Definition of 'original' print or photograph

What is your definition for the description attached to photo and

print sales which state the picture as "an original print" or

"original photograph"?

I always thought this meant it was a print made directly from the

master film negative only (ie not from a reproduced copy), but I don't

see how the term applies when a picture is captured digitally.

I would be comfortable with the following:

Digital Negative = Raw File

Original Print/Photograph = 1 generation from the film negative, raw image, or camera. I don't know where the line is between photograph and digital art. My personal line is digital art starts where you could not with 1 film image printed in an enlarger. Exposure, white balance, dodging, burning, skewing can all be done using film.

I'd agree with the implication of your question. In digital photography there is no reliable notion of "original". With film, every copy of the first negative produced from exposure of a subject in camera resulted in a (probably only very small) drop in quality of reproduction. Prints from the original negative could therefore make a valid claim (assuming the printer was competent and consistent) to some notion of original quality.

Digital images are ultimately just binary files, "1"s and "0"s, that can be endlessly copied without degradation. The notion of originality of the media becomes undefinable and irrelevent. If a photographer chooses to market prints from digital capture as "original", it's just marketing bluster, similar to ideas like "limited edition".

With film, an original is a wet print made by the photographer themselves from one of their own negatives. Each original print is unique, since random variations in timing (for example) will introduce subtle changes.

With digital, there's no such thing as an original print, really, since there's no scarcity. A digital file can be printed as many times as you like, each one identical to the last. It's pointless buying a digital print for any other reason than you like it; certainly there's no value to it as an investment. Whereas what's an Ansel Adams original print worth...?

.

Hi G.,

What means: "an original print" or "original photograph"?

I would expect such a label to mean the photographer made the print themselves, that is it not a mechanical reproduction, regardless of the way in which it was printed or sourced or processed - digital or "analog".

I presme a poster from one of the poster companies, and anything appearing in a book is a "reproduction" not an "original".

Does digital matter? Some people capture on film, scan, manipulate in computer, produce a "negative" on clear film, then slap it in an enlarger, and crank out a "print". I do not think "digital" being anywhere in the system has anything to do with it.

So, even though I may print 1,000 copies on my own inkjet, or have Kodak print them for me via mail order, they are ALL originals.

According to the US Constitution and the interpretation of the US Supreme Court, any photograph is considered the original work of the photographer. Is this what you mean? Photography as free speech? The photograph as the intellectual property of it's creator?

Could you please explain a bit more about where you are coming from in your question, and what it matters?

Thanks!

CLick!

Love and hugs,

Peter Blaise peterblaise@yahoo.com http://www.peterblaisephotography.com/

I sell fine art prints from my digital cameras as limited edition prints. They are limited and include a signed certificate attached to the back of the print. Ansel Adams and many other photographers did not limit there editions. The original negatives and his printing notes still exist. You can buy prints produced today from his negatives. The provenance that the print was produced after his death will always limit the price of these prints.

If you look at the provenance given on vintage Adams photographs they don't call them original photographs. They say when the image was taken, when it was printed, who printed it, and is it signed. They all have an efffect on value.

Peter, I was wondering what print/photo sellers meant by attaching 'original photograph/print' in their sales description. As I thought, the meaning varies according to individual.

Thanks everybody for your feedback.

G wrote:"... Peter, I was wondering what print/photo sellers meant by attaching 'original photograph/print' in their sales description ..."

Well, G, let us know what the people who actually wrote that in their sales description say when you ask THEM! ;-)

Click!

Love and hugs,

Peter Blaise peterblaise@yahoo.com http://www.peterblaisephotography.com/

Hi and thanks Mike. Yes I was actually hoping that would be the general consensus. Either printed by the person themselves or via the photographer through a lab, as Peter says <i>"even though I may print 1,000 copies on my own inkjet, or have Kodak print them for me via mail order, they are ALL originals."</i><p>

I was aware however, that 'original' used to mean a 1st generation print from the neg/tran so I was just wondering if we used the 'original' description for a digitally captured print, whether it would be a bit of a con because as Peter has said, there are limitless times you can print from a RAW or tif file. <p>

The reason I brought this up was because of a gallery owner who was interested in my work. She said she would be interested in an exhibition because my prints were 'high quality originals'. I didn't argue of course......... :)

In France, by government regulations the term "original photograph" designates prints in a limited edition where the entire edition, regardless of print size, is less than 40. I do not know if there are similar official designations in other countries.

<p>

<a href = "http://www.terragalleria.com">Terra Galleria Photography</a>