Quote:
Originally Posted by BigJJ
Mark, Agreed
Type 3 designation for composite photos is not the best designation - as it implies that there are two levels better, when in fact, this is not the case.
Composite photos such as this are the top form of the piece.
In the art world, these would be considered the original work of the artist (which is defined as work done by the artist and/or at the artist's direction by others). Type 3 composite photos are similar to Type 1 photos in that they are both the original work of the photographer/artist.
I might call the them "Type 1 - Composite"
as they need to be differentiated from regular Type I, but not be defined as less than a Type 1.
|
So you don't like it because of the number it is given?? LOL cOME ON JJ..
Original artworks? Ok fine.. I will agree with that....but not the same in quality. Again, the type system defines what it is. It is up to the buyer to decide the value themselves. I think changing it like you say would add a lot more confusion. All one has to do is read the definitions and think a bit. This should not be worth more than an ORIGINAL TYPE 1 of just Ruth IMO. IT IS a lesser form of photo. HOWEVER, I DO APPRECIATE THE PROCESS AND THAT IT WAS CREATED IN 1915(THUS I BOUGHT IT)
. I would not have paid type 1 money for it though(like the one in heritage that went for 10k).
BIGJJ AND MARK... I like the way you both thin, love your passion and love talking photos with you(you know that). I just do not agree with these two "faults" you see in the TYPE SYSTEM.
Now stay away from photos I want to buy