Quote Originally Posted by Maris View Post
I always feel uneasy when offered pictures where one medium is exquisitely contrived to resemble another. Unwelcome words like counterfeit and forgery come to mind. Most people, I guess, don't see it that way. Forgive me but I have a (possibly unique) personal anxiety about engaging in an art where success is equated with successful deception.
The act of deception generally requires malice aforethought, I think. Deception without realizing or intending it is merely accidental. And in all the debates I've had with 'blanksy' I've never known him to hint that his intention was true deception. Rather, he simply wishes to make the best quality print for his customers that he can, within the business constraints he must labor under.

If one wants the best print possible, my feeling is one chooses true (chemical) photography. If constraints preclude that, one does the next best thing possible within those those constraints. That's digital imaging. And if one wishes to then make the best digital print possible, one aims for photographic quality as the desired baseline.

There is nothing deceptive about that progression. Unless one intentionally tries to pass off a digital print as a chemical print. And to the best of my knowledge 'blanksy' doesn't do that. Instead, he generously gives us the boundary threshold at which the perception of similar quality begins to break down. Namely, less than 4-feet and/or not under glass.

If he were trying to deceive, those would be the last data points he would share with us, not the first ones.