Hi, Tom, No one's going to pay ~anything~ for the snapshots I took with my Brownie of my pet cat, Misty, when I was 10 years old, either. But they're still photographs, albeit bad ones.
I'm not trying to tell you, or anyone else, that a newspaper reproduction is the same thing as an original photographic print. But, I would submit that they are both photographs. What about, for instance, Life Magazine? All the great photographers that worked for Life over the years, took photos to appear in the pages of Life. They weren't photographs? I know that original prints may be worth more than those in the magazine, but the primary purpose of taking the photos was to have them appear in the magazine, to bring the photographs to the people (at the risk of sounding corny). Eugene Smith's first photo essay, The Country Doctor, was intended as a magazine article, with text and all. That they may also appear from time to time in an art gallery doesn't take away from the intended audience (the readers of Life). I think you're being too narrow in your view, Tom. The best quality photographs may well be prints made from negatives directly on to photographic paper (although I've seen some pretty damned good ink-jet prints - some done by Aaron come to mind), but that doesn't render everything else a "non-photograph", imho. Would I call an inkjet a photographic print? I would if it looked like a traditional print, both in the quality of the paper and the image. Why would it be less valuable, just because of the method used to produce it? It's the final product that's important to me (and apparently many others as well). Anyway, Tom, I'm not trying to convince you, or anyone else of anything. I'm just explaining my position, and we can (in a very friendly manner, I hope) agree to disagree. Lawyers (which I haven't been for almost 8 years, btw) don't really try to convince juries that left is right, although it may appear that way sometimes. Whatever they do in court, I think it's by precise use of proper language, not through mis-use of language. That's what makes them look so convincing. But now we're getting into a whole other kettle of fish... <vbg> cheers, frank T Rittenhouse wrote: > Oh, come on, Frank. People misuse the language all the time. Unfortunately > that tends to make precise communication difficult. As an attorney, I > imagine you are very good at it, convincing juries that their left hand is > really their right hand and all that. > > However, you will never convince me that a newspaper reproduction is the > same thing as an original photograph by an important photographer. Nor do I > think a knowledgeable collector is going to pay big bucks for an inkjet > print like he would for a photographic print. As a matter of fact, I don't > believe you would either. Or if I am wrong, could I interest you in an > inkjet print of Moon Over Halfdome? Come on, only a thousand bucks, I will > download it off the internet tonight, and print it up just for you. > > I think the above contains the gist of it, would you call an inkjet print a > photographic print? No, I didn't think so. > > Ciao, > Graywolf > http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "frank theriault" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Friday, June 20, 2003 5:16 PM > Subject: Re: Is an inkjet print a photograph? (was:Re: Agfa Competition) > > > Every day, I stop on my home from work, and grab an espresso at the Jet > Fuel > > Cafe. Whilst consuming my coffee, I read the newspaper. On the front > page of > > the sports section of the Toronto Star was a photo of two football > players, > > taken from last night's Toronto Argonauts football game (we start football > early > > up here). > > > > What's that, you say? A photograph? I think it was, anyway. And, if I > talked > > to 25 people (not from this list), and asked them if they saw the > photograph > > from the front page of the sports section, they'd know ~exactly~ what I > meant. > > Not one would say, "that's not a photo, it's a typographically printed > form of a > > photo." > > > > And, it was almost certainly a "digital capture", as well. > > > > Maybe it's time to get our heads out of the sand. OTOH, the rest of the > world > > could be wrong. I guess it's our job to educate them, eh? <vbg> > > > > cheers, > > frank > > > > T Rittenhouse wrote: > > > > > Try telling that to a photography collector. Maybe he will give you > > > thousands of dollars for a tear sheet from an old life magazine. > > > > > > Ciao, > > > Graywolf > > > http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "Jostein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Sent: Friday, June 20, 2003 12:27 PM > > > Subject: Re: Is an inkjet print a photograph? (was:Re: Agfa Competition) > > > > > > > A magazine's reproduction of a photography has had no obstacles to > pass as > > > a > > > > photograph in people's minds, so why bother with a inkjet printout? > > > > -- > > "What a senseless waste of human life" > > -The Customer in Monty Python's Cheese Shop sketch > > > > -- "What a senseless waste of human life" -The Customer in Monty Python's Cheese Shop sketch
