[drcy]

I rewrote my post before I read your response. Neither the UPI or the John Rogers are type Is, in parts because they were printed years later and because Charles Conlon didn't make them . I was just saying that negative to digital print in and of itself doesn't disqualify something from being original. Just in my opinion. It won't kill me if someone disagrees. If someone says an original digital print can only be when the image was photographed digitally, I understand what they are saying.

For me, deciding whether a work of art is original depends on what the artist envisioned the final work of art to be-- a digital print, house, painting, sculpture, collage-- and taking into consideration that there are steps to reach that goal. It would be silly to expect Frank Lloyd Wright to make an original, unique house without intermediary steps-- sketches, models, etc etc. He might have made a mini version of the house in his back yard. Artworks don't happen, start to finish, in the blink of the an eye.

And, for the record and under normal circumstances, I would consider a paper photograph that is scanned and printed out digitally to be a reprint.

As with art and 'rookie card,' the definition can be in the eye of the beholder. Someone out there would probably claim the Mona Lisa isn't original because there are sketches of the same image by Da Vinci from months earlier.