Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2004/06/04
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]It's not that it has little real value, but that it has relative value. S. Dimitrov > From: DrLarryIPresume@aol.com > Reply-To: Leica Users Group <lug@leica-users.org> > Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2004 09:38:38 EDT > To: lug@leica-users.org > Subject: [Leica] Re: LUG Digest, Vol 27, Issue 278 > > Consider the costs of one of my "fin art" prints: I buy the equipment (which > also requires maintenance over time), drive to the location, use film, bring > it home and develop it, make MANY prints to get the dodging, burning etc. > correct., may tone it (and may do so mor than once), spend + time spotting the > print, mount it and frame it. I can offer that for any price I choose. Why is > a > Rolex more than a Seiko, or a Lexus 300 es more than a Toyota Camry? In my > case > it isn't status (yet), but the high stature photographers charge THOUSANDS for > their prints! So, I don't feel the price unfair. Everything is high today. > The money has little real value. Larry > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information