Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2008/02/01

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] Reductionism isn't legit OT
From: imagist3 at mac.com (Lottermoser George)
Date: Fri Feb 1 16:28:48 2008
References: <bfe.2dddcc7d.34d50e6c@aol.com>

and further: a traditional silver print does not = a platinum print;  
which does not = a gum bichromate print; which does not =  
daguerreotype; which does not = a polaroid print; which does not = a  
cibachrome print; which does not = an engraving; which does not = an  
etching; which does not = a serigraph; which does not = a lithograph;  
ad nauseum.

However, all of the above, along with dye sublimation prints, inkjet  
prints, and many, many other forms of printing do qualify as "Prints."
And good many of them also qualify as "Photographic Prints."

The only question worth asking, "Does the print, what ever the  
technique, appear beautiful in form and/or content?"
If yes, wonderful. Can I see it?
If no, recycle it.
The vast majority of existing silver prints do not appear beautiful  
in form and/or content.
Though they may have all kinds of sentimental value to their owners.

On Feb 1, 2008, at 6:08 PM, Afterswift@aol.com wrote:

> In short, a printout -- no matter how convincing it looks  -- is  
> not the
> equivalent of a traditional silver image and never will be.  Sorry  
> to be negative.

Fond regards,
George
george@imagist.com
www.imagist.com
http://www.imagist.com/blog
Picture A Week - www.imagist.com/paw_07




In reply to: Message from Afterswift at aol.com (Afterswift@aol.com) ([Leica] Reductionism isn't legit OT)