If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Ansel Adams negatives, quite the investment
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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Ansel Adams negatives, quite the investment
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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Ansel Adams negatives, quite the investment
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. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Ansel Adams negatives, quite the investment
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 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Ansel Adams negatives, quite the investment
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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Ansel Adams was right about Hawaii | SMS | Digital Photography | 1 | August 2nd 09 05:13 AM |
Ansel Adams | Brian Sullivan | Digital SLR Cameras | 0 | March 18th 08 02:01 PM |
Lost Ansel Adams glass plate negatives? | Alan Browne | Large Format Photography Equipment | 2 | April 24th 07 01:13 AM |
Lost Ansel Adams glass plate negatives found? | Alan Browne | Medium Format Photography Equipment | 0 | April 21st 07 02:00 PM |