Comments for GENUINE-PHOTOGRAPH.ORG http://www.genuine-photograph.org "... on the art of Photography, or The Application of the Chemical Rays of Light to the Purpose of Pictorial Representation" ( Herschel, 1839) Thu, 24 Jun 2010 12:41:44 +0100 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 Comment on About Us by CAMERON http://www.genuine-photograph.org/?p=42&cpage=1#comment-16 CAMERON Thu, 24 Jun 2010 12:41:44 +0000 http://www.genuine-photograph.org/?p=42#comment-16 <strong>Medicamentspot.com International Legal RX Medications. Special Internet Prices (up to 40% off average US price). NO PRIOR PRESCRIPTION REQUIRED!...</strong> <a href="http://medicamentspot.com/products/antiviral/combivir/order/ Combivir@buy.online" rel="nofollow">.</a>... Medicamentspot.com International Legal RX Medications. Special Internet Prices (up to 40% off average US price). NO PRIOR PRESCRIPTION REQUIRED!…

Combivir@buy.online” rel=”nofollow”>.…

]]> Comment on Fotografien sind keine Drucke by Webmaster http://www.genuine-photograph.org/?p=208&cpage=1#comment-15 Webmaster Fri, 11 Jun 2010 02:44:47 +0000 http://www.genuine-photograph.org/?p=208#comment-15 <strong>Hello! Please e-mail me your contacts. I have a question <a href="http://bravto.ru/ webmaster@bravto.ru" rel="nofollow">...</a>...</strong> Thank you!!!... Hello! Please e-mail me your contacts. I have a question webmaster@bravto.ru” rel=”nofollow”>……

Thank you!!!…

]]> Comment on Photographs are not Prints by Jan http://www.genuine-photograph.org/?p=223&cpage=1#comment-14 Jan Tue, 09 Feb 2010 10:02:44 +0000 http://www.genuine-photograph.org/?p=223#comment-14 Well Jeff, I can not really comment on either "real" printing or photographic printing in-depth, but I think that Maris wanted to express the following: A handmade photograph (as he uses the expression), produced the traditional way in the darkroom (not by a Lambda), is not a simply reproducable work of art like a print. In German, we do not call photographs "Druck" (i.e. print), we use the word "Abzug", which implies it is technically different from a "simple" print. The word "print" may lead to the assumption that a photographic print is reproducable, and therefore not as "worthy" as for example a painting. Sure, there do exist photographic prints which deserve this name (Lambda prints, Injekt prints etc.), and in fact they are easily reproducable. But the traditional handmade photographic print is always something unique, and therefore different from a print. Regards, Jan Well Jeff, I can not really comment on either “real” printing or photographic printing in-depth, but I think that Maris wanted to express the following:
A handmade photograph (as he uses the expression), produced the traditional way in the darkroom (not by a Lambda), is not a simply reproducable work of art like a print.
In German, we do not call photographs “Druck” (i.e. print), we use the word “Abzug”, which implies it is technically different from a “simple” print. The word “print” may lead to the assumption that a photographic print is reproducable, and therefore not as “worthy” as for example a painting. Sure, there do exist photographic prints which deserve this name (Lambda prints, Injekt prints etc.), and in fact they are easily reproducable. But the traditional handmade photographic print is always something unique, and therefore different from a print.

Regards,
Jan

]]> Comment on Photographs are not Prints by Jeff Shay http://www.genuine-photograph.org/?p=223&cpage=1#comment-13 Jeff Shay Mon, 08 Feb 2010 21:28:00 +0000 http://www.genuine-photograph.org/?p=223#comment-13 While I agree that photographic prints and printmaking prints are not the same thing, the above seems to smack of two things -- a lack of understanding of the art of printmaking, and a lack of understanding of the art of fine photo printing. In both cases there is a matrix -- a plate or stone in printmaking, a negative in photography -- that is used to create the final work of art. In both cases the fine printer is making creative choices that interpret the matrix -- in the case of an etching, by ink choice, wiping, top rolling, paper choice, &c, in the case of a photo, dodging, burning toning &c. And in both cases, unless the artist is making a specific choice not to, multiple copies of the same expression of the matrix should be very similar, if not identical. If they are not, then the issue is the skill (or attitude) of the maker. Ultimately the language of printmaking and photography do not mix well because the history of the two media are so different and have different intentionalitys -- fine prints were a way for an artist to distribute their work in a less expensive form than the single original, and needed structure to assure their veracity. Photography, historically, was a way to record life quickly and accurately, with little or no concern to the extent of the dissemination. The attempts of late to use the restricted mode of operation of printmakers in the world of photography is really nothing more than photographers trying to create scarcity, and therefore value, in their art. While I agree that photographic prints and printmaking prints are not the same thing, the above seems to smack of two things — a lack of understanding of the art of printmaking, and a lack of understanding of the art of fine photo printing. In both cases there is a matrix — a plate or stone in printmaking, a negative in photography — that is used to create the final work of art. In both cases the fine printer is making creative choices that interpret the matrix — in the case of an etching, by ink choice, wiping, top rolling, paper choice, &c, in the case of a photo, dodging, burning toning &c. And in both cases, unless the artist is making a specific choice not to, multiple copies of the same expression of the matrix should be very similar, if not identical. If they are not, then the issue is the skill (or attitude) of the maker.
Ultimately the language of printmaking and photography do not mix well because the history of the two media are so different and have different intentionalitys — fine prints were a way for an artist to distribute their work in a less expensive form than the single original, and needed structure to assure their veracity. Photography, historically, was a way to record life quickly and accurately, with little or no concern to the extent of the dissemination. The attempts of late to use the restricted mode of operation of printmakers in the world of photography is really nothing more than photographers trying to create scarcity, and therefore value, in their art.

]]>