Originals and reproductions

[Ian Leake]

Following on from Brooks' question ((there was a url link here which no longer exists)), I thought I'd start a new thread to discuss originals and reproductions...

Here are some tentative definitions for the purposes of discussion...

• Original – the thing that the photographer considers to be their completed work. This could be a transparency, a print, an online image, a negative perhaps, a billboard poster, or almost anything else
• Reproduction – anything that shows the original, but is not actually the original itself. For example a scan of an original print, a print of an original transparency, a copy of an original print shown in a magazine

For example, I consider my final Pt/Pd prints to be the original. The proofing polaroids, negatives and test prints all contribute to the final print. I may make several original prints from the same negative. The purpose my reproductions may vary, but is usually to show people what the original looks like. The scans that I post to APUG and my website are poor quality reproductions – that saddens me but I haven’t worked out how to make them better yet. If, by some future miracle, any of my photos were published in a magazine, then hopefully those would be good quality reproductions (but reproductions all the same).

Does my definition make sense? And if so, what are your originals and what are your reproductions?

 

[jovo]

As J.D. Bruner's very well made point demonstrates, an actual 'artifact' print trumps a URL or other electronic 'original' unanimously. Ironically, if you copy a 'graph from my blog and display it on your perhaps very superior monitor, you may have a better iteration of it than even I do. It will not by any means, however, be the equivalent of my original print on air dried, glossy, toned, photographic paper.

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

I don't think your definition is controversial. What is more important to consider is whether both possess the same artistic value.

That there is a monetary value difference between an original and a copy makes sense; that there is a different physical experience also. But I think it varies between artists whether the "original" and the "copy" have distinct artistic value.

For very dedicated printers, the original print(s) might be the only one who bear the artistic value because they depend on particular physical attributes. But for other artists, there are no significant differences between the artistic value of a "copy" versus that of an "original."

People acquire "originals" not only for artistic value, so personally I would consider myself well served by a URL of JBrunner's photos, although having the actual print might give me other related delights.

 

[Ian Leake]

I don't think your definition is controversial. What is more important to consider is whether both possess the same artistic value.

That there is a monetary value difference between an original and a copy makes sense; that there is a different physical experience also. But I think it varies between artists whether the "original" and the "copy" have distinct artistic value.

For very dedicated printers, the original print(s) might be the only one who bear the artistic value because they depend on particular physical attributes. But for other artists, there are no significant differences between the artistic value of a "copy" versus that of an "original."

People acquire "originals" not only for artistic value, so personally I would consider myself well served by a URL of JBrunner's photos, although having the actual print might give me other related delights.

Interesting question. I consider my originals to the important work. I don't think the scans I post to APUG have any special value because they're just intended to show people what the original would look like if they could see it.

 

[MurrayMinchin]

My Canadian Oxford Dictionary defines original print as, "a print made directly from an artists own woodcut, etching, etc., and printed under the artists supervision". So there appears to be acres of wiggle room in that you could have thousands of originals and you don't even have to do it yourself, just supervise the making of them.

Each person gets to come up with their own conclusion on this one, and others will choose to agree, or not. Pretty simple, eh? Then again, I'm a simple man

Murray

 

[Shawn Rahman]

Interesting question. I consider my originals to the important work. I don't think the scans I post to APUG have any special value because they're just intended to show people what the original would look like if they could see it.

I'd like to agree with what you wrote here, but then WHAT is the VALUE of the original work that makes the original "important", compared to what was reprinted or reproduced? It should somehow be more about some intrinsic value or importance of the image itself, and not on solely on the fact that it was an "original".

Is there a parallel to be found in written works - is the first edition of a book or novel more "important" than subsequent reprints?

I have had different emotional responses to the same photograph seen in different books - one might be printed larger, or with more contrast.

Finally, what would you say to reproductions that actually look better than the original prints? I've not experienced this yet, but I'm sure it has happened somewhere.

 

[Ian Leake]

...WHAT is the VALUE of the original work that makes the original "important", compared to what was reprinted or reproduced? ...

There are at least two types of value here: emotional value and commercial value. The original has emotional value because it's the thing that I wanted to create, as opposed to something that's merely a by product. So obviously that makes it personally important, but that should also make it more important to people who are interested in who I am, what I do, and why I do it.

There's also a commercial value, albeit a small one, because if you want one of my original prints you have to pay me something. If you're happy with a reproduction then you can look at images I post here or on my web site.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Is there a parallel to be found in written works - is the first edition of a book or novel more "important" than subsequent reprints?

The question of originality vs. authenticity with the written word is a terribly slippery slope. The biggest deal with 1st editions is very much like the idea of the #1 in a limited edition of prints. It in theory is closest to the author's intent, and it is the first representation of that intent. I think more tellingly, the first edition thing with books is just as much a marketing thing as editioning prints.

A famous example that gives the lie to this would be Walt Whitman's "Leaves of Grass". He kept tinkering with the content, adding and removing poems, and editing individual poems, as he went along. So there is no one definitive edition. Fortunately or unfortunately, that doesn't happen with photographs, or at least not nearly to the same degree.

