lift or a gum print or what have you.
And our works in many cases we also consider "our baby" because we spend days or weeks on it to get it just right.
And along comes a film purist who simply can't appreciate it, even if it has obvious artistic value, simply because it's digital or post processed.

This is not valid!
What if other photographers refused to see the value of YOUR work because of the brand of camera you use?
Critique like that has nothing to do with the actual content, but it's more of an emotional response to your work VS their own.
Good work is good work, despite the fact that it's film or digital.
Great digital images aren't the result of photoshop filters. They are a result of someone who's well educated in the area of composition, exposure, color, and also post processing.
The ONLY difference is that we don't develop our images with chemicals.
In place of that, we have to understand luminance values, contrast curves, levels, mixing channels. The list goes on and on.
Yet, it seems as if those here think that we just snap a quick photo, bring it into the computer, apply a filter and call it a masterpiece.
That's such a lack of understanding, and Im' trying to get people here to see that it's not like that.
That idea is a total fallacy!
Anyone who insists on seeing it that way is obviously unwilling to hear the truth.
And why would that be?
So that they continue to see themselves as being more righteous, and so they can continue with this contempt that is an absolute shame.

I admit, I came into it a bit harsh.
That's only because I already read many posts that were bashing digital.
And like all of you, I don't think it's right for people to judge other peoples ideas and work based on ideas that have nothing to do with the reality of the work.
But for some reason, you just don't see it, and refuse to hear it.
There are theories that it's due to a lack of understanding and a fear of inadequacy.

So I wanted to lash out against all of you, who perpetually lash out against those who see it as I do.
In this part of the forum, it seems that bashing digital is a mainstay.
You wouldn't do that if you had a real understanding of digital work though.

And this is precisely the reason that I don't have contempt for ANY form of artistic expression.
Because I know what it's like to have people not respect your hard work based on something that has nothing to do with the work itself.

I have dealt with this so many times it's sickening. I just have no idea what drives this mindstate. But yet, here it is, in all it's shame being dealt out like  it's nothing.

I mean, can someone tell me, please, why people have such a contempt for digital?
Nobody can answer that, only give emotional reasons they feel that way. No logic though.

I apologize for being so harsh about it.
But you have to admit that the general attitude here toward digital is equally harsh, and without provocation.

It just doesn't seem possible that one artist can have such utter contempt for another artist based on his chosen method. It just seems impossible.
If you take pride in your own work, then you must know that others do too.

It would be like a painter saying that only oil paintings are real paintings.

Taking a poorly shot digital photo, then running a filter on it is NOT a well done piece of work. No matter how good the camera or application used.
That does NOT represent digital photography in any way!

Creating a good 3D rendering means you not only have to understand light from a photography point of view, but you also have to have knowledge of the physics behind light and how it interacts with real world surfaces.
This involves basically dissecting what makes a photo a photo, and what makes light reflect, refract, diffuse, etc.
Because you're basically creating a photo from scratch. Based on geometrical shapes.

That goes way above and beyond normal photography, because the image you're creating comes right out of your mind. 
You don't have subjects to point a camera at.
All you have is a basic shape mesh, that you push and pull points of a mesh around to create an object.
Then you use materials that have 20+ channels to understand in order to make the texture look realistic.
I've been learning for over 5 years, and am just now getting to the level that I'm even remotely happy with.

So yeah, when I complete an image, it is very much my baby!
It's such an involved procedure, that only another CG artist could appreciate it and know how much work and frustration went into it.
It's most likely the most involved and complicated aspect of digital art.

That being said, and you guys yourself knowing what it's like to work on something that's very difficult, does it not make sense that I would have a big problem with anyone saying that it doesn't constitute art!?
It's happened before where a person claims the computer does all the work. 
The computer only does what I tell it to. It provides tools. 
Which is all the computer does for ANY art, simply provides tools. Like the tools you guys use for lifts. or cross process.
Those are tools just like the computer.
It's the perfect marriage of both art and technical proficiency.


----------



## nealjpage (Sep 1, 2007)

Back on topic!

Windy, I love these prints.  I think I get how the inkjet transfers work (wet ink on a plastic sheet applied to a wet fiber, right?) but have no idea about gum transfers.  They look fun to try.  How's it work?


----------

