fb (aikus@freemail.c3.hu)
Mon, 26 Jul 1999 18:09:45 +0100
I think both.
The photograph potentially is a Janus face thing: can be an art thing and
a documentum in the same time. I.e.: if you a portrait photographer your
authorized copy is an art thing (but only the the authorized: signed,
stamped, etc.) but the negative is the better source of the information
about the face of XY so it is the valuabler as a document.
The only reason to kill your negatives is economical: the technically
bordered amount of possible copies can increase the price of the existing
copies. There is a situation when poor artist must to do it... But I dont
know any other reason. (Perhaps to prevent illegal copiing but would be
an extremly wrong situation if it is the only way...)
An example why good to keep negatives:
The photograph is a fragile thing, to exhibit on a permanent exhibition ie.:
an albumen print is a best way to kill, or at least disorting it. In this case
the authentic reprint or the facsimile is the modern strategy to save a
valuable original copy and display a same quality copy on the exhibition.
But to reach the original quality the original negative is often
indispensable. To make a HQ copy for a printing house -- I think -- is a
similar situation...
Balint Flesch
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu Oct 28 1999 - 21:40:38