Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2008/02/09
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]The oil painting will still be there in a couple hundred years, the print might simply not. And visually, I can't believe oil on canvas and prints can be confused; did you get close enough? what was the light like inside the hall? Really surprising Best phx David Rodgers wrote: >Brian, > > > >>>... 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? > >DaveR > > > > >_______________________________________________ >Leica Users Group. >See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > > >