Well said, Sidney. But, I don't buy your parallel to what I first posted. Comparing Mozart's original score to a published, written version would more accurately be considered a parallel. Electronic capture or film . . . the original print from the photographer versus the reproduction or copy was the point in value, at question here. Ansel's original print, now the cover of a book and a poster 'The Print' of the fern with nettle berry blossom in the foreground, actually out of focus, is a better example. Would I rather have the print or the poster? I had a chance to buy framed poster of 'The Print' for $10, the other day. When it was first exhibited, I could have had an original print for $200. Instead of paying the $200, I paid two sememsters at UCLA ($75 each) and the gas for a year to commute up the coast to meet with him, instead. When the AA gallery first opened in Pebble Beach in the mid 1990's, I could have bought the original for $1,250 and that would not have paid for the two sememsters at UCLA, at that time. Since I didn't buy the poster at the AA gallery for $50, and didn't buy the $10 framed poster at the 'Antique Shop' in Santa Cruz either. I bought some silk to cover a portfolio box. While the value of the photograph had decreased over the 30 some years since I first saw the original, it has become a rare vision I can see anytime I choose to close my eyes and consentrate. But the value is worth a conversation, in every case. S. Shapiro, Carmel, Ca ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sidney Flack" <sgflack@xxxxxxxxxxx> To: "List for Photo/Imaging Educators - Professionals - Students" <photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2004 6:59 AM Subject: Re: Where is the original? Was: RE: Value of the Original; Guidelines for pricing > Emily L. Ferguson wrote: > > At 1:46 PM +0100 6/2/04, Chris wrote: > > > >> It cannot be seen. You can't hang a digital original! > > > > > > I dunno. I capture at JPEG fine, and those can be printed. If I ever > > werent' shooting something happening, I might try RAW and then I'd find > > out whether a RAW file can be printed. > > This is no comment to Emily specifically but to the entire question. > > This thread has little more value than debating the number of angels > that can dance on the head of a pin. While the original of any > photograph may have value, sic, the negative, chrome, or digital file, > it is of no value until it is interpreted into a fine print. > > 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. Each performance also has > nuance and expression different from every other though the score from > which each is performed is a copy of the original.... copies of copies. > But that original would be of little value without each of those > performances. > > 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. > > Peace! > Sidney > >
