APUG - View Single Post

Ian Leake · 11-03-2007, 03:11 PM

Following on from Brooks' question (http://www.apug.org/forums/forum56/4...tml#post540739), I thought I'd start a new thread to discuss originals and reproductions...

Here are some tentative definitions for the purposes of discussion...

Original – the thing that the photographer considers to be their completed work. This could be a transparency, a print, an online image, a negative perhaps, a billboard poster, or almost anything else
Reproduction – anything that shows the original, but is not actually the original itself. For example a scan of an original print, a print of an original transparency, a copy of an original print shown in a magazine

For example, I consider my final Pt/Pd prints to be the original. The proofing polaroids, negatives and test prints all contribute to the final print. I may make several original prints from the same negative. The purpose my reproductions may vary, but is usually to show people what the original looks like. The scans that I post to APUG and my website are poor quality reproductions – that saddens me but I haven’t worked out how to make them better yet. If, by some future miracle, any of my photos were published in a magazine, then hopefully those would be good quality reproductions (but reproductions all the same).

Does my definition make sense? And if so, what are your originals and what are your reproductions?

11-03-2007, 03:11 PM	#1 (permalink)
Ian Leake Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: London, UK Posts: 1,172	Originals and reproductions Following on from Brooks' question (http://www.apug.org/forums/forum56/4...tml#post540739), I thought I'd start a new thread to discuss originals and reproductions... Here are some tentative definitions for the purposes of discussion... Original – the thing that the photographer considers to be their completed work. This could be a transparency, a print, an online image, a negative perhaps, a billboard poster, or almost anything else Reproduction – anything that shows the original, but is not actually the original itself. For example a scan of an original print, a print of an original transparency, a copy of an original print shown in a magazine For example, I consider my final Pt/Pd prints to be the original. The proofing polaroids, negatives and test prints all contribute to the final print. I may make several original prints from the same negative. The purpose my reproductions may vary, but is usually to show people what the original looks like. The scans that I post to APUG and my website are poor quality reproductions – that saddens me but I haven’t worked out how to make them better yet. If, by some future miracle, any of my photos were published in a magazine, then hopefully those would be good quality reproductions (but reproductions all the same). Does my definition make sense? And if so, what are your originals and what are your reproductions? __________________ Visit me at www.ianleake.com