It is folly to believe that the integrity of Ansel Adams will be sustained by a gallery bearing his name.
It is folly to believe that the integrity of Ansel Adams will be sustained by a gallery bearing his name.
I have never been to the Ansel Adams Gallery (they don't have a branch close to Indiana,) nor am I familiar with their operations. I recall that they have in the past used some excellent printers to make the AA prints they sell; considering how cheap a college student will work for, that tells me that they have at least some awareness of the need for high quality work in the reproduction of AA's prints.
Was their decision to offer inkjet prints purely economic in nature, or have they, like Mr. Jensen, concluded that inkjet prints can now approach, meet, or exceed their expectations from their traditional prints? I have no idea and until some evidence is made available one way or another, I really have no basis for speculation. This is in itself odd; I'm usually one of the most skeptical SOBs in the house!
Will collectors rush to buy inkjet prints made from AA's negatives? I doubt it. Lord knows, AA made plenty of original prints during his lifetime so that comparisons could be made. Would my mother buy one, to hang on her wall? Maybe. She'd certainly not buy an original AA print: she can't afford it. If this gets more of his prints onto more walls, perhaps that's a good thing. I don't think it will have a marked effect on collectors, other than to continue and perhaps reinforce the recent trend to accept inkjet prints as collectible artwork.
I like to think that as the world gets flooded with inkjet prints, reproduced in their thousands and hawked from every corber store, my silver gelatin prints are becoming more and more unique and, possibly, a little more valuable. Maybe the kids will pause to glance at them before they throw them into the fire after I'm gone.
Mike
Politically, aerodynamically, and fashionably incorrect.
The prints currently offered are of his "secondary" images -- no Moonrise, Clearing Winter Storm, etc. They are offered in some very large sizes, so I must assume that they're scanned from negatives not from prints.
I see no difference between images reproduced individually via inkjet and those printed (in the thousands) by gravure or lithography. In both cases they can be consistantly truer to the photographer's original than a silver print hand-done by a lab technition on a bad day.
I have no problem with "reproduction" prints made and sold by the heirs of the photographer.
Wilhelm (Sarasota)
My wife and I were in Yosemite this past spring and we visited the AA Gallery there and purchased one of Alan Ross' silver prints from one of AA's negatives. It is extraordinarily beautiful. On display next to it in the gallery was the same image that AA himself printed years earlier. As nice as Ross's print was, AA's was on another level. Mostly I'm sure due to his skill and to a lesser degree due to the silver rich paper he had available to him years ago. It will be interesting to compare these new offerings.
Tim
Original camera negatives or dupe negs from prints? My impression was that the Special Editions were of the latter type, so they would be easy to print straight and in quantity, with all of AA's dodging and burning built in.Originally Posted by Merg Ross
David, my understanding has been that Alan is projection printing from original negatives, and dodging and burning as necessary.
The Special Edition prints were for a time made on Ilford Galerie; later versions are on Ilford Multigrade IV FB. I have both types on the wall at home. It's easy to see the lesser sharpness of Multigrade. Silver content has nothing to do with it.
As Merg pointed out, Alan prints from Ansel's original camera negatives. He uses the dye dodging system he wrote about in View Camera some time ago; all exposure manipulations are built into his masks so large quantities of prints can be produced rapidly.
Thanks for the correction. I knew of the special editions by Alan but assumed they had been made from dupes since in her biography of Adams Alinder says all his negatives went to U of Arizona and that no prints for sale could be made from them. I guess she's wrong on one count or the other.
Brian Ellis
Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you do criticize them you'll be
a mile away and you'll have their shoes.
I purchased an Adams special edition print probably thirty years ago, on my first trip to Kalifornia. At that time the blurb attached to the print was that the prints were made from copy negatives of original Adams prints and then contact printed to make the special edition print. I think I paid $40. (my recollection, anyway)
Maybe this has changed over the years as I haven't kept up on what they've been doing.
John
Brian, I am not 100% sure of what negs the family still holds.
As far as the inkjet prints are concerned, they are $22.50 (10x13, window matted 16x20...unframed). I think that is a fair price for an inkjet print, considering the cost of the mat board and the labor involved.
Vaughn
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks