Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 41 to 47 of 47
  1. #41
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    848
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    The photo is perfect for over the toilet. Better yet, both pieces of overpriced trash can go into the same bathroom.

  2. #42
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    533
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by moojja View Post
    The actual photograph is huge, 6-by-11 feet. So we really can't judge the merit of the picture by the article. I image it's one of those pictures that looks boring in an article or a book, but is absolutely overwhelming when you're standing in front of it.
    True, maybe, or it could be a case where the emperor has no clothes. Lots of photographs look more impressive when they're blown up big. Some are stunning no matter what size they are.

    Quote Originally Posted by MacMadame View Post
    These days, it would be a digital image so it wouldn't even degrade over time or based on how many prints were made.... but prints from a negative do degrade the negative (as does time) so that the 100th print won't be as stunning as the 1st print.
    This isn't correct; making 100 prints wouldn't cause any appreciable degradation of a negative. For difficult negatives to print, it might take the photographer upwards of 100 prints to get the right result before they even begin to sell limited edition prints. Some photographs might run in editions of 500+, depending on the photographer's choice (and a few fine art photogs choose to not run editions at all, they just print off a copy when someone wants to buy it). If negatives are stored right, they could last for centuries, depending on the type. I've even heard that at the Center for Creative Photography in Arizona, they allow people to print from Ansel Adams' negatives. Not sure if that's true but it would be pretty cool!

    Of course, a limited edition of a digital photograph would be a little different than that of a silver gelatin because each print would be identical since they're being spat out of a printer, whereas with the silver gelatin each would be unique.

  3. #43
    Internet Beyotch
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    NorCal
    Posts
    15,525
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    7429
    Sorry but printing from negatives does cause them to age. The exposure to the chemicals, the chance of dust getting on them, them getting scratched, etc all contribute to this phenomena. Yes, you can store them in such a way that this aging is limited, but eventually they will fade no matter how well stored.
    "Cupcakes are bullshit. And everyone knows it. A cupcake is just a muffin with clown puke topping." -Charlie Brooker

  4. #44
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    533
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by MacMadame View Post
    Sorry but printing from negatives does cause them to age. The exposure to the chemicals, the chance of dust getting on them, them getting scratched, etc all contribute to this phenomena. Yes, you can store them in such a way that this aging is limited, but eventually they will fade no matter how well stored.
    Exposure to chemicals? Well ok, if part of your printing technique is dunking the negatives in the fixer or something, then yes, ok I can see how the 100th print wouldn't look as good as the first. Otherwise, printing just involves passing light through the negative. I suppose eventually, after many, many years of excessive printing from the same negative, the light exposure could cause it to fade just as exposure to any light would, but in practice this is just not a problem. Especially not in so few prints as you say, which might be churned out in a single day. Good printing involves careful safeguarding against the things you cited - handling from the edges of the negative, eliminating dust with a brush specially made for negatives, etc. If printing was so hard on negatives, the great photographs of the earlier part of the 20th century would be much more rare, and watching movies in a movie theater before the digital era would have been prohibitively expensive or impossible, considering how often they'd have to replace the film. But this is off topic.

  5. #45
    Argle-Bargle-ist
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Vancouver, BC
    Age
    50
    Posts
    8,503
    vCash
    875
    Rep Power
    46281
    Quote Originally Posted by Skittl1321 View Post
    I really hated that they pointed out the money should have been donated to charity instead. How do we know this person doesn't do that as well? If you have billions, what's 1.8 million? (Of course, the person may be a horrible miser, who knows.)
    Enough to feed over seven million hungry people.

    Or you can have a really, really cool bathtub.

    Choices, choices.

    It's official. I am madly in love with Meryl Davis.

  6. #46
    Internet Beyotch
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    NorCal
    Posts
    15,525
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    7429
    Quote Originally Posted by zippy View Post
    If printing was so hard on negatives, the great photographs of the earlier part of the 20th century would be much more rare, and watching movies in a movie theater before the digital era would have been prohibitively expensive or impossible, considering how often they'd have to replace the film. But this is off topic.
    I've been a professional photographer and have been shooting film since the 1960 and how to preserve negatives and the degredation of the negative as you make print after print is something we agonized over before the digital era.

    As for movies, fading over time is a big problem which is why many classic films are now being digitally remastered.
    "Cupcakes are bullshit. And everyone knows it. A cupcake is just a muffin with clown puke topping." -Charlie Brooker

  7. #47
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    533
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    ^And I've only been doing darkroom work since I was seven . I've won international awards and have attended workshops with master printers who never once mentioned this as a concern. I can't find anything online or in my darkroom books that reference this either. However, I did find this interesting article on limited edition prints by Brooks Jenson, a very well-known fine art photographer and the founder of Lenswork:

    First, let's be honest about the mechanical logistics in photography. There is no mechanical reason why the number of photographs should be limited. The obvious exceptions might be Polaroid originals, emulsion transfer images, or hand-colored images, but I'm not addressing these media in this article. With these few exceptions, there is no limit to the number of copies that can be made from an original negative, transparency or even a hybrid negative, e.g. a digital negative. When the light from an enlarger passes through the negative to make an exposure on photographic paper, there is no degradation to the negative. None. The mechanics of the process do not degrade the original, hence there is no medium-imposed limit to the edition nor is there a medium-defined vintage print.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •