Digital BW, The Print

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Clayton Jones"
<cj@...> wrote (in response to my question about "what is an original
in a digital world"):
> >the curious question I get more and more often these days is "is 
> >this an original?" - what else would it be. Can you call an inkjet 
> >print an "original"? 
> 
> Yes, IMO.  A print is the result of a lot of time, effort and artistic
> judgements and bears little resemblance to the original source (neg or
> digicam file).  It certainly isn't a copy of the original (a copy of
> an original neg would look just like the original, a negative).  Each
> print is made individually with great care and, even with digital
> printing, can be slightly different, especially if made at different
> times using different paper/ink production batches (or especially
> using different paper and/or ink).  As my photoshop skills have
> improved over the years I have in several cases gone back and altered
> a digi file to improve it, with the result that later prints look
> different than earlier ones.  Ansel also changed his treatment of an
> image over time.  Look at how many different versions of his
> "Moonrise" are out there.  
> 
> I consider each print to be an original work of art, to which I place
> my signature.  To me our ink prints are closely akin to photogravure,
> an early form of photographic ink print.  These were considered works
> of art in their own right by Alfred Steiglitz, a pioneer in the fight
> for acceptance of photography as art in the early 1900s.  The point
> is, photographs have already been established as works of art, and ink
> prints were right in there with emulsion prints during that time.  We
> don't need to fight that battle all over again.  The term "original"
> (as opposed to "copy") is appropriate for painting but irrelevant for
> photography.

Clayton,
thank you for your insights. Excellent as always. I DO consider every
print an original. And I state it as such at every show. I am now
going back to adding a signature to every photo, thus very clearly
stating that it is MINE and is of my own creation. The people I talk
to at shows these days are indeed looking for something with a higher
perceived value. Numbering works, as does signature. I keep a database
of what I sell, but I have not numbered "prints" for years. 

Every time I print a photo it's different. It changes with time of
year, time of day, ink, the current mind-set of the printer, the type
of paper. Therefore, it's logical to say that every print is an
original. I try, however, to stay as close to my original shot as
possible, and not fall victim to the incessant urge to add a full moon
here, a touch of clouds there...; Ansel Adams made his name by what he
produced in the lab, not necessarily by the content of his photos. He
WAS a master at framing shots, a technician of the highest level when
it came to framing. But, his true genius showed up in the
lab/development process. anyone who has seen prints from his original
plates/negatives can see that, and yes, his prints changed over time.
Our individual perception of what our original intent was in a photo
changes over time; the lab/photoshop allows us to make adjustments as
we see fit. So, I am content with taking my liberties in Photoshop and
calling it "the lab". And, when people say "is that an original?" I
can say "yes it is." 

Jane