Quote:
Originally Posted by Lordstan
IMHO, this is a weakness in the type system. To me, each of these are an original creation by either the photographer or editor to be used at that time. I think these should be considered type 1s.
BTW... Great pick-up Ben!
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
|
Thanks Mark!
I don't see how this is a weakness of the Type system AT ALL though.
It is not a type 3 just because it is a composite. It is a type 3 because each photo within the composite were made from dupe negatives to put it all together(thus, not as clear as a type 1). If ANYTHING it is a STRENGTH of the TYPE SYSTEM. I WOULD MUCH RATHER HAVE A TYPE 1 OF THE RUTH SHOT THAN THIS. THUS, IT IS IMPERATIVE TO HAVE A SYSTEM TO SEPARATE THE TWO.
However, just because it is a type 3 doesn't make it bad. The type system is just defining what it is. I don't see how this is a weakness in any way shape or form. It is why the system is necessary.
Again, the TYPE system if anything is more specific than any other classification IMO.