 

[SuzanneR]

Seems we are getting into apples and oranges. A hand made print is one thing, and edition of hand made prints is a marketing device to sell them. Same with editions of books, it would seem.

I appreciate hand made prints. I was at a Salgado show a few years back of his Workers series. The book was in the gallery, and the reproductions didn't have the impact of the actual prints on the wall.

That's not to say his images aren't full of impact in the book... but they pack a bit more punch as a 16x20 gelatin silver print. Of course, the book is easier to find.

I'm grateful for reproductions in books and on the web. If I find work that interests me, then I may seek out gallery shows to view the prints. Sometimes I'm disappointed, but not very often.

And if I had the money... I'd buy a few more prints, but as is, I settle for books.

 

[removed account4]

my take on this whole argument is:
unless it is a photogram, ambrotype, tintype, dag, even a chrome/diapositive
-- something that can't be "made again" through some form of mechanical reproduction,
the negative is the original and anything made from that negative is a reproduction.
a photographic print isn't much different than a scan,
or book print, poster, lithograph or magazine, newspaper &C.
they are all mechanical reproductions.

 

[JBrunner]

the negative is the original and anything made from that negative is a reproduction.

I disagree.
A great deal of the authorship of one of my prints happens in the darkroom. I think the negative may be the bedrock of a photograph, but the interpretation of the negative is clearly in the realm of artistic intent, so the negative can not be considered the original work, unless, of course, the photographer declares that it is.

 

[removed account4]

I disagree.
A great deal of the authorship of one of my prints happens in the darkroom. I think the negative may be the bedrock of a photograph, but the interpretation of the negative is clearly in the realm of artistic intent, so the negative can not be considered the original work, unless, of course, the photographer declares that it is.

i agree that one can have authorship and intent when one interprets what is in the negative ...

but still, the negative is a stencil, and the paper reproduces what shades of white/black and gray are projected onto it ...

 

[SuzanneR]

You make an interesting point, john... but the negative seems somehow a little unfinished to me.

 

[MurrayMinchin]

my take on this whole argument is:
unless it is a photogram, ambrotype, tintype, dag, even a chrome/diapositive
-- something that can't be "made again" through some form of mechanical reproduction,
the negative is the original and anything made from that negative is a reproduction.
a photographic print isn't much different than a scan,
or book print, poster, lithograph or magazine, newspaper &C.
they are all mechanical reproductions.

I'm inclined to agree...sort of...because when you compare a straight proof print to a finished fine print they can be amazingly different. The negative then can't be the original, can it, when it was but a step towards a more refined end?

I can see your point though, in that re-prints of a fine print could be seen as reproductions, but my interpretations of my negatives change over time as I see them differently and printing skill (hopefully) improves.

A smart collector of my work would then acquire an original print from each series of interpretations in order to have a full representation of my artistic growth...now that's marketing

Murray

 

[Ian Leake]

I buy/exchange other photographers' prints not their negatives. I display my prints not my negatives. And if my apartment was on fire then I'd save my favourite prints before my negatives

 

[MurrayMinchin]

I buy/exchange other photographers' prints not their negatives. I display my prints not my negatives. And if my apartment was on fire then I'd save my favourite prints first.

NEGATIVES!!!!!

Murray

 

[mark]

Seems to me that every new analog print, from a negative is an original. No matter how many notes one keeps uncontrollable variences in the environment can change the print. Not to mention the mood of the printer at the time of the printing and subsequent printings. In my mind it is no different that any other hand-made process. That is what makes hand-made, hand-made. Now, if you scan and print and keep hitting print there is no variance. That is what makes mass produced, mass produced.

As for the fire thing,

Family and animals. Screw the rest.

 

[Ian Leake]

While the negatives have a small commercial value, it's the prints which I'm emotionally attached to.

My important prints were all made at a specific time and have a particular meaning to me. Sure I could make new prints from the negatives, but they wouldn't be [ii]the same[/i] prints: they would be replacements. That's why I'd save the important prints first.

Here's a real example. I gave a print to my father a few years ago (a photo made in a railway carriage that he used to travel in as a boy). After he died I hunted high and low to find it, and finally found it last week. I've still got the negative and could make a new print, but it wouldn't be that print. Does that make sense?

 

[eddym]

my take on this whole argument is:
unless it is a photogram, ambrotype, tintype, dag, even a chrome/diapositive
-- something that can't be "made again" through some form of mechanical reproduction,
the negative is the original and anything made from that negative is a reproduction.
a photographic print isn't much different than a scan,
or book print, poster, lithograph or magazine, newspaper &C.
they are all mechanical reproductions.

Well... if you're talking about a color negative (for instance) that you are going to take to an automated printer and have a machine print made, then that print might be called a "mechanical reproduction." But if you are going to spend time in a darkroom, choosing a specific paper surface, contrast grade, and printing manipulation to create a fine print that expresses your own personal interpretation of the negative... then that interpretation is an original work of art, not a "mechanical reproduction."

