jdesigns said:"For me, the end result is more important than how I actually achieved the photo. Whether using ancient glass plates, print or slide film, or using silicon chips to capture the image, it still ends up being a photo."This is true, but for the "people" paying for your art, it matters to them, well most of them.
Its like paying for an oil painting as opposed to an acrylic or watercolor. In the buying and selling art world, the means by which the art was created is important. Like with antiques, most buyers want whats actually old, not a reproduction.
Here's an example: I have a great friend who is the head interior designer for a firm in B'ham, Pierce-Taber Designs. She had a client pay $2,000 bucks for a runner rug from Turkey made in the 1700's. They had reproductions, just as pretty and ornate, but they "wanted" the real thing.
All I can say it Cha-ching!
Maybe its my age( only a mere 45), but I am happy to take my time, no matter what the art requested, I enjoy the gift that comes with time.
jcroft said:If you're paying for exclusivity, then you probably don't want a digital piece. If, on the other hand, you're paying for faithfulness to the original artist's vision, then digital is the best choice you can possibly make.
If you have the negative of a film photograph, the costs are pretty much negligible to reproduce the photograph.jcroft said:But don't most buyers want the original instead of a reproduction because a reproduction can never be 100% faithful to the original? A reproduction will always have some differences, be they in look, feel, texture, whatever. Doesn't using digital photography change all that? Isn't it, for the first time ever, now possible to create a reproduction that is actually 100% faithful to the original? And isn't it now possible to do so at basically no cost as many times as you like?
If you're paying for exclusivity, then you probably don't want a digital piece. If, on the other hand, you're paying for faithfulness to the original artist's vision, then digital is the best choice you can possibly make.
It's pretty easy to make a copy of a neg too. But as you pointed out, the copy will not be 100% faithful to the original.jcroft said:But the destruction only matters if there isn't a copy somewhere -- which there probably is, since it was free and simple to make one.
I would avoid confusing tools and art, otherwise you make the same mistake of who thinks photgraphy is not art. In your example the result of applying a filter is not art, but not because it is digital, it is not art because it is not personal. But there are many ways to use digital tools on photography and that does result in art.Shutterbug said:...I hope you take this the right way, but I feel photography belongs in the darkroom for the most part. I don't get the term "digital darkroom", what is that, I have yet to wrap my head around that one.
This is my point. I spend about 2 to 3 weeks drawing a graphite portrait for a client and feel pretty good about the time spent and know every stroke in a personal way.
But what if I were to scan the photo, click "graphite" on the effects, print it out and say, here you go, a graphite portrait and expect them to want to frame it...
I'm sorry but where did reproducibility and monetary value became an indicator of artworthy in the thread ? I think I missing some posts. Did any post get deleted ?jdesigns said:Yes, but it's even easier to destroy a digital file than it is to cut up a negative.
I do understand about reproductions however.
Yes, and here is why: Anything that you, as a person takes time to do, to set up, to form a shot, to stage, is art.jdesigns said:So, is Photography considered art to you?