Prev: Canon and Nikon FF sensors, where do Nikon's come from?
Next: fung foo sparrow
From: Gary Edstrom on 27 Jul 2010 20:37
On Tue, 27 Jul 2010 05:41:25 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rander3127(a)gmail.com>
wrote:

>http://www.cnn.com/2010/SHOWBIZ/07/27/ansel.adams.discovery/index.html?iref=NS1
>
>$10 to possibly $200M in value.

There must be a misplaced decimal point there, or someone is overly
optimistic. Even $20M sound too high to me. Still, I would love to
have been the one to find them.

Gary
From: Gary Edstrom on 27 Jul 2010 20:56
On Tue, 27 Jul 2010 05:41:25 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rander3127(a)gmail.com>
wrote:

>http://www.cnn.com/2010/SHOWBIZ/07/27/ansel.adams.discovery/index.html?iref=NS1
>
>$10 to possibly $200M in value.

Adams Heirs Skeptical About Lost Negatives Claim
BEVERLY HILLS, Calif. (AP)
(7/27/2010)

A trove of old glass negatives bought at a garage sale for $45 has been
authenticated as the lost work of Ansel Adams and worth at least $200
million, an attorney for the owner said Tuesday, but the iconic
photographer's representatives dismissed the claim as a fraud and said
they're worthless.

Continued:

http://cbs2.com/local/Adams.heirs.skeptical.2.1828439.html

From: Vance on 28 Jul 2010 04:44
On Jul 27, 5:41 am, RichA <rander3...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> http://www.cnn.com/2010/SHOWBIZ/07/27/ansel.adams.discovery/index.htm...
>
> $10 to possibly $200M in value.

What you have is a collection of very carefully exposed and processed
negatives similar in that respect to what many of his contemporaries
produced. It isn't until you add his skill and artistry in the
darkroom that you have something special. To paraphrase Adams
himself, he wasn't that great a photographer, but he was great in the
darkroom. As things that can provide an insight into his development
as an artist, they have a value over and above their value as
negatives, but probably only a few as exemplars.

Vance
From: Vance on 28 Jul 2010 05:10
On Jul 27, 1:58 pm, RichA <rander3...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

An assistant can produce a print UNDER the direction of the
photographer in the form of notes, markedup prints, and feedback.
Over 4 decades ago I spent 3 days in Yosemite with Adams in one of the
workshops he gave. After learning how to make choices on exposure re
the Zone System, which he just formalized, but didn't invent, it was
time in the darkroom with our Type 45 P/N (if memory serves)
Polaroids. When we produced something he would make suggestions on
buring and dodging in some detail and explain why he would work this
area one way and another area differently in terms of the viewers
experience. It's there that you find what made Adams, well, Adams.
Without that sensitivity to the viewers experience and knowing how to
shape it with very subtle manipulations towards a clearly held vision
of the final print you don't have an Adams print. That can be done
under direction, but it isn't inherent or even implied in the
negative. There is no extraction of the artistic intent possible
anymore than you can tell what the final building will look like from
the foundation.

A good printer can take a negative and replicate an existing print,
but that isn't even close to the same thing. A very, very good
printer who has become really familiar with Adams' work can produce
one in the style of Adams, but it is a producton of what would be
typical for Adams and not necessarily what he would have done with the
same negative.
From: Outing Trolls is FUN! on 28 Jul 2010 05:27
On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 02:10:20 -0700 (PDT), Vance <vance.lear(a)gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Jul 27, 1:58�pm, RichA <rander3...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> 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.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>An assistant can produce a print UNDER the direction of the
>photographer in the form of notes, markedup prints, and feedback.
>Over 4 decades ago I spent 3 days in Yosemite with Adams in one of the
>workshops he gave. After learning how to make choices on exposure re
>the Zone System, which he just formalized, but didn't invent, it was
>time in the darkroom with our Type 45 P/N (if memory serves)
>Polaroids. When we produced something he would make suggestions on
>buring and dodging in some detail and explain why he would work this
>area one way and another area differently in terms of the viewers
>experience. It's there that you find what made Adams, well, Adams.
>Without that sensitivity to the viewers experience and knowing how to
>shape it with very subtle manipulations towards a clearly held vision
>of the final print you don't have an Adams print. That can be done
>under direction, but it isn't inherent or even implied in the
>negative. There is no extraction of the artistic intent possible
>anymore than you can tell what the final building will look like from
>the foundation.
>
>A good printer can take a negative and replicate an existing print,
>but that isn't even close to the same thing. A very, very good
>printer who has become really familiar with Adams' work can produce
>one in the style of Adams, but it is a producton of what would be
>typical for Adams and not necessarily what he would have done with the
>same negative.

After having seen your tilted-building tourists' crapshots, it's obvious
you've never been near any photography workshop in your life. Or if you
have, you've done nothing but be a huge insult to anything they've ever
done. Your results today are nothing but a huge embarrassment to anyone who
might have ever tried to teach you anything. I've no doubt that even the
author of some photography book would claim he never wrote it if you
claimed to have read it, just to distance himself from anything you've ever
produced.



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