In article . net,
"Nicholas O. Lindan" wrote:

"Greg "_"" wrote

I tend to agree, often you see even in new reproduction
work imagery that is "better" than the silver print....

I have a few AAdams originals and books with the same
works. The quality of the images is noticeably better
in the books. Somewhere he writes: "I spend
much more time on a print if I know it will be used
for reproduction." [quoting from memory, but IIRC
that was the gist of it].

Paul Strand considered his books to be his prints.

mainly because lots of fudging goes into some high end repro
work.

Fudging? Fudging? As in dodging, burning, masking,
unsharp masking, hot developer, cold developer, water
bath developer, massage, ferricyanide retouching,
bleaching -- everything just short of taking a brush
and painting the image in -- that we all do in the
darkroom isn't fudging? I know: 'Tonal Corrections'.
They do pretty much the same thing at the printers,
just with a dot-screen in front of the negative.

Yes fudging at the printers.....and especially now that
photoshop rules the roost.
--
The sometimes insomniac.

www.gregblankphoto.com