Thread: Conlon Type 2
View Single Post
  #8  
Old 11-13-2013, 04:04 PM
Runscott's Avatar
Runscott Runscott is offline
Belltown Vintage
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 10,651
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by thecatspajamas View Post
Something that I hadn't thought of until just now, with all this talk of what scanners to use for slides and negatives: What would a print produced by scanning an original negative and then printing from the digital file be considered as far as Type classification? I'm thinking it's actually very similar to a wire photo process (though with better-looking results), so it would be a Type III or IV (depending on how far removed from the date of the original shot), right? What with the print being produced through an intermediary process rather than directly from the negative and all, whereas to be a Type I or II, it would have to be printed directly from the negative (i.e. a "wet print" vs. a digital print).

I don't know what process John Rogers' guys use (never looked into it), so none of these wandering thoughts are intended to reflect on him. I guess it would depend on his method of print production as to what Type those modern prints are considered.
Lance, I was kind of alluding to the fact that it doesn't matter - the print has to be described accurately, and you can't tell enough just from a type number and a front image.

You should read Rogers' description of how his prints are created - it's interesting. As far as I'm aware, I'm the only forum member who has every purchased any of them as I've asked for reviews from others and haven't gotten any.
__________________
$co++ Forre$+
Reply With Quote