Qkano <wildimages@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> 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 > > Surely the original is the scene the camera was looking at: "by > comparing our memory of the original scene against the final print" No, as a work of art the "original" is what's in the camera. > Ooops, in today's world the "final print" is becoming less common, no? > Most digital images are only ever seen on a display - and no two > computer-displays are actually set up the same way. No. Images being considered as art are still viewed primarily in hardcopy form. And no again -- two monitors properly calibrated with a hardware color-sensor are probably more alike that the first and last print from a stone lithograph print run, say. -- 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/>
