Prev: Canon and Nikon FF sensors, where do Nikon's come from?
Next: fung foo sparrow
From: Allen on 27 Jul 2010 11:27
Savageduck wrote:
> On 2010-07-27 07:56:48 -0700, Rich <rander3127(a)gmail.com> said:
>
>> On Jul 27, 10:41 am, Ryan McGinnis <digic...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>
>>> On 7/27/2010 7:41 AM, RichA wrote:
>>>
>>>> http://www.cnn.com/2010/SHOWBIZ/07/27/ansel.adams.discovery/index.htm...
>>>>
>>>
>>>> $10 to possibly $200M in value.
>>>
>>> That's amazing -- though the art world's take on the value of these
>>> kinds of things kinda boggles my mind. $200M for glass plate negatives
>> ?
>>
>> Unlike prints, negatives can duplicate perfectly the image over and
>> over.
>
> Not quite. As valuable as those negatives might be, there is half of the
> Adams creative process missing, the darkroom print work he did himself,
> or supervised.
> Without his print specific darkroom notes, you might be able to
> replicate a close approximation of an Adams print from those negatives,
> but you would not have an "Adams" print.
>
In case anyone still pays any attention to Rich, his post(answered well
by Savageduck) should provide sufficient evidence of his total
ignorance/idiocy about photography.
Allen
From: Gordon Freeman on 27 Jul 2010 14:45
Ryan McGinnis <digicana(a)gmail.com> wrote:

> On 7/27/2010 7:41 AM, RichA wrote:
>>
http://www.cnn.com/2010/SHOWBIZ/07/27/ansel.adams.discovery/index.html?iref
=NS1
>>
>> $10 to possibly $200M in value.
>
> That's amazing -- though the art world's take on the value of these
> kinds of things kinda boggles my mind. $200M for glass plate negatives?

Glass plate negatives are surely the most valuable form of a photograph,
unlike digital images they are nice large tangible objects, and unlike
prints they are unique originals.

Since there are 65 plates, that's 3 million per image. Although it's a lot
of money I don't think it's implausible given that they are previously
unknown images by perhaps the most famous photographer ever.

As other posters have noted though, a major problem in the plan to sell
prints as opposed to the plates is that the prints won't be genuine Adams
prints as in "printed by Ansel Adams". However if the owner gets them
printed by a master printer and doesn't just knock off amateurish prints
himself, then I'm sure many people would snap them up. Many great
photographers didn't print their own work, so the fact that these must be
printed by someone else doesn't in itself invalidate them as works by the
man.

Moreover, IIRC Adams decided that no prints made from his negs after his
death would be allowed out of the Center for Creative Photography where his
archive is held. If this is still the case, then these new negs are the
only way anyone will be able to buy a print made from an actual negative
other than buying one second hand for tens of thousands of dollars.

To make $3 million per image, this guy would just have to sell ten thousand
enlargements of each neg at $300 each, or one thousand at �3000 each, etc.
Would there be enough takers? You bet there would! The only question mark
to my mind is copyright, since he might own the negs but I would imagine
his estate would still own the copyright, so some negotiations might be
needed.

From: Ryan McGinnis on 27 Jul 2010 16:55
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 7/27/2010 10:13 AM, Savageduck wrote:

> Not quite. As valuable as those negatives might be, there is half of the
> Adams creative process missing, the darkroom print work he did himself,
> or supervised.
> Without his print specific darkroom notes, you might be able to
> replicate a close approximation of an Adams print from those negatives,
> but you would not have an "Adams" print.

Indeed -- almost doubly so for Adams, who's darkroom wizardry is
considered legendary.

- --
- -Ryan McGinnis
The BIG Storm Picture -- http://bigstormpicture.com
Vortex-2 image licensing at http://vortex-2.com
Getty: http://www.gettyimages.com/search/search.aspx?artist=Ryan+McGinnis

