Case Closed (was: Film is dead)
John Stafford
presumes the picture has value in terms of its esthetic, therefore
marketability to the person who wishes to _posess_ that photograph.
The photographer offers the print for sale with the original negative.
Digital cannot offer the same exclusivity, the same built-in
provenance, therefore the same _value_ because it is _impossible_
using digital technology to make a singular film image. You cannot
counterfeit a digitally made image to film to be exactly like an
original film image. Not today, and not tomorrow.
Case closed.
J Greely
>The photographer offers the print for sale with the original negative.
>Digital cannot offer the same exclusivity, the same built-in
>provenance, therefore the same _value_ because it is _impossible_
>using digital technology to make a singular film image.
I have a large painting on my wall that is an original work by artist
Jennifer Janesko. Posters, calendars, limited-edition prints, and
greeting cards featuring this painting are available through her web
site. They will continue to be available in the future, because she
has a high-resolution digital copy securely stored away.
>You cannot counterfeit a digitally made image to film to be exactly
>like an original film image. Not today, and not tomorrow.
Of course, since more and more pro labs are abandoning Type R and
Ilfochrome printing in favor of LightJet and other digital
technologies, the odds that a fine-art print was done in a way that
requires the original negative or slide are going down every year.
-j
John Stafford
> I have a large painting on my wall that is an original work by artist
> Jennifer Janesko. Posters, calendars, limited-edition prints, and
> greeting cards featuring this painting are available through her web
> site. They will continue to be available in the future, because she
> has a high-resolution digital copy securely stored away.
I don't understand your point, unless you are affirming the issue I
made concerning the original. The painting is not a print and the
prints are not the painting. You have the _painting_ and it cannot be
reproduced.
> >You cannot counterfeit a digitally made image to film to be exactly
> >like an original film image. Not today, and not tomorrow.
>
> Of course, since more and more pro labs are abandoning Type R and
> Ilfochrome printing in favor of LightJet and other digital
> technologies, the odds that a fine-art print was done in a way that
> requires the original negative or slide are going down every year.
Interesting point. And B&W?
J Greely
>I don't understand your point, unless you are affirming the issue I
>made concerning the original.
Essentially, I was leading in to the second part by giving an example
of how possession of a much more obviously verifiable original in no
way prevents the artist from producing further copies.
With quality color photographic prints, giving away the negative/slide
does *nothing* to prevent you from producing an identical or even
superior print if you retain a high-resolution scan. The exclusivity
that you claimed is in no way guaranteed by the physical possession of
the "original".
>Interesting point. And B&W?
I don't know anyone offhand who lets a commercial lab produce their
B&W fine-art prints, so they're not as affected. I've seen some decent
digital B&W prints done with multiple grayscale inks, but it doesn't
seem to have had the same impact on the market yet.
-j
John Stafford
> jo...@stafford.net (John Stafford) writes:
> >I don't understand your point, unless you are affirming the issue I
> >made concerning the original.
>
> Essentially, I was leading in to the second part by giving an example
> of how possession of a much more obviously verifiable original in no
> way prevents the artist from producing further copies.
Copies are copies.
> With quality color photographic prints, giving away the negative/slide
> does *nothing* to prevent you from producing an identical or even
> superior print if you retain a high-resolution scan. The exclusivity
> that you claimed is in no way guaranteed by the physical possession of
> the "original".
I was speaking of the pair: an original print and the negative (or
transparency) together. If you cannot see the particular virtue of
that, then you don't see the value, either, therefore it does not
exist for you.
> >Interesting point. And B&W?
>
> I don't know anyone offhand who lets a commercial lab produce their
> B&W fine-art prints, so they're not as affected. I've seen some decent
> digital B&W prints done with multiple grayscale inks, but it doesn't
> seem to have had the same impact on the market yet.
See above.
J Greely
>Copies are copies.
Yes, exactly. Your example involved selling someone a copy and then
giving them the negative to persuade them that it's an "exclusive"
copy.
>I was speaking of the pair: an original print and the negative (or
>transparency) together.
I understood that the first time. And if you include an affidavit with
this pair of objects swearing on a stack of bibles that you've never
scanned the negative, that the print was produced by optical
enlargement, and that no other prints were made prior to the date of
the sale, then there's some chance of exclusivity. But without all
that, there's no guarantee at all.
And someone who shoots digitally can write a similar affidavit, with
just as much effectiveness. It's not the object that makes it
exclusive, it's the promise by the artist.
>If you cannot see the particular virtue of that,
Ten years ago, it would have had some virtue. Times change.
-j
John Stafford
> I understood that the first time. And if you include an affidavit with
> this pair of objects swearing on a stack of bibles that you've never
> scanned the negative, that the print was produced by optical
> enlargement, and that no other prints were made prior to the date of
> the sale, then there's some chance of exclusivity. But without all
> that, there's no guarantee at all.
I believe you missed the issue. Owning the _negative_ is the point.
That's why I stated, and you affirmed that "a copy is (just) a copy."
Perhaps a case would make this clear. Let's say that a particular
picture becomes well known or has certain value in any event. For
example, a picture that was given a Pulitzer. The photographer sells
the negative strip, which includes the frame which was deemed a
Pulitzer, plus the frames on each side. There is an undeniable certain
exclusivity to that negative which digital cannot have. It is FILM.
Finally, if the photographer makes a print which from it which he says
is the way he wants it, then one would have an coupled image of
certain special interest.
Another might be one of any of St. Adams' negatives. Or any better
photographer's.
J Greely
>I believe you missed the issue. Owning the _negative_ is the point.
I have met exactly one person who insisted on owning the negative.
Eventually he figured out that I really did mean "no".
Actually, I take that back; I did have to tell a trade-show promoter
to go to hell once, when he tried to change the terms of the contract
24 hours before the show opened. For the first time in weeks of
discussion, he casually mentioned that he wanted both the film and the
copyright. Different sort of situation, though.
>That's why I stated, and you affirmed that "a copy is (just) a copy."
Your original words were, exactly:
"The photographer offers the print for sale with the original
negative. Digital cannot offer the same exclusivity, the same
built-in provenance,"
In this statement, you appear to be claiming that the print is
exclusive *because* the negative is sold with it. This is simply not
true, even if the print was produced by optical enlargement. Someone
who fell for this line would feel deceived if the photo he so ardently
desired to "possess" turned up on a greeting card in six months, which
it trivially could.
Bluntly, it sounds like the advantage you're claiming for film can be
summed up as "easier to bullshit naive art buyers".
>Perhaps a case would make this clear.
No new information was present in this hypothetical example. It's
exactly what you said before, with the same unsubstantiated assertion
of "exclusivity" and "value".
>Another might be one of any of St. Adams' negatives.
You mean the guy who specifically wanted future generations to have
access to his negatives to see what they could do with them?
-j
John Stafford
> [...]
> >That's why I stated, and you affirmed that "a copy is (just) a copy."
>
> Your original words were, exactly:
> "The photographer offers the print for sale with the original
> negative. Digital cannot offer the same exclusivity, the same
> built-in provenance,"
>
> In this statement, you appear to be claiming that the print is
> exclusive *because* the negative is sold with it. This is simply not
> true, even if the print was produced by optical enlargement. Someone
> who fell for this line would feel deceived if the photo he so ardently
> desired to "possess" turned up on a greeting card in six months, which
> it trivially could.
I see your point.
> Bluntly, it sounds like the advantage you're claiming for film can be
> summed up as "easier to bullshit naive art buyers".
You don't see mine. The negative is a thing in itself and
distinguishes film photgraphy from digital. Digital, as it exists now,
has no such part of its phenonema.
> >Another might be one of any of St. Adams' negatives.
>
> You mean the guy who specifically wanted future generations to have
> access to his negatives to see what they could do with them?
What an individual wants to do with the negatives has nothing to do
with my assertion.
J Greely
>You don't see mine. The negative is a thing in itself and
>distinguishes film photgraphy from digital.
This is a lovely tautology. I have no trouble seeing it, I just can't
find a reason to care. Your examples haven't provided me with one.
>What an individual wants to do with the negatives has nothing to do
>with my assertion.
Actually, it does, since Adams didn't necessarily consider the
negative to be a finished product. It was a musical score, and the
artistic performance took place in the darkroom. The negative was
simply the *potential* for a good photograph, rather than the thing
itself.
-j
John Stafford
> jo...@stafford.net (John Stafford) writes:
> >You don't see mine. The negative is a thing in itself and
> >distinguishes film photgraphy from digital.
>
> This is a lovely tautology. I have no trouble seeing it, I just can't
> find a reason to care. Your examples haven't provided me with one.
The original case pivots about the idea of value. (Or do not look
back, but it remains that value is central in almost any philosophical
issue.) If you in particular find no such value, then it is a moot
point and not worth discussing any further.