Re: Fine Art Reproductions

On Mon, 05 Apr 1999, Robert A. Baron <rabaron[_at_]pipeline.com> wrote:
>
> But the answer will always be a judgement call. When a photographer
> takes as his subject architecture or sculpture, it is clear that he must
> interpret his subject. When a photographer in a studio takes as his
> subject a two-dimensional image -- a painting, for example -- his
> opportunity to be creative is circumscribed by the conventions of the
> photographic studio. Yet, there are many interpretive choices to be
> made in such "objective" photographic sessions. These include choice of
> film, type and strength of lighting, position of lights, filtration and
> color balance, contrast, etc. Clearly, the results of one photographer
> will differ from the results of another -- given the same subject.

Going off on a slight tangent, but still on-topic: this brings to mind a few years back when Rembrandt's "Night Watch" was *cleaned*, and it was discovered after layers of soot were removed, that it was closer to "Dawn Watch" - that is, the painting had a great deal more light than would have been available in the middle of the night. So, a photographer who took a shot prior to cleaning would definitely have different results than one who took a shot after, even if all other factors were perfectly equal.

Barb

Barbara Ruhmann
Text Buyer
UCD Bookstore
University of California, Davis
Phone 530-752-5538
Fax 530-752-4791
http://www-bookstore.ucdavis.edu/ Received on Tue Apr 06 1999 - 16:00:49 GMT