Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason19th
This post raises my concerns about the use of the current type system. I think we should change to focus on clarity of the image and the age of the print . This would force us to value photos based on the image quality and the relative rarity. This would also be way more objective of a standard rather then trying to figure out exactualy how the photo was made.
|
I think the type system - which I'm not much of a fan of- is an attempt at doing just that.
Generally speaking, a print from a copy negative won't be as sharp as a print from the original.
The counterpoint to that is that some of the prints especially earlier ones would have been made one at a time, or in batches from the same setup. If the setup was bad, the resulting print won't be clear. I've seen some pretty bad prints from original negatives, and some really nice ones from copy or duplicate negatives. It's mostly operator skill.
What I don't like is the idea that a print from the original negative is necessarily not as "good" if it was done years later. If the contrast and clarity are really nice, to me it shouldn't matter. (the exception being some art photographers, where the is and should be a difference between a print processed by the artist and one done by someone with access to the negatives. )