Ansel Adams negatives, quite the investment

On 2010-07-27 07:56:48 -0700, Rich said:

On Jul 27, 10:41*am, Ryan McGinnis wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 7/27/2010 7:41 AM, RichA wrote:

http://www.cnn.com/2010/SHOWBIZ/07/2...very/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.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

Savageduck wrote:
On 2010-07-27 07:56:48 -0700, Rich said:

On Jul 27, 10:41 am, Ryan McGinnis wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 7/27/2010 7:41 AM, RichA wrote:

http://www.cnn.com/2010/SHOWBIZ/07/2...very/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

On 2010-07-27 13:58:37 -0700, RichA said:

On Jul 27, 11:27*am, Allen wrote:
Savageduck wrote:
On 2010-07-27 07:56:48 -0700, Rich said:

On Jul 27, 10:41 am, Ryan McGinnis wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 7/27/2010 7:41 AM, RichA wrote:

http://www.cnn.com/2010/SHOWBIZ/07/2...very/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

On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 02:10:20 -0700 (PDT), Vance
wrote:

On Jul 27, 1:58*pm, RichA wrote:
On Jul 27, 11:27*am, Allen wrote:





Savageduck wrote:
On 2010-07-27 07:56:48 -0700, Rich said:

On Jul 27, 10:41 am, Ryan McGinnis wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 7/27/2010 7:41 AM, RichA wrote:

http://www.cnn.com/2010/SHOWBIZ/07/2...very/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.

On 2010-07-28 02:10:20 -0700, Vance said:

On Jul 27, 1:58*pm, RichA wrote:
On Jul 27, 11:27*am, Allen wrote:





Savageduck wrote:
On 2010-07-27 07:56:48 -0700, Rich said:

On Jul 27, 10:41 am, Ryan McGinnis wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 7/27/2010 7:41 AM, RichA wrote:

http://www.cnn.com/2010/SHOWBIZ/07/2...covery/index.h
tm...

$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 neg
atives
?

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 himsel
f,
or supervised.
Without his print specific darkroom notes, you might be able to
replicate a close approximation of an Adams print from those negative
s,
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.

....and again, exactly.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 09:10:06 -0500, Ryan McGinnis
wrote:

On 7/28/2010 4:27 AM, Outing Trolls is FUN! wrote:

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.

Trolls used to have so much more talent than this!

It depends on who you are calling a troll. I know for a fact that Vance is
not only a troll but an image thieving troll. Everyone in this newsgroup
witnessed his theft of others' photography that he tried to pass off as his
own. He even admitted it.

Now, are YOU another troll?

Think carefully about which side you are taking.