There have been numerous discussions on here, both pro and con, for this.
A concept that I have yet to see addressed, shall be brought forth, here.
A photograph, used to make copies / reproductions, of original artwork that is anything not completely flat, will not be the same as the original.
To explain:
The original which has depth in it's plane, will have different focus needed to see the difference surfaces based upon our distance from it. The eyes are not seeing everything in focus, simultaneously.
The original will have shadows and lighting changes, depending on the angle of light source and viewing angle.
The original may have diverse reflectivity and / or absorption of the light cast upon it, also this may vary in different parts of the item.
Now the "photographic copy"
Although a great photo can be taken and printed to show off the other medium wonderfully, it still will have some changes.
Our eyes do not see various distances, in focus, at the same time. The eyes are constantly adjusting the focal length. Therefore, either everything in the copy will be in focus, or everything out of focus. The copy will have been made in focus (I assume).
The shadows will be the same, not changing as the light source is moved. There are no hills and valleys, to the same degree as other media.
The reflective ability of the image will be consistent throughout (unless special process is applied which will rarely imitate the original).
This is not to say, one is better than the other. Or one being more skillful than the other. It takes great skill and expertise to achieve a great copy of an original.
At times the copy might appear better than the original. Other times not.
However they will never be the exact same.
Replies