Quote Originally Posted by cliveh View Post
Thomas, I agree that the final print holds tremendous value for the viewing experience for many people and in some cases even me. By final print, I assume you mean a silver or wet print.

When Beethoven wrote one of his symphonies he may also/or not have conducted the orchestra to play it. This could be said to be unique, as it his original score and his interpretation of his score to performance. However, someone in the future may conduct a version of this symphony that most people consider better, but both versions come from the original score. This does not detract from the value of the writer’s original interpretation, but let us also remember that the original orchestrated by writer of the score, was also performed with the instruments and technology available at the time. Future technology may allow a better interpretation not available to Beethoven at the time.

Does this help, as I also am not trying to start an argument, it is just my opinion.

the difference is that the score and the playing of the score are not the same as a photograph and a photoreproduction.
your argument would make (more?) sense if it was the playing of beethoven's piece LIVE and a reproduction of it
on tape, microcassett, reel to reel a wire recording of it &c.
beethoven conducting his own symphony and someone else conducting it ( days, years or centuries later ) has to do with interpretation,
like 2 different people making prints from the same negative ...

reproduction ( not matter what the technology ) has nothing to do with interpretation + creation...