Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2007/02/12
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I wasn't very clear, apologies. I thought that your response to the crop question went a bit off - diverging to whether the the image was captured with a digital camera or film camera, whether it was then printed in a light room or darkroom. None of which had anything to do with cropping. And further have nothing to do with any of the other qualities which bring real aesthetic value an image, namely: content, composition, tonality, concept, light quality. Certainly the quality of the paper, dyes, inks, silver content, also have a part to play in the final aesthetics. Regards, George Lottermoser george@imagist.com On Feb 9, 2007, at 7:12 PM, R S wrote: > Sorry, I may miss the point here but how does this pertain to the > question > of cropping? > > On 2/9/07, Lottermoser George <imagist3@mac.com> wrote: >> >> Is that also regardless of content, composition, tonality, concept, >> lighting, et al? ;~) >> >> Regards, >> George Lottermoser >> george@imagist.com >> >> >> >> On Feb 9, 2007, at 3:25 PM, R S wrote: >> >> > I personally 'value' #2 more (regardless if the photographer was >> me or >> > someone else). On Feb 9, 2007, at 3:25 PM, R S wrote: > I may disagree on the fine art print. To me I do place some value > on how the > photographer got to the final image. > > Others may of course disagree as it's a highly personal preference but > between two IDENTICAL looking photos where; > 1) was taken with a dSLR and printed on printer, and > 2) was taken with a rangefinder camera from 1950 and printed in a > darkroom > > I personally 'value' #2 more (regardless if the photographer was me or > someone else). > On the wall they will look the same but to me I will still find some > inherent values in #2 that I prefer. > May just be nostalgic and ludditesque - and I may be the only one > that feels > that way. > > /Rich