Quote:
Originally Posted by JBrunner  Still have to disagree. I may, for example, combine three negatives into a triptych. A negative alone is not the final intention of my vision, merely something created to help me realize that. The finished work of the photographic process is the print, and even then it may not be finished, because I might, for instance, hand color it. Negatives exist to make prints, while prints simply exist. |
i agree with you at this point ( i think ... )
but you have added something different to the stew -- intent.
i can understand if one wanted to do something different
with the image on film, add an dimension to the final image
(color, ink, abrade, or damage &C ), or use the
print as part of another step in the process like making a bromoil matrix
as part of the intent ...
and the inspiration for the additional "layer of art" may not be
"there" when a photographer makes an exposure ...
... having a negative allows for the photographer / artist to have
the freedom to create something that may not have been
(but was any of it there to begin with? a camera distorts reality, even as it creates a document of it )
i guess, maybe at this point, a photograph may not be a reproduction ...
BUT not all photographers have an intent different
than making a print .. a straight or manipulated print, unlayered with
additional "art" ... i guess i see that additional -stuff- being different than printing in a darkroom ...
so i guess my fork has 2 tines