I went as far as looking at the linked page but didn't go any further. So I may be missing some perceptions that are guiding the thinking of others.
Prints on paper . . .I agree, I had reprinted a negative for the widow of a friend. His original is 16x20 my print(s) are 11x14. I was going to post them on the web but realized that the futility, I did a series of 5 prints, the first was pretty strait print which for all practical purpose equal to the original, each print is slightly different as I varied techniques to improve the look as I wasn't particularly satisfied with my results. They each are very close to the original & they each are individual prints but you would have to look long & hard at each side by side to see the difference.For me, prints behind museum glass add a dimension to photography displays can give, no matter what definition one uses, it does that for me.PS . . . One may wonder if the advent of chemical photography sent similar shutters through out the painting community. After all one can photograph a painting & reproduce its image with film.In the pro world a digital work flow is standard, I recently sat at an editors desk with prints, and he was surprised on how sharp and vivid the prints were. It has become a monitor to monitor to cmyk press process!
Of course then one might point out that such reprints would not have the texture of the painting?I considering a Photo as any form if non-printed or non-tangible. So it's a "Digital Photo" as opposed to a "Photographic Print".
So what if you did stereo imaging to produce a computer overlay used to form a holographic (laser) image? You would then have an apparent texture of the painting as well as the image, imagine . . .
The local museum is (showing) exhibiting ancient Egyptian artifacts (art), I would be more than a little peeved if I went down to see them & found everyone standing around a pedestal viewing holographic images of artifacts . . .
Bookmarks