Digital BW, The Print

Aren't ALL photographic prints, prints of a photograph... whatever the  
printing process is?
 
The photograph could be shown as a transparency, or any of a number of  
reproduction forms. An inkjet print is a giclee or whatever else we want to call  
it. I don't doubt that there will be future designations, but if it is a print, 
 by definition, it is a reproduction of a photograph, and not the photograph  
itself.
 
Richard Massie
_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]

So Richard you are telling me that all the photographs I saw at
exhibitions where reproductions? So sad I feel now knowing this.

Should I have asked to see the originals? ;-)

Denis 


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, CorrPro96@... wrote:
>
> Aren't ALL photographic prints, prints of a photograph... whatever the  
> printing process is?
>  
> The photograph could be shown as a transparency, or any of a number of  
> reproduction forms. An inkjet print is a giclee or whatever else we
want to call  
> it. I don't doubt that there will be future designations, but if it
is a print, 
>  by definition, it is a reproduction of a photograph, and not the
photograph  
> itself.
>  
> Richard Massie
> _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]
>

In a message dated 9/20/2008 9:33:54 PM Eastern Daylight Time,  
thedesbois@... writes:

So  Richard you are telling me that all the photographs I saw at
exhibitions  where reproductions? So sad I feel now knowing this.

Should I have  asked to see the originals? ;-)

Denis 





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?
 
Richard



**************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]

They are original prints; each one being different than the last or next.
Even reproduction can vary, but they are not stuck from the master. The
context of the line that got this going was more about deriving a term to
clearly show that these were NOT the original piece but a copy of the
orginal. 

 


 and then reproduced digitally, typically via inkjet printing. First use in
this context by Jack Duganne in 1991, Los Angeles, California. 

 

 I don’t think that copy applies to inkjet as each one, just like each
silver gelatin print, is an individually crafted print. It may be
indistinquishable from the next of the previous, but can a goal when
printing silver gelatin too. So if you want to call your inkjet prints,
giclee it would be an easy case to make a claim that they are all original
Joe Doe prints. The hard part now, with all the scanner, etc to prove that
these other prints over here,  HEY BUDDY – Pist, Yeah YOU!! I got some JOE
DOE prints for ¼ gallery price. Hey, Whada say? Eh! CASH! 

 

And I believe that it is that dubious selling of prints, which we can all
agree to, is the problem with Giclee today NO? 

 

Hahahaha  hohohohoho heheheheh

 

To me it is clear that there are, and will be, different context that will
be equally valid for the non copyrighted term Giclee. 

 

 

 

 

Eric Neilsen Photo

4101 Commerce Street, Suite 9

Dallas, TX 75226

214 827-8301

 

http://ericneilsenphotography.com

SKype ejprinter

 

  _____  

From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
CorrPro96@...
Sent: Saturday, September 20, 2008 8:37 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: Copyright enough misinformation RE: [Digital BW] Re:Dry
mounting digital ...

 


In a message dated 9/20/2008 9:33:54 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
thedesbois@videotro <mailto:thedesbois%40videotron.ca> n.ca writes:

So Richard you are telling me that all the photographs I saw at
exhibitions where reproductions? So sad I feel now knowing this.

Should I have asked to see the originals? ;-)

Denis 

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?

Richard

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

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

 



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

In a message dated 9/20/2008 10:01:19 PM Eastern Daylight Time,  
e.neilsen2@... writes:

And I  believe that it is that dubious selling of prints, which we can all
agree  to, is the problem with Giclee today NO? 



Hahahaha   hohohohoho heheheheh



Isn't all this about selling prints???
 
I, for one, agree with any term or description that will sell prints.
 
Hey Eric... you comin' to NYC for Photo Expo?
 
Richard
 
_www.rmassie.com/photos.php_ (http://www.rmassie.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]

In a message dated 9/20/2008 10:01:19 PM Eastern Daylight Time,  
e.neilsen2@... writes:

And I  believe that it is that dubious selling of prints, which we can all
agree  to, is the problem with Giclee today NO? 



Hahahaha   hohohohoho heheheheh



To me it is clear that there are, and will  be, different context that will
be equally valid for the non copyrighted  term Giclee. 
 
 
Isn't  all this about selling prints???

I, for one, agree with any term or  description that will sell prints.

Hey Eric... you comin' to NYC for  Photo Expo?

Richard



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]

Hello Richard,

>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


Info on black and white digital printing at    
http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm
I-Trak 2.1   http://www.cjcom.net/itrak.htm

I think I'll be coming but I haven't planned it for sure. If I do, I'll let
you know. 

 

Eric Neilsen Photo

4101 Commerce Street, Suite 9

Dallas, TX 75226

214 827-8301

 

http://ericneilsenphotography.com

SKype ejprinter

 

  _____  

From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
CorrPro96@...
Sent: Saturday, September 20, 2008 9:14 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: Copyright enough misinformation RE: [Digital BW] Re:Dry
mounting digital ...

 


In a message dated 9/20/2008 10:01:19 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
e.neilsen2@worldnet <mailto:e.neilsen2%40worldnet.att.net> .att.net writes:

And I believe that it is that dubious selling of prints, which we can all
agree to, is the problem with Giclee today NO? 

Hahahaha hohohohoho heheheheh

Isn't all this about selling prints???

I, for one, agree with any term or description that will sell prints.

Hey Eric... you comin' to NYC for Photo Expo?

Richard

_www.rmassie.com/photos.php_ (http://www.rmassie.
<http://www.rmassie.com/photos.php> 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.walletpo
<http://www.walletpop.com/?NCID=emlcntuswall00000001>
p.com/?NCID=emlcntuswall00000001)

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

 



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

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]