-Andy
On Nov 04, 2010, at 12:17 PM, James Schenken <jds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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. 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. 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. 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
Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 2010 10:39 PM
To: List for Photo/Imaging Educators - Professionals - Students
Subject: Value of digital prints in the future
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
****
Have you ever wished you could tell your childhood self a thing or two about growing up?
Would the knowledge you know now have saved you from learning things the hard way?
It's Tough Growing Up: Children's Stories of Courage
Marilyn Dalrymple and Joan Foor
www.itstoughgrowingup.com
