Re: Rotating Josef was Actual Photograph

Richard Sullivan wrote:
>
>
> To be clear about it, I don't have any problem with "digital" per se.

I'll piggyback on here and say ditto, me neither. I was working in
Photoshop way back when Photoshop was considered a pre-press tool, not
something that photographers in general might concern themselves with;
in fact I did some digital demonstrations for photo stores before
almost anyone was even thinking about digital for photographers. I also
showed digital (dye-sub) prints for a short time before I discovered gum
bichromate. And of course I still use Photoshop for adjusting images
and printing digital negatives.

My distinction is between machine-printed prints and handmade prints as
art objects, and has nothing to do with the quality of the images,
except for the obvious qualification that hardly needs to be stated but
has been stated again and again, that an uninteresting image doesn't
become more interesting because it's printed as a handmade print. When I
make the distinction between the two kinds of art objects, I'm assuming
an equally interesting image with either. As I said before, if I like
an image, I'm happy to buy a machine print of it, but I expect to pay
machine-printed prices for it, and in fact when I did show digital
prints, they were priced from $25-$40.
kt
Received on Sun Mar 20 10:50:59 2005