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. |
Well... if you're talking about a color negative (for instance) that you are going to take to an automated printer and have a machine print made, then that print might be called a "mechanical reproduction." But if you are going to spend time in a darkroom, choosing a specific paper surface, contrast grade, and printing manipulation to create a fine print that expresses your own personal interpretation of the negative... then that interpretation is an original work of art, not a "mechanical reproduction."