he emphasizes the point that since this medium consists of ink on paper, not a light-sensitive emulsion, it is thus more closely related to Photogravure than to silver or platinum based photography. [{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
That would place Dye Transfer print as not being a photograph either, since you are soaking a matrix in a dye, and rolling it across a transfer surface.
I started as a photographer in the early 80's. I photographed and printed b/w film, color film, cibachrome, dye transfer, silver, platinum, 4 color carbon, digital negatives, quadtone digital, inkjet color. I've used 35mm and medium format cameras, 4x5, 8x10 view cameras, minox submin. cameras, an oatmeal box with a pinhole at one end, digital capture with point-and-shoot, DSLR's, digital single capture and scanning backs, as well as a scanner with objects placed on top of it.
I started off as a photographer, and I still am. The print that i made/make is a photograph.
Jerry Uelsmann's work, and even more so his wife's Maggie Davis' , have never existed in reality. They manipulate many different images, bringing them together, either by using multiple enlargers, or a computer. They consider themselves, and all of the major photographic galleries, consider them photographers, and their images photographs.
There is currently an exhibit at Center for Photographic Art in Carmel ( [a href=\"http://www.photography.org/gallery/current/current.html]http://www.photography.org/gallery/current/current.html[/url] ) , by Stephen Galloway . (spectacular images if you happen to be in the area) They are large (4'x8') images done with a scanning back, and printed with an inkjet printer. They are labeled as Inkjet prints. If you go to Weston gallery down the street, you will also see Inkjet prints hanging on their wall (and labeled as such). The art world considers them Inkjet prints, and they command prices equal to contemporary photographs printed on Cibachrome or silver.
jim