I agree: they are good photographers. But Lisa Kristine is a social documenatarian and Annie Leibovitz
is a celebrity portraitist. They work primarily for publication. Originals are a sideline. But there
are still a few photographers who aim primarily at collectible prints, even landscapes---Beth Moon and
Bruce Barnbaum come to mind.

If you collected prints, you might have a different perspective. Say someone is offering you a Leibovitz
original for sale. How do you know it's authentic? How do you know it will last and not fade or fall apart?

In digital photography, "limited edition" no longer means much. It used to be that a photographer could destroy
the negative, and then it was *impossible* for anyone to make a new print. Negatives were *impossible* to copy
without loss of quality. Many photographers chose to destroy all their negatives before their deaths, to insure
no one would debase the value of their original prints.

But today, image files are easy to copy--even without someone's knowledge--or to (gulp!) post on-line.
And anyone with a copy of the image file can push a button and the printer will spew identical "originals"
until it runs out of paper or ink. Unfortuantely, it is not too difficult to fake signatures on photos--at least,
well enough to fool an ordinary buyer. All "float" on top of the surface (usually in pencil). (In a painting the
signature should be integral to the surface.)

If Annie Liebovitz were to die suddenly (heaven forbid!) her PC would likely go to a thrift store -- complete
with all her image files. Anyone who buys it for $10 and owns a printer could go into the business of forging
Annie Leibovitz "original" prints. Probably someone is already scanning them and forging them.

That won't work with an Adams print. Very high (e.g., large format film) resolution is great protection against
being scanned and forged. The resolution of the print exceeds that of any digital printing technology. A fake
will be as easy to spot as a lithograph.

Even if I somehow obtained an Ansel Adams negative from his foundation I would still need his printing
instructions, the right paper and devopers, a good enlarger, and a lot of skill to make a print from it that
could be mistaken for the real thing. And they'd get caught--beaues he numer of people who still have
darkrooms is pretty small. Someone would figure out who was doing it, and man, would their name be mud!

And some traditional photographic media were impossible to copy: e.g., the Daguerreotype. The original
Daguerreotype process is also the highest resolution photographic process known. The silver is molecular,
not crystals. That's where technology was, 179 years ago: expensive, impractical, inconvenient, fragile,
dangerous--and superb.

For digital photographers, it's extremely difficult to produce a collectable print: one that not fuzzy or pixellated,
permanent, and resistant to forgery. Look at the lengths San Francisco photographer Beth Moon has to go to:
she prints to transparency than conact prints on hand-made platinum paper that she makes herself. The look
of platinum paper has become a big part of her art:
https://worldofwoodblog.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/doorofperception-com-beth_moon-ancient_trees-2.jpg

It should not be that difficult, and it didn't used to be. But consumer products serve the consumer market,
not the fine art market. And technologists are more likely to read *Wired* magazine than *Art News*.
And they are more likely to know about digital electronics than about optics.

Photography is profoundly optical -- but digital only if one wants it to be. This should be a conscious choice
by the individual--based on his or her artistic direction -- not something dicated by the industry or the consumer
camera market.

I agree: they are good photographers. But Lisa Kristine is a social documenatarian and Annie Leibovitz
is a celebrity portraitist. They work primarily for publication. Originals are a sideline. But there
are still a few photographers who aim primarily at collectible prints, even landscapes---Beth Moon and
Bruce Barnbaum come to mind.

If you collected prints, you might have a different perspective. Say someone is offering you a Leibovitz
original for sale. How do you know it's authentic? How do you know it will last and not fade or fall apart?

In digital photography, "limited edition" no longer means much. It used to be that a photographer could destroy
the negative, and then it was *impossible* for anyone to make a new print. Negatives were *impossible* to copy
without loss of quality. Many photographers chose to destroy all their negatives before their deaths, to insure
no one would debase the value of their original prints.

But today, image files are easy to copy--even without someone's knowledge--or to (gulp!) post on-line.
And anyone with a copy of the image file can push a button and the printer will spew identical "originals"
until it runs out of paper or ink. Unfortuantely, it is not too difficult to fake signatures on photos--at least,
well enough to fool an ordinary buyer. All "float" on top of the surface (usually in pencil). (In a painting the
signature should be integral to the surface.)

If Annie Liebovitz were to die suddenly (heaven forbid!) her PC would likely go to a thrift store -- complete
with all her image files. Anyone who buys it for $10 and owns a printer could go into the business of forging
Annie Leibovitz "original" prints. Probably someone is already scanning them and forging them.

That won't work with an Adams print. Very high (e.g., large format film) resolution is great protection against
being scanned and forged. The resolution of the print exceeds that of any digital printing technology. A fake
will be as easy to spot as a lithograph.

Even if I somehow obtained an Ansel Adams negative from his foundation I would still need his printing
instructions, the right paper and devopers, a good enlarger, and a lot of skill to make a print from it that
could be mistaken for the real thing. And they'd get caught--beaues he numer of people who still have
darkrooms is pretty small. Someone would figure out who was doing it, and man, would their name be mud!

And some traditional photographic media were impossible to copy: e.g., the Daguerreotype. The original
Daguerreotype process is also the highest resolution photographic process known. The silver is molecular,
not crystals. That's where technology was, 179 years ago: expensive, impractical, inconvenient, fragile,
dangerous--and superb.

For digital photographers, it's extremely difficult to produce a collectable print: one that not fuzzy or pixellated,
permanent, and resistant to forgery. Look at the lengths San Francisco photographer Beth Moon has to go to:
she prints to transparency than conact prints on hand-made platinum paper that she makes herself. The look
of platinum paper has become a big part of her art:
https://worldofwoodblog.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/doorofperception-com-beth_moon-ancient_trees-2.jpg

It should not be that difficult, and it didn't used to be. But consumer products serve the consumer market,
not the fine art market. And technologists are more likely to read *Wired* magazine than *Art News*.
And they are more likely to know about digital electronics than about optics.

Photography is profoundly optical -- but digital only if one wants it to be. This should be a conscious choice
by the individual--based on his or her artistic direction -- not something dicated by the industry or the consumer
camera market.