Digital BW, The Print

At 04:31 AM 11/10/03 -0600, you wrote:
>At 10:20 am -0800 11/9/03, Alan Zinn wrote:
>
> >Thanks for that.  Couldn't agree more with last part.  Only thing to
> >add is that shops have been selling reproduction prints as art
> >prints forever.
>
>
>Alan --
>
>That some would sell reproductions of arts prints as original prints
>(if I understand the subtlety of your distinction) is more a matter
>of explicit fraud than the inherent prevarication my last two
>paragraphs attempted to address. But you are right: That is a bad
>thing and should be addressed.
>
>Regardless, reproductions are a valid and necessary medium of
>production and sale for numerous reasons, and not something I would
>try to argue against.
>
>My point in those paragraphs was that, with terms like "Fine Art
>Print" or "Fine Art Reproduction" even the most clueless customer
>knows (more or less) what they are getting. The door is left open for
>a discussion of the merits of the reproduction. There is an
>invitation to discuss and analyze its quality, fidelity, longevity,
>and etc. The customer can come away with not only a beautiful picture
>that they like, but as intrinsic idea of its value as a piece of art.
>
>This contrasts with the term "Giclee Print" which has two different,
>and individually condemnable, aspects:
>
>First, the phrase "Giclee Print" is hilariously idiotic and should go
>away simply because it is ludicrous.
>
>Secondly, and my biggest concern, is that so many shops hide behind
>the phrase "Giclee Print." The obscurity of the phrase not only
>allows them to, it encourages them to. They slap it on the back of a
>repro of an enjoyable but essentially mediocre watercolor (or pastel,
>or oil, or...even a photograph) and then implicitly try to pass it
>off as though this "Giclee Process" were the medium. (Presumably an
>ancient medium the artist only rediscovered through some rigorous
>ascetic regimen.)
>
>I cringe when I see that. I know that when the customers who've been
>scammed find out the whole story they are going to become so cynical
>that it will be an all-day job to talk them into buying an original
>oil for fifteen percent over cost-of-materials. Meanwhile, their
>respect for inkjet printing will have gone down so far that just
>getting them to pay cost-of-materials will be difficult.
>
>
>Best wishes.
>
>-=-Dennis
>
>
>p.s.: That "Lookaround" system is really interesting. I'm thinking
>about getting the book and trying to build my own. I've been trying
>to figure out whether or not you get a usefully different effect if
>you construct it so that it rotates around the nodal point of the
>lens rather than the film plane. Have you tried any experiments like
>this (or do you know off-hand)? I could probably do the diagrams and
>work up the math, but it's a lot easier to just ask... :-)


Dennis,

I don't think most people understand distinctions among types of art 
reproductions and so forth or even care to learn.  They want "sofa-size" 
for $49.98,   or just any  "pretty"  picture no matter the medium.  I'm not 
being cynical just reporting from many years of experience trying to 
promote the arts.  I cringe when I think of the way my own parents 
decorated!  :-)  Yes, artists can educate if they wish to but most 
don't  and go along with the flim flam.

RE the Lookaround - although, there are fine rotating cameras that do 
rotate around the nodal point it isn't necessary.  Nodal point rotation IS 
required for swing lens cameras.  Getting a lens (other than a simple, 
fixed lens) to rotate exactly around the nodal point requires a rather 
complex and fussy drive and film transport - you think banding's a problem 
with ink jet printers!. The beauty (if I do say so myself) of the 
Lookaround is it's simplicity. Once you see the innards you won't want to 
change anything - it would be like putting a motor drive in a box Brownie.

AZ


Build a Lookaround!
The Lookaround Book, 2nd ed.
NOW SHIPPING
http://www.panoramacamera.us