the negative is the original and anything made from that negative is a reproduction.
I disagree.
A great deal of the authorship of one of my prints happens in the darkroom. I think the negative may be the bedrock of a photograph, but the interpretation of the negative is clearly in the realm of artistic intent, so the negative can not be considered the original work, unless, of course, the photographer declares that it is.
__________________
--J Brunner, The Prints of Darkness
I disagree.
A great deal of the authorship of one of my prints happens in the darkroom. I think the negative may be the bedrock of a photograph, but the interpretation of the negative is clearly in the realm of artistic intent, so the negative can not be considered the original work, unless, of course, the photographer declares that it is.
i agree that one can have authorship and intent when one interprets what is in the negative ...
but still, the negative is a stencil, and the paper reproduces what shades of white/black and gray are projected onto it ...
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
__________________
_________________________________________
Note to self: Turn your negatives into positives.
I buy/exchange other photographers' prints not their negatives. I display my prints not my negatives. And if my apartment was on fire then I'd save my favourite prints before my negatives
I buy/exchange other photographers' prints not their negatives. I display my prints not my negatives. And if my apartment was on fire then I'd save my favourite prints first.
NEGATIVES!!!!!
Murray
__________________
_________________________________________
Note to self: Turn your negatives into positives.
Seems to me that every new analog print, from a negative is an original. No matter how many notes one keeps uncontrollable variences in the environment can change the print. Not to mention the mood of the printer at the time of the printing and subsequent printings. In my mind it is no different that any other hand-made process. That is what makes hand-made, hand-made. Now, if you scan and print and keep hitting print there is no variance. That is what makes mass produced, mass produced.
As for the fire thing,
Family and animals. Screw the rest.
__________________
Technological society has succeeded in multiplying the opportunities for pleasure, but it has great difficulty in generating joy. Pope Paul VI
So, I think the "greats" were true to their visions, once their visions no longer sucked. Ralph Barker 12/2004
While the negatives have a small commercial value, it's the prints which I'm emotionally attached to.
My important prints were all made at a specific time and have a particular meaning to me. Sure I could make new prints from the negatives, but they wouldn't be [ii]the same[/i] prints: they would be replacements. That's why I'd save the important prints first.
Here's a real example. I gave a print to my father a few years ago (a photo made in a railway carriage that he used to travel in as a boy). After he died I hunted high and low to find it, and finally found it last week. I've still got the negative and could make a new print, but it wouldn't be that print. Does that make sense?
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."
the way i was understanding "original"
was entry #4
"the source from which a copy, reproduction, or translation is made"
and even though a photographic print is CREATED in a darkroom (or lightroom),
through interpreting and lovingly manipulating the light as it shines through
the film, it isn't the source .. the film is the source ...
i am not saying that photographic prints aren't beautiful objects,
or it does not take skill or time or state of mine and experience (or lack of experience )
to create a "fine" ( or not so fine ) print, all i am saying is that each
print is an interpretation of the original, the negative.
Linear Mode
