Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2008/02/08

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

Subject: [Leica] Does the process matter?
From: drodgers at (David Rodgers)
Date: Fri Feb 8 07:38:50 2008


>>... what he showed me made me realize that the very best inkjet prints
were now on an aesthetic par with the very best silver halide prints,
and that I didn't *need* to conquer Xtol.<<

I was in a gallery the other day. There were two large framed paintings.
They looked identical to me. One was priced $850. The other $5,000. One
was the original oil painting. The other was an inkjet copy. The copy
was on textured paper that made it look like an oil painting. 

I studied the original and copy closely. Again, I couldn't tell a
difference, though granted know nothing about oil painting. But there
obviously was a difference in value. I'm not sure how, or even if this
relates to silver vs an inkjet printing. But it does remind me value
isn't always based on aesthetics. Methods and materials are important.  

I also recall being in a gallery in Carmel years ago. There was a large
bw print. It was a "giclee" print, somewhat rare at the time. The
gallery was hyping that and it was expensive. Now silver prints are
becoming the rarity. I don't want to read too much into that. But is
aesthetics the only thing that's important, or does the process matter? 


Replies: Reply from reid at (Brian Reid) ([Leica] Does the process matter?)
Reply from imagist3 at (Lottermoser George) ([Leica] Does the process matter?)
Reply from philippe.amard at (Philippe AMARD) ([Leica] Does the process matter?)
In reply to: Message from reid at (Brian Reid) ([Leica] Free: unopened packets of Xtol)