Inkjet better than wet prints yet?

[Drew Wiley]

Oren - yes the prints would have to be annotated or signed differently. There are laws in
some states stipulating that kind of thing, as well as what constitutes an orginal print or
an edition. Otherwise, fraud enters into the definition, no matter how good the image looks, or how closely it mimics a vintage print. But that doesn't seem to stop plenty of
tourist galleries from committing fraud, and sometimes getting indicted.

[Old-N-Feeble]

Drew... I understand your point and must admit that you're right... to a degree. However, the film image is still the original basis for the final print and, more often than not, there's essentially a 1:1 correlation between (film image : print image).

[Oren Grad]

Oren - yes the prints would have to be annotated or signed differently. There are laws in
some states stipulating that kind of thing, as well as what constitutes an orginal print or
an edition. Otherwise, fraud enters into the definition, no matter how good the image looks, or how closely it mimics a vintage print. But that doesn't seem to stop plenty of
tourist galleries from committing fraud, and sometimes getting indicted.

Fine. Once again it means that the comparison is contaminated by a separate issue. In my hypothetical, specifying that Ansel signed and blessed both products is intended to remove from the equation everything but the question of machine-made vs hand-made.

[Oren Grad]

...more often than not, there's essentially a 1:1 correlation between (film image : print image).

I don't understand what you mean by this.

[tgtaylor]

Oren has probably never encountered the handiwork of a true artisan to appreciate the difference between that and the mass produced. He, like some of the other respondents, would benefit by visiting galleries and museums where such works are displayed.

BTW, you can buy an Andy Warhol mass produced knock-off for realtively little money. But the original artwork is going to cost you big time!

Thomas

[bob carnie]

This thread is starting to sound like the old ... the print made by the photographer is better than one made by others...

I know that I have a lot of images hanging on my wall that I printed that I would never hang if I let the photographer print it...

[tgtaylor]

Don't get paranoid Bob.

[Oren Grad]

Oren has probably never encountered the handiwork of a true artisan to appreciate the difference between that and the mass produced. He, like some of the other respondents, would benefit by visiting galleries and museums where such works are displayed.

Huh? I've spent many an hour in museums and galleries, grain-sniffing original prints, most recently a couple of weekends ago. (Atget at the MOMA was wonderful.*) And since you asked, I've done the same in shops that sell high-end, hand-made, so-called artisan furniture, too.

*PS: the Atget show included both vintage POP and albumen prints as well as albumen prints made later from the original plates by Chicago Albumen Works. Re the vintage prints, I have no idea whether Atget made his own. They were all wonderful.

[Old-N-Feeble]

...more often than not, there's essentially a 1:1 correlation between (film image : print image).

I don't understand what you mean by this.

What I mean is that most folks aren't doing extreme artsy stuff such that the final print only resembles the original film image... although I do realize that some are. What I'm trying to convey is that, other than basic contrast control and burning/dodging most prints from film images are virtual copies of the original film image. So, to a large degree, the prints are just copies of the original... albeit they're subtly or sometimes more-than-subtly improved. Think about it for a moment. Who here would sell their one-of-a-kind film image for the same price as they'd sell one of the (limitless quantiy?) prints made from it?

[tgtaylor]

Then you know that you will pay far more for that table "...in shops that sell high-end, hand-made, so-called artisan furniture..." than you will at Ikea.

Thomas