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJMT0fVAAoJEIzODkDZ7B1b6/cH/jPy4SuANkirsuVTjMBly0bd
QwgB9KUsaPHE3/RBw8lBUZNHQZEKNQQtnOrh69Z2OV+2rW3N8/J+TGrvdv3E+xdz
lwYwpWLxBxHDRti614k3DMYUcbNG4AKRUh7ZZJrcU0FSwbx4nhaXwPcpdiqUBY27
+/c3amW0TFCW1l18iCrJg34SKhuYrKutWUq7DBiKpeT1Oup1o+Dtc9KyCmWFTmmD
ukOpR7dHPRy4Eu8r5O/n/otAdBAcX0hEaoxfWDDDzVhLObjxNGhCNXe7/OpBbOZj
SwQGIGX/1Ug7yeEgCGttWbM8FQC/LL+Fz41vhMUy4lrLsgJdZOT+mEgDH0hGfeY=
=eX9z
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
From: RichA on 27 Jul 2010 16:58
On Jul 27, 11:27 am, Allen <all...(a)austin.rr.com> wrote:
> Savageduck wrote:
> > On 2010-07-27 07:56:48 -0700, Rich <rander3...(a)gmail.com> said:
>
> >> On Jul 27, 10:41 am, Ryan McGinnis <digic...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> >>> Hash: SHA1
>
> >>> On 7/27/2010 7:41 AM, RichA wrote:
>
> >>>>http://www.cnn.com/2010/SHOWBIZ/07/27/ansel.adams.discovery/index.htm....
>
> >>>> $10 to possibly $200M in value.
>
> >>> That's amazing -- though the art world's take on the value of these
> >>> kinds of things kinda boggles my mind.  $200M for glass plate negatives
> >> ?
>
> >> Unlike prints, negatives can duplicate perfectly the image over and
> >> over.
>
> > Not quite. As valuable as those negatives might be, there is half of the
> > Adams creative process missing, the darkroom print work he did himself,
> > or supervised.
> > Without his print specific darkroom notes, you might be able to
> > replicate a close approximation of an Adams print from those negatives,
> > but you would not have an "Adams" print.
>
> In case anyone still pays any attention to Rich, his post(answered well
> by Savageduck) should provide sufficient evidence of his total
> ignorance/idiocy about photography.
> Allen

Adams prints were being sold in the mid 1980's for thousands of
dollars and were made by his assistant. If you think his artistic
talent can't be extracted from the negs, you are just an imbecile.
From: Savageduck on 27 Jul 2010 18:07
On 2010-07-27 13:58:37 -0700, RichA <rander3127(a)gmail.com> said:

> On Jul 27, 11:27�am, Allen <all...(a)austin.rr.com> wrote:
>> Savageduck wrote:
>>> On 2010-07-27 07:56:48 -0700, Rich <rander3...(a)gmail.com> said:
>>
>>>> On Jul 27, 10:41 am, Ryan McGinnis <digic...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>>>>> On 7/27/2010 7:41 AM, RichA wrote:
>>
>>>>>> http://www.cnn.com/2010/SHOWBIZ/07/27/ansel.adams.discovery/index.htm
> ...
>>
>>>>>> $10 to possibly $200M in value.
>>
>>>>> That's amazing -- though the art world's take on the value of these
>>>>> kinds of things kinda boggles my mind. �$200M for glass plate negat
> ives
>>>> ?
>>
>>>> Unlike prints, negatives can duplicate perfectly the image over and
>>>> over.
>>
>>> Not quite. As valuable as those negatives might be, there is half of th
> e
>>> Adams creative process missing, the darkroom print work he did himself,
>>> or supervised.
>>> Without his print specific darkroom notes, you might be able to
>>> replicate a close approximation of an Adams print from those negatives,
>>> but you would not have an "Adams" print.
>>
>> In case anyone still pays any attention to Rich, his post(answered well
>> by Savageduck) should provide sufficient evidence of his total
>> ignorance/idiocy about photography.
>> Allen
>
> Adams prints were being sold in the mid 1980's for thousands of
> dollars and were made by his assistant. If you think his artistic
> talent can't be extracted from the negs, you are just an imbecile.

You might have noted I said "Adams" prints were produced by Adams
himself, or he supervised the darkroom work, either directly with
assistants, or from print specific darkroom notes.
The next problem comes from what the actual asking price for the new
faux Adams prints could be. They are not going to be in the thousands
of dollars, probably in the $75-$250 range.
$200m. is a estimated auction price for the package of 64 negatives.
That is $3.25m. per neg. based on what Adams was as an artist and
photographer.

If multiple prints are made and sold as you imagine, it will bring
"Adams" prints into the same area of doubt as some of the work of Dali
& Miro. This would also effectively devalue, and place in doubt, any
"Adams" work brought to market, just as the flooding of the market with
Dali and Miro prints did.
There is a reason photographic & fine art prints, and fine art
lithographs, are of limited production and are numbered.

Certainly some very "Adams" like prints can be made from those
negatives, but without those darkroom notes, a darkroom technician
would just be producing what he/she imagined Adams might produce. They
will remain prints produced from Adams negatives, long after his death,
not his original work, not valued in any way by limited print runs, and
not likely to demand the asking prices of real "Adams" prints.
It is you who is imagining the endless production of Adams prints from
these negatives, and millions made.

The value of those glass plate negatives is in what they are, not what
they might be able to produce.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
Prev: Canon and Nikon FF sensors, where do Nikon's come from?
Next: fung foo sparrow