 

[removed account4]

i don't know ...

the way i was understanding "original"
was entry #4

"the source from which a copy, reproduction, or translation is made"

and even though a photographic print is CREATED in a darkroom (or lightroom),
through interpreting and lovingly manipulating the light as it shines through
the film, it isn't the source .. the film is the source ...
i am not saying that photographic prints aren't beautiful objects,
or it does not take skill or time or state of mine and experience (or lack of experience )
to create a "fine" ( or not so fine ) print, all i am saying is that each
print is an interpretation of the original, the negative.

 

[MattKing]

Using a fairly well known reference:

Each manual print from a negative is a new, original performance of the negative.

Some performance artists are much more consistent from one performance to the next.

Matt

 

[JBrunner]

i don't know ...

the way i was understanding "original"
was entry #4

"the source from which a copy, reproduction, or translation is made"

and even though a photographic print is CREATED in a darkroom (or lightroom),
through interpreting and lovingly manipulating the light as it shines through
the film, it isn't the source .. the film is the source ...
i am not saying that photographic prints aren't beautiful objects,
or it does not take skill or time or state of mine and experience (or lack of experience )
to create a "fine" ( or not so fine ) print, all i am saying is that each
print is an interpretation of the original, the negative.

Still have to disagree. I may, for example, combine three negatives into a triptych. A negative alone is not the final intention of my vision, merely something created to help me realize that. The finished work of the photographic process is the print, and even then it may not be finished, because I might, for instance, hand color it. Negatives exist to make prints, while prints simply exist.

 

[removed account4]

Still have to disagree. I may, for example, combine three negatives into a triptych. A negative alone is not the final intention of my vision, merely something created to help me realize that. The finished work of the photographic process is the print, and even then it may not be finished, because I might, for instance, hand color it. Negatives exist to make prints, while prints simply exist.

i agree with you at this point ( i think ... )
but you have added something different to the stew -- intent.

i can understand if one wanted to do something different
with the image on film, add an dimension to the final image
(color, ink, abrade, or damage &C ), or use the
print as part of another step in the process like making a bromoil matrix
as part of the intent ...
and the inspiration for the additional "layer of art" may not be
"there" when a photographer makes an exposure ...
... having a negative allows for the photographer / artist to have
the freedom to create something that may not have been
(but was any of it there to begin with? a camera distorts reality, even as it creates a document of it )

i guess, maybe at this point, a photograph may not be a reproduction ...
BUT not all photographers have an intent different
than making a print .. a straight or manipulated print, unlayered with
additional "art" ... i guess i see that additional -stuff- being different than printing in a darkroom ...
so i guess my fork has 2 tines

 

[JBrunner]

i agree with you at this point ( i think ... )
but you have added something different to the stew -- intent.

i can understand if one wanted to do something different
with the image on film, add an dimension to the final image
(color, ink, abrade, or damage &C ), or use the
print as part of another step in the process like making a bromoil matrix
as part of the intent ...
and the inspiration for the additional "layer of art" may not be
"there" when a photographer makes an exposure ...
... having a negative allows for the photographer / artist to have
the freedom to create something that may not have been
(but was any of it there to begin with? a camera distorts reality, even as it creates a document of it )

i guess, maybe at this point, a photograph may not be a reproduction ...
BUT not all photographers have an intent different
than making a print .. a straight or manipulated print, unlayered with
additional "art" ... i guess i see that additional -stuff- being different than printing in a darkroom ...
so i guess my fork has 2 tines

I think there's more tines than that, it's a friggin porcupine!!!

I think the negative can be the original, if the artist declares that as his intent. Anything can be declared to be art. I have some interesting stains in my trays. If I hang them, and declare them original art, then, at least for me, they are. Some may think differently about them, and declare me a hack. Others may laud my innovation, and see the deep meaning contained in the swish patterns.

I think the original is what the photographer declares it to be, and a reproduction is a facsimile by created another process to copy the original. There can be many "original" prints, but a copy of any one of them in a magazine, even as well executed as for example in Lenswork, is still a reproduction.

The content of a work of art is, without a doubt a major ingredient, but process determines much about the subtleties an individual piece may stand or fall on. I have seen pictures of "The Thinker" but never the statue. I understand the content of the work, so far as I may from that facsimile, however I could not say to Auguste Rodin that I was truly familiar with this work.

The difference between a masterful silver gelatin print, and a magazine, or electronic display is just as vast.

 

[steve]

...a photographic print isn't much different than a scan, or book print, poster, lithograph or magazine, newspaper they are all mechanical reproductions.

You don't understand print making. Lithographs, intaglio prints, and relief prints are all originals - even though there may be multiple copies. The printing media (stone, plate, or wood / linoleum block) is not considered the original piece of art because the image is reversed, is not in the final color(s), is not presented on the paper chosen, and is not signed by the artist as a piece of art.

Until a print is pulled from the stone, plate, or block, there is not a piece of original art. This is the same as investment cast sculptures - the original is the casting and not the wax model or mould.

Further, when the artist is through with printing the printing media is usually destroyed; as is the case with the mould in investment casting, and in the lost wax method, the wax model is destroyed in making the mould.