From: Rod Fleming (rodfleming@sol.co.uk)
Date: 05/28/00-02:28:36 AM Z
Hi CM
In your case it is quite clear that the small negs and the large negs
constitute separate "plates", the plate being that which births the print,
if you will. So the prints will have to be in two separate editions, even if
the two original negatives were taken at the same time from the same
position, and appear to be the same.
If I get out my sketchbook and make a drawing, or for that matter go and
photograph something, and then make from that original two separate plates,
an aquatint and a drypoint, say, these two plates will obviously give rise
to two editions of prints, even though the original source is the same.
I don't know about others but even on LF I always make two negs of a scene,
and these are identical (well, I process them separately and will make
adjustments if I want a different emphasis on the neg for the second one,
but essentially they are the same). These two negatives, were I prepared to
get into editions, would necessarily give rise to two editions. Normally
they would be titled differently, say "Still Life One" and "Still Life Two".
(Note that they would _necessarily_ make two editions; this is not a matter
of choice - there is no point in having rules of this kind if they are not
consistently applied.)
Consider another case; I make from an original negative, any old size, two
enlarged negatives, one in order to make Pt/Pd prints and the other to
contact on Azo. These two negatives also give rise to two separate editions
of prints, and there is no way round it. (If you do editions.)
If you've followed my comments on editions of photographic prints you'll
know that I personally think they are of dubious worth anyway .... (but each
to his or her own) .... and this example is just another in a list of why it
is that print editioning, which comes from a printmaking technical
background, is inappropriate for photography. Bin the editions, I say, and
let's put information of real value on our work!
(BTW I have nothing against editions when appropriate- I don't get time to
do a lot of intaglio printmaking at the moment, but I really enjoy it and
look forward to a time when I can get back into it a bit more; and I observe
all the rules when I make these prints. I just don't think they apply to
photography, and the attempt to make them do so is ill-conceived. IMHO.)
Rod
----- Original Message -----
From: <CMPatti@aol.com>
To: <alt-photo-process-l@skyway.usask.ca>
Sent: Saturday, May 27, 2000 11:34
Subject: Re: question
> Here's another question about editioning: I've been working on a project
> using both small format and 8x10, the small format negs for silver prints,
> 8x10 for platinum. I've duplicated some photos in the two formats,
sometimes
> taking them at the same time from the same (or similar) camera position.
The
> resulting prints look very different, of course: different size, format,
and
> different media. It feels a bit unfair to sell these "duplicates" in
> separate editions; it doesn't seem correct to put them in the same
edition,
> either. Any thoughts?
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 06/13/00-03:10:22 PM Z CST