Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2005/08/02
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Film is a different medium from digital photography. You are describing a hybrid of the two where scanners do the conversion from the analog world into the digital domain. If you buy into Ansel's idea of a negative being a composition and the print being the performance then staying in the analog domain will present prints that are not perfect digital copies but are hand-crafted and subtly different one from the other and represent some substantial amount of time by a human being to create. This makes the printer, separate from the photographer, an artisan and hand-work will have, in my feeble opinion, a greater and greater value over time. Adam On 8/2/05, Afterswift@aol.com <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 >