"Emily L. Ferguson" <elf@xxxxxxxx> writes: > At 8:59 AM -0500 6/2/04, Sidney Flack wrote: >> >> Take the concept back to the classic parallel. A Mozart original >> score is of great value. But it has value as having come from his >> pen only because of the many performances of his work. > > Well, not actually. It has additional value because of what it can > teach us about what Wolfgang actually wrote down. Just being an > autograph is the beginning. There's an added value because it is the > closest we may be able to come to a window into the composer's mind > and intentions. > >> Our photographs are no different. The original negative, chrome or >> digital file is worthless without fine, quality prints, performances >> that can be hung upon a wall or held in the hands and be appreciated >> as a thing of value for its particular artistic expression. > > Again, there I think we can learn a lot about the creator from the > piece of film, especially when we hold it next to the printed or > published output that came from the hand of the creator. For > instance, we can learn a good deal about the technical maturing > process from looking at an entire body of original film work, and also > about the maturing of the vision - especially when the creator > repeatedly shot a similar scene or situation. Yes, I agree. And we can, of course, learn those same things by comparing the digital camera original against the final print. If the artist saved the photoshop file with all the layers, we might learn even more. -- David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd-b@xxxxxxxx>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/> RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/> Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/> Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>
