Quote Originally Posted by doughowk View Post
The best "deceptions" I've seen are digital images printed on silver gelatin paper which is then processed in a traditional wet darkroom. One thereby has the look and feel of a traditional print. But is it missing the provenance of the original subject due to the nature of the initial capture? I personally would say so.
It seems sort of analogous to "lightjet" RA-4 printing, where the scanned stage functions as a kind of digital internegative. The hybrid practice of scan/enlarge/print to transparency/contact print, which a lot of people use as a way to get small-format images usable for contact-only alt processes, is another form of the same beast.

They're all technically off-topic for APUG, of course, but whether the Curse of the Hidden Pixel breaks "provenance" depends on what concept of provenance you subscribe to. In Ken's model it seems like one would say yes (broken chain of custody), in the accumulative model one would say no by definition (because provenance can't really be broken, it can only be added to). I don't really think one alternative is right and the other wrong---they both mean *something* valid.