I stand corrected. But I don't think the destruction of originals is a
widespread practice, and it's certainly not something I would do or recommend.
Paul
-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: Bob Shell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> On May 1, 2006, at 11:53 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote:
>
> > As far as I know, none of the great photographers who printed
> > limited editions destroyed their negatives. There is something
> > intrinsically wrong with that notion. The negative or the digital
> > original must always be preserved. All of my gallery prints are
> > numbered prints of a limited edition. They are a far cry from fine
> > art, but buyers want to konw that their print is not just one of
> > many. Iif I ever sell the entire series of an image, which is
> > highly unlikely, I will stop printing that shot. But I won't
> > destroy the original file or negative. My best selling print, by
> > the way, is from film. But I hope that will soon change.
>
> Brett Weston, considered a great photographer by many, burned all of
> his negatives. Some others have punched holes in the negs with paper
> punches. A few have put X marks on them with permanent markers.
>
> Bob
>
