New Ansel Adams prints

[ignatiusjk]

The Ansel Adams gallery has just announced that they will be selling " Digital reproductions" of 7 of Ansel's images. My question is are the prints made by scanning his negs or are they going from a print? If these are from scanning his negs I would be curious to compare these to an original just to see if there is a difference. The prices aren't to bad either.

[D. Bryant]

The Ansel Adams gallery has just announced that they will be selling " Digital reproductions" of 7 of Ansel's images. My question is are the prints made by scanning his negs or are they going from a print? If these are from scanning his negs I would be curious to compare these to an original just to see if there is a difference. The prices aren't to bad either.
You should contact the AA Gallery and ask them. And yes there is a difference.

[Brian Ellis]

Adams' negatives are at the Center for Creative PHotography at the University of Arizona and while they can be studied by certain students for research purposes, no one is allowed to sell prints made from them. I'm not aware that the Gallery is an exception to this rule established by Adams and the University. So if the Gallery is selling digital reproductions they'd presumably have to be made from prints.

[Vaughn]

THe AA Gallery has been making silver gelatin prints from original AA negatives for years (Special Editions)...Alan Ross has been the printer. It is probably safe to assume that not ALL of AA's negatives went to CCP, but many remain with the family.

Vaughn

[Merg Ross]

That is correct, Alan is printing from Ansel's negatives.

[MIke Sherck]

As a related aside, Brooks Jensen ("Lenswork" magazine,) has announced in his latest issue that they've introduced a new line of print portfolios, all inkjet prints. In his editorial announcing the new portfolios, he says that he's been watching the technology advance and now feels that he's found the combination of printer/inks/paper to at least equal gelatin silver prints.

With the pace of new product introductions, perhaps some folks feel that digital has "arrived". I know, I know: some feel that it "arrived" a while back and others wonder if the hype will ever overcome more than digital enthusiasts' feelings of inadequacy. :) Let's not go there.

A number of years ago Brooks had a line of prints made from digital negatives printed onto traditional gelatin silver paper. This project ended when he could no longer get the requisite negatives made (I don't know the details, sorry.) Now he's making prints directly from digital files. I've been a long-time reader of "Lenswork" and know that Brooks and his staff are absolutely uncompromising in terms of image quality. If they believe that the prints are that good, and if Adams' gallery thinks their prints are that good, perhaps the world of collectors is about to change again.

Mike

[Merg Ross]

Mike, there is something important missing in this conjecture.Would Ansel have thought the prints to be "that good"? We will never know his answer. The opportunities to make money from his fame as a photographer continue, and will continue. However, what may be offered will be quite different from his masterful gelatin silver prints. Collectors will seek those.

[QT Luong]

> if Adams' gallery thinks their prints are that good, perhaps the world of collectors is about to change again.

I think it is not about whether the prints are good, but about how, by whom, and when they were made.

[willwilson]

I'm not sure that the Ansel Adams Gallery choosing to offer digital reproduction prints is anything more than a smart business decision. Once you get a nice 8x10 digital version of an Adams print tweaked up; anyone can click print and make a few repros. I mean you can click around on a scan from one of his negatives all day and all night and you would be hard pressed to make an inkjet copy that could stand up to an original... but man that would be fun!

It does make me think about snatching up a few of Alan Ross's reprints though.

[JBrunner]

Adams was well known for the amount of work he put into making a print in the darkroom. Some of the instructions for printing his negatives are mind boggling. My thought is that they would be scans from a print, as Adams championed the interpretation of the negative as a vital part his process. A negative scan would be thoroughly incomplete from Adams perspective, I would think. As far as any difference, yes, of course, Adams didn't print them, and they are made in a different media.

[Merg Ross]

It is folly to believe that the integrity of Ansel Adams will be sustained by a gallery bearing his name.

[MIke Sherck]

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

[Bill_1856]

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.

[climbabout]

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

[David A. Goldfarb]

That is correct, Alan is printing from Ansel's negatives.

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.

[Merg Ross]

David, my understanding has been that Alan is projection printing from original negatives, and dodging and burning as necessary.

[Sal Santamaura]

...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...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.


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.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.

[Brian Ellis]

THe AA Gallery has been making silver gelatin prints from original AA negatives for years (Special Editions)...Alan Ross has been the printer. It is probably safe to assume that not ALL of AA's negatives went to CCP, but many remain with the family.

Vaughn

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.

[John Jarosz]

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

[Vaughn]

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

[David A. Goldfarb]

Thanks for the info on Alan Ross's recent AA Special Edition prints.

Still, my understanding is that during AA's lifetime, low cost prints were made from dupe negatives. Can anyone confirm or deny this?

It is certainly possible to make excellent dupes with LF dupe negs. Kenneth Taranto Lab used to (and perhaps still does) have shows of various NY headshot photographers, where they would show original prints next to dupes, and it was often very difficult to tell which was the original.

[QT Luong]

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

The detailed information is on the AA site:
http://www.anseladams.com/content/care_collecting/SEP_processing_methods.html
It does state they are projection prints.
BTW, $40 thirty years ago is $135, so there is a bit of appreciation (current price is $202).

