Digital BW, The Print

In a message dated 9/20/2008 10:29:45 PM Eastern Daylight Time,  cj@... 
writes:

>You  could ask to see the negatives....or the transparencies...  the   
>originals. If you can make more than one of them.... each is a  
>reproduction,,,  No?

No, not at all.  A copy, or  reproduction, of the original would look
just like the original.  A  copy of a neg or a tranny (if it's a good
copy) would look just like the  original and you'd have trouble telling
which was which.  A copy of a  digicam image file looks just like the
original image file (whether viewed  on screen or analyzed byte for byte).

A photographer's print (silver,  platinum, gum, photogravure, inkjet,
whatever) is the result of a lot of  time, effort, expertise and
artistic sensitivity which creates something  new that is vastly
different from the original photographic capture, be it  neg, tranny,
or  digipic.


Regards,
Clayton





Hi Clayton:
 
I think we're saying the same thing... just expressing it  differently.
First there is the photograph, then there is our interpretaion of it... the  
print, by whatever name we might choose to call it, or whatever process we  
employ.
 
Richard
_www.rmassiephotography.com/photos.php_ 
(http://www.rmassiephotography.com/photos.php) 
 
 



**************Looking for simple solutions to your real-life financial 
challenges?  Check out WalletPop for the latest news and information, tips and 
calculators.      (http://www.walletpop.com/?NCID=emlcntuswall00000001)


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]