<< Yes . . . but now I am going to go counter point on you . . . isn't
photography about images? Fresson for its own sake is meaningless . . . >>
On which point do you counter point on me? I didn't quote the whole message of
yours, but I agree with the rest of your message (that the process itself
means nothing, or should mean nothing). Maybe you were refering to my previous
message which says the uniqueness of Fresson makes market. By that I didn't
mean it should be that way in a real artistic sense, but it is like that in
business, don't you think?
Take, for example, the works of Sheila Metzner. I don't think *all* of her
works look that artistic, if judged with traditional art values, i.e.
composition, balance, colors, etc.) , but I think at least some of them sell
just because they are Fresson. Some because of the name Fresson, some because
of the name Metzner, some because of the Fresson unique look .... I am not
saying that it should be like that. I am saying that in real world many times
it happens that way....
Likewise, the picture of your dog will sell at different prices if it is a
Fresson print compared to if it is a C print. Don't you think?
Again, I didn't say anything in my post. I was just asking a question.