I'll buy that. We might in cases like that consider the "reproduction" to be
the original, and the print a matrix, like a negative. I once did some
original Xeroxes (oops, it was a Kodak machine- electrostatic dry toner
prints- or whatever the correct term is) using extremely light, flat prints
as a matrix.
Tangentially (i can't hep it)- there were some Weston nudes (including the
cherubic Neil) which were 4x5s originally enlarged to 8x10 and printed in
platinum by EW that George Tice reprinted from the O negs as contact
platinums. It's been a long time but i liked the Tice prints better. ...I
think 5x7 is a great size for "tactile purism" - bigger than the precious
4x5 and smaller than 8x10. At that size you can see both the "image" and the
"print" at the same time (or at least without moving)
I remember a big Ansel retro in NYC. There were two rows of people, close-up
("print") and farther back ("image"). If you left your row you got cut off,
just like driving in NY. You KNOW i was in the close row, being more or less
familiar with the images, but enjoying wandering over the prints... I spent
over an hour in front of two juxtaposed "Aspens", one vintage, one recent,
from the same neg, both "correct" but very different. I learned a lot about
printing that day, but i sure messed up those lines!
-------------------------
Plywood and Rhetoric
graphic design from both sides of the brain
plyboy@teleport.com
http://www.teleport.com/~plyboy
"Momma DID raise a fool"