> I suggest you value the work for the photograph and not put formulas
> into the mix. it really makes little difference how many pixels were
> used to make a photograph. A good photograph is not measured by the
> quality of the image but the integrity, message or feeling of the
> piece.
Well said.
I've often wondered how it is that an print that is 30x40 retails for
more than an prints that is 3x4 (for example). Factoring out the cost
of materials and labor, there really is no difference in the image,
only in the cost of goods. Yet we, as photographers, get to charge
more for those grand over-the-mantel images. I think that's why
Michael Kenna, for example, only prints an edition in a single size.
Eliminates the whole "cost per pixel" argument altogether.
Jim Parker
parkerparker :: design | photography
http://www.parkerparker.info
@dakkid / twitter
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
http://artshowphoto.com/support.htm
PLEASE READ....PLEASE TRIM POSTS!!! Keep quoted material short.
Repeat or create accurate subject lines.
If you want to advertise services related to art shows or photography, either in a forum post or on the resource web site, please contact the forum owner for permission.
Resource web site at
http://ArtShowPhoto.com
0 comments:
Post a Comment