Exactly. Who determines what is a masterpiece anyway? A viewer/buyer and it is purely subjective. If one presents a truly successful image, the way it was printed may be secondary. The creator may want to make that distinction based on personal preference/beliefs but the buyer/viewer may not be concerned with that at all. When I look at some of Ralph Gibson's images online, I would buy them if they were printed on toilet paper with an inkjet. The images, to me, stand on their own regardless of how they were printed and that's the bottom line. To say that digital imaging "cheapens" the craft of darkroom printing is total BS. Like I've said before, if anything, it should be shown alongside to demonstrate its superiority, if it is indeed so obvious. But, at the end of the day, another boring landscape is just that, regardless of how it was printed. It may be a beautiful print but would anyone buy it? How does one measure "success" to support one's unshakeable beliefs?
Originally Posted by BetterSense
Last edited by MaximusM3; 10-12-2010 at 12:14 PM. Click to view previous post history.