Does medium affect your perception?

[The_Traveler]

One process is an actual, venerable, traditional form of photography. The other represents cheap, fast, repeatable, mass-producible, digital imaging. I evaluate the two things very differently.

ven·er·a·ble

/ˈven(&#601rəbəl/

Accorded a great deal of respect, esp. because of age, wisdom, or character: "a venerable statesman".

 

[Gavjenks]

The point is that you shouldn't be awarded points merely for using platinum or wet plate or HDR, and there are cases and venues where points are awarded merely for each of these things.

Yes, I will sign on to that: it does happen, and it is not great when it does.

But also, if it is not in fact an underlying feature of human psychology that is making this happen, but is instead just a passing fad, then it's not worth worrying about as much. Because passing fads, well... they pass. But if it's something to do with underlying psychology, then one may want to take more active steps to try and avoid this happening, because it might not go away on its own.

 

[amolitor]

Derrel reminds us of an excellent point, which I frequently lose sight of:

Unique objects have more value than non-unique ones. Arguably enlarger-exposed gelatin silver prints are non-unique objects (more or less) and certainly digital prints are even less so. Things like ambrotypes, platinum/palladium prints, and so on, are more unique.

This isn't a fake value here at all. A unique object, being unique, is genuinely more valuable than a similar non-unique one. A very bad picture, rendered as an ambrotype, may not have much value, but it has MORE value than a gelatin silver print of the same picture.

 

[Gavjenks]

Derrel reminds us of an excellent point, which I frequently lose sight of:

Unique objects have more value than non-unique ones. Arguably enlarger-exposed gelatin silver prints are non-unique objects (more or less) and certainly digital prints are even less so. Things like ambrotypes, platinum/palladium prints, and so on, are more unique.

This isn't a fake value here at all. A unique object, being unique, is genuinely more valuable than a similar non-unique one. A very bad picture, rendered as an ambrotype, may not have much value, but it has MORE value than a gelatin silver print of the same picture.

This is true if the utility of the item is on a one-by-one basis, and if multiple existing copies, if any, are marketed separately.

But if the object has more value as a set (hard to think of an example in photography, but maybe the multiple identical soup cans in an andy warhol image? =P More commonly, something used as a set like dishes), or if all the existing copies are only sold as a set, then it's not true anymore.

Or, more relevantly to photography, if you give away your MEANS of producing more copies, then it also won't be worth less to be in a medium that can make copies, because you can't make more anyway to flood the market with.

For example, in an abstract economic goods sense only (ignoring copyright and assuming 100% equal utility / no preference or taste for either type of individual print), a 35mm negative wouldn't be worth any less than a one-of-a-kind print (let's say the negatives were destroyed in a fire for that one), because either way, the buyer has full control over the market for that print. In fact, the reproducible negatives might even be worth more than the non-reproducible one-of-a-kind, because if copies are made, they are THEIRS and can only potentially increase THEIR wealth (if they make two copies, each copy may be worth less than a one of a kind, but together, they may add up to somewhat more).