Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2005/08/03
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Brett Weston didn't have to destroy his negatives. He just did. -dan c. At 01:02 AM 03-08-05 EDT, Afterswift@aol.com wrote: >Dear Colleagues, > >Brett Weston had to destroy his negatives to maintain the value of his >prints. It was the only way he could assure the buyer of the one of a kind value of >his acquisition. That says something about the significance of negatives. >Their permanence. Their ability to regenerate fresh prints. Their incontrovertible >reference for the original scene. Their physicality. > >What I find odd in our thinking is the notion that film is limited and >labor >and time intensive. Therefore, we should consign film to obsolescence. Yet we >could all return to our film Nikons and still practice digital photography >without missing a beat. Long before I bought my first digital I scanned my >favorite film prints as they came from the processor and made them into image files. >And I still have their negatives. Sometimes I think a sensor is just >another >type of film. > >Bob > >_______________________________________________ >Leica Users Group. >See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >