>What the article said was that one
>could digitize the artist's final print and then
>reproduce it on (the same kind?) negative film from
>which you could make multiple prints with all the
>dodging and burning adjustments built in. The artist's
>creativity and vision was permanently captured.
I've had to do something similar with a particular color picture
I took years ago. The negative had been damaged with a
multitude of scratches and other debris. We printed it on a
16x20 and I spent a small fortune having it air-brushed.
Afterwards I had multiple negs and trannies made for future
reproduction. I have sold numerous copies of this print, but
the original hangs with pride on my living-room wall. Without
the air-brushed "master" this would have been a wasted shot that
would have been delegated to the woulda-coulda bin.
Digital editing of a picture is perfectly valid. Getting it
back into film format requires either a film writer or a good
copy camera setup.
As far as B&W burning and dodging and the repeatability...
One of the sell-points that I use with my B&W work is that each
is hand-made and unique. Every time the "score" is played, it
will always be an unique "performance." I don't know about you,
but I prefer artwork that I know the artist personally put
effort into, not just a mass-produced repro with "683/1000"
printed on it. Besides, I bore easily and I'm a
perfectionist--never am I completely satisfied with a print and
I'm always changing and trying to improve it. Printing B&W to
me is kinda like playing Jazz--you kinda have a direction that
you are going but you never know exactly how you're gonna get
there.
Thought: An original print establishes a relationship between
artist and viewer.
AG-Schnozz
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo!
http://sbc.yahoo.com
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|