|
Marilyn: Just some thoughts. With the correct substrate, a digital print can be made on any
paper suitable for making any of the ânormalâ photographic processes prints. In addition, with carefully selected archival inks, it should be
possible to make a print virtually indistinguishable for any of the processes
that do not rely on the reflective properties of the image itself ( consider
the daguerreotype ). That said, we probably should separate the image from the artifact.Â
Modern digital technology allows for the easy separation of these fundamentally
different entities. The image exists as a collection of binary data that can
be replicated accurately indefinitely. The print artifact ( the actual print )
is a single instance of the image captured on a specific substrate. In the past, the creation of prints required a level of effort
that effectively limited the actual number that could reasonably be made.Â
Thus, for a photographer like Clarence White, a few to a few hundred was the
physical limit on production. If the artist is of sufficient stature, then,
over time, individual instances of prints can become more valuable since
additional prints cannot be made especially after the artists death. Now, it is possible to make prints of photographs is whatever
quantities the market demands and the making of new ones in not terminated at
the artists death. These new prints can be actually indistinguishable one from
another if the appropriate paper and ink is used. A separate issue is the longevity of the paper used to make the
prints. There are available photo print papers that have a physical life
expectancy greater than any of the actual photo papers used in the past.Â
Prints made on these papers should retain value IF the ability to create new
instances in cut off at the end of the artistâs desired print run. This is the
functional equivalent of burning the negative. If the original digital file is
retained, I suspect that value will decline. James From:
owner-photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Marilyn This
may have been discussed in the past, but I missed it. v I just watched a
television show that had past issues of the magazine Camera Work by Alfred
Stieglitz displayed. In the magazines were photographs, some printed on
very delicate, special papers. It caused me to wonder â will digital
prints in the future lose value because of the papers on which they are now
printed? I realize digital prints can be printed on almost any type paper
or material, but it just doesnât seem to be the same. One print shared
was by Clarence White (The Orchard) a platinum print on tissue. Can a
digital equal the delicacy and beauty of such a print? Marilyn **** |
