I doubt that Ansel Adams had a digital camera, so he probably had some
photo-sensitive (phototropic?) material in his camera and was thus taking
photographs. If they have since digitized his photographs and are printing
them on Iris inkjet printers then they are no doubt gorgeous reproductions
of his photographs. If you want to say that because the image was captured
with photo-sensitive materials even the reproductions would be photographs,
well... I'll go along with that if I'm in a good mood. But the Iris prints
wouldn't be photographs just because they look as good as a photograph.
-Rich
Aaron Reynolds wrote:
>
> Richard Klein wrote:
> >
> > Yeah, OK, we're not disagreeing then. The current Ansel
> Adams prints are
> > not photographs, but they are reproductions of his original
> photographs. He
> > committed them to film way back when, right? But you
> wouldn't get the
> > prints from the lab in a coffee table book; you'd get a
> mass-produced
> > ink-and-paper reproduction.
>
> No, I'm talking about his print-prints. You know, the ones
> you spend a
> bazillion dollars to get. They ceased printing them from the negs
> (actually large format copy negs of a master print) last year
> and moved
> to Iris printing, which is basically really nice inkjet on
> gorgeous papers.
>
> -Aaron
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
