Ansel Adams glass negatives (?) on auction

[Alain Briot]

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/384328...entertainment/

[Alain Briot]

One of the most interesting aspects of this, besides whether the glass negatives are Adams' or not, is that the owner is selling prints from these negatives for $1500 for digital prints to $7500 for chemical/darkroom prints.



Marketing never stops!

[Alain Briot]

And, not to be missed:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheat-s...cs%3Aheadline9

[Sandrine Bascouert]

Just found something about the same subject, in French. For those like me who struggle sometimes a non native language...:-)



http://www.lefigaro.fr/culture/2010/...0-millions.php

[Alain Briot]

An update that confuses the issue further:

http://www.cnn.com/2010/SHOWBIZ/cele...atives/?hpt=C1

[Erick Fromm]

As far as I am concerned until Ansel comes back to print them they are just negatives. They are like unfinished paintings and waiting for the artist to finish them. Without Ansel printing at least one by hand I consider them to be forgeries. Nice too look at but they are not a full piece of work because he did not print them. It's like Jimi Hendrix s guitar you can look at it all you want but it will never play the same until Jimi picks it up...

[Doug Kerr]

Hi, Erick,

Originally Posted by Erick Fromm

As far as I am concerned until Ansel comes back to print them they are just negatives.

Even if he would, they would still be just negatives. Their nature would not be changed by the hand of Ansel Adams or anyone else.

They are like unfinished paintings and waiting for the artist to finish them.

Quite so.

Without Ansel printing at least one by hand I consider them to be forgeries.

You seem to have in mind a very unusual definition of "forgery".

Would you consider a sketch actually made by Leonardo Da Vinci, in anticipation of an oil painting, never done, if presented as such, a "forgery"?

Best regards,

Doug

[Erick Fromm]

This is how I see it. Until it is a finished image it's just a concept. I have thousands of black and white negatives. I like to solorize and double expose during the printing process. No one could reproduce any of my photographs unless I printed them first. At that point I could reproduce them, and sell a limited quantity of hand made prints. Even those prints would all be a little different. I know that Ansel looked at the entire photograph all the way threw the darkroom. So for me they are just negatives. Ansel may have made the negative but that's as far as it went. It's creativity interrupted.

"Would you consider a sketch actually made by Leonardo Da Vinci, in anticipation of an oil painting, never done, if presented as such, a "forgery"? "

I do not see how this is relevant unless someone found the sketch and then decided to paint it themselves and then claim it too be a lost painting by Leonardo Da Vinci. Then I would consider it a forgery because he did not paint it himself. Just as Ansel did not print his final print.

[Erick Fromm]

Here is my example. This would be the negative people would find and would print thinking that that was the final image.


But this is what I ended up doing. Some times photos develop in the darkroom.

[Doug Kerr]

Originally Posted by Erick Fromm

Here is my example. This would be the negative people would find and would print thinking that that was the final image.

Well, if somebody printed from that in a straightforward way, that would be their work product - it would be their final image.

Would they think it corresponded to your final work product? They might, if they had a naïve concept of photography (but remember, we are speaking of someone who has darkroom skills). (Assuming they knew that the negative was from you.)

And if you had died before you made a print from it, it would have been your final work product.

And if you had made a print, but sold the negative to Black Star, then they both would have been your final work product.

But this is what I ended up doing. Some times photos develop in the darkroom.

Sure. And that is your final product in this case - one of them. (Did Russel like it?)

I think we all know all of this. I'm having trouble figuring out what your point is.

Do you not care to justify your use of the word counterfeit for a negative taken by Ansel Adams and presented as such?

Best regards,

Doug

[Erick Fromm]

I can't say if the negative is counterfeit. And I realize that that is the wrong word too use. But if I was a collector and that is where I am looking at it from. I would think a print made from one of his negatives would be different from what he may have printed himself. And I feel that only having his negative is not the same as one of his prints. Yes the negative has the tones I am sure. But without an example of the darkroom work it will always be unknown what he would do. And to me that is a large part of photography. It's how you decide to print your final image. It's the dodging and burning in, until you make that decision that it's done. I wonder where the photos are?

Oh ya Russel liked that photo I did of him. He was my best friend in High School. He died two years ago in a car accident. Suddenly the random photos I have of him meant something more...

[Mike Bailey]

Mike Johnston, The Online Photographer, vacationing in California this past week, seems to have a probably answer:

http://theonlinephotographer.typepad...ncle-earl.html

[Doug Kerr]

Hi, Erick,

Originally Posted by Erick Fromm

I would think a print made from one of his negatives would be different from what he may have printed himself. And I feel that only having his negative is not the same as one of his prints.

Quite so.

Best regards,

Doug

[Doug Kerr]

Hi, Mike,

Originally Posted by Mike Bailey

Mike Johnston, The Online Photographer, vacationing in California this past week, seems to have a probably answer:

http://theonlinephotographer.typepad...ncle-earl.html

Which leads us to this, by the Ansel Adams Gallery:

http://theanseladamsgallery.blogspot...0-article.html

Best regards,

Doug