Quote:
Originally Posted by jnanian  my take on this whole argument is:
unless it is a photogram, ambrotype, tintype, dag, even a chrome/diapositive
-- something that can't be "made again" through some form of mechanical reproduction,
the negative is the original and anything made from that negative is a reproduction.
a photographic print isn't much different than a scan,
or book print, poster, lithograph or magazine, newspaper &C.
they are all mechanical reproductions. |
I'm inclined to agree...sort of...because when you compare a straight proof print to a finished fine print they can be amazingly different. The negative then can't be the original, can it, when it was but a step towards a more refined end?
I can see your point though, in that re-prints of a fine print could be seen as reproductions, but my interpretations of my negatives change over time as I see them differently and printing skill (hopefully) improves.
A smart collector of my work would then acquire an original print from each series of interpretations in order to have a full representation of my artistic growth...now
that's marketing
Murray