[Drew Wiley]

I grew up near Yosemite, and would get a spanking if I went running into Best Studio
and knocked something off the shelf. But my older brother recalled when Adams' prints
were packaged ten for forty dollars. These were presumably made by his darkroom students, and although they might be worth more than four dollars apiece today, probably aren't worth much. Adams also made a heck of a lot of work prints - after all, that is how he made his living, primarily as a commercial photographer, not as an artist.
Many of those kinds of prints aren't particularly valuable either. Well, let's take something like "Moonrise". It's all a matter of supply and demand, just like an EBay auction. Just after he died, a few of those Moonrise prints auctioned off around forty
grand apiece, then all of a sudden the market was flooded with them. He made around 350 of them. The price collapsed. So what is the point in purchasing a digital reproduction? Fine, if you like the image and just want it for decor. And it keeps
gallery income coming in. But no one should pretend that these reproductions have any
significant long-term value, no matter how faithfully they resemble the original.

[John Jarosz]

After reading the blurb on the AA site, I had to look at the back of my print.

It does say that the print was made from Ansel's original negative by Alan Ross.

Interestingly enough, there is not date on the print.

John

[Bill_1856]

I've always maintained that photographs should only be purchased for the pleasure of seeing them, not for any potential appreciation.
I was lucky in that many of the prints I purchased "in the old days, when they were cheap" have become quite valuable, but to be honest I enjoy my gravure copies of Strand, Steichen, Gene Smith, Lange, etc, just as much as my "real" prints.
The one exception that I can reall is a vintage Edward Weston print of Pepper #30, which I was offered for $10,000. But I didn't have that kind of dough (still don't), and my Cole Weston print completely lacks the innate beauty and feeling of Edward's originals.

[Kerik Kouklis]

I've been teaching for the AA Workshops since 2000. I was shown some of these new edition inkjet prints when I was there a few weeks ago. They are being made from scans of original prints made by Ansel. The idea is to offer prints in much larger and varied sizes while keeping the cost affordable. I was able to look at several of these close up in my hands and they are quite nice. It is also my understanding the Alan makes the special edition silver prints from original negatives.

[Brian_A]

Just for $#!7s and giggles, you can also get the inkjet prints at the Edward Weston gallery in Carmel. At least I'm pretty sure they're the inkjet ones because they looked exactly the same as the ones I saw when I was up at the AA gallery a few days later...

-Brian

[Kerik Kouklis]

Hmmm... maybe they stuck a deal with Weston Gallery. I was told a the prints would only be available from the AA Gallery.

[Brian_A]

Maybe I'm thinking the wrong thing prints. The Weston gallery has some form of Adams prints for sale. In the $20-$40 range if I recall correctly.

[Shen45]

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

You make an excellent point. I was in the AA gallery in 2006 and agree about the prints done by Alan Ross and AA himself. The prints were wonderful by both men and yes there was a difference but that is completely understandable. I seem to recall you could also buy a digital print of Ansel's work back then in 2006. I would have considered a print by Alan Ross but a digital copy made me feel somehow dirty :)

The price as I recall was about US$20.00

[Kerik Kouklis]

The digital prints currently being offered are a brand new thing for the AA Gallery. The $20 - $40 prints you're talking about are likely offset printed, not archival inkjet prints and priced accordingly.

[Brian_A]

I stand corrected. I still wish that one guy at the AA gallery right now was offering some sort of offset non limited print that one could afford a little easier. :D What's that guy's name?

-B

[Brian Ellis]

Thanks for the info on Alan Ross's recent AA Special Edition prints.

Still, my understanding is that during AA's lifetime, low cost prints were made from dupe negatives. Can anyone confirm or deny this?

It is certainly possible to make excellent dupes with LF dupe negs. Kenneth Taranto Lab used to (and perhaps still does) have shows of various NY headshot photographers, where they would show original prints next to dupes, and it was often very difficult to tell which was the original.

There was an article by or about Alan Ross in one of the photography publications a few years ago, I think Photo Techniques but possibly View Camera or LensWork. He talked a lot about making the special edition prints, particularly Moonrise (IIRC) which he said he had made thousands of times and was at a point where he could do all the dodging and burning in his sleep. I frankly am very surprised that the original negative of Moonrise or any other of Adams' most famous photographs would be used for this purpose, especially since Adams supposedly wanted his negatives used only by students and only at the Center for Creative Photography at the University of Arizona (at least according to Mary Alinder in her biography of Adams). There seems to be a big disconnect between what she says Adams wanted and what's actually going on.

[Kerik Kouklis]

Ansel himself started the Yosemite special editions prints in the late 50's. These are images of Yosemite sold in Yosemite. Moonrise is not part of this series. From the AA website:

"Ansel Adams launched the Yosemite Special Edition series in 1958. Today, Alan Ross makes each Special Edition Photograph by hand from Adams' original negative on gelatin silver fiber paper. Ross, a master printer and fine art photographer in his own right, began working side-by-side with Adams as his photographic assistant in 1974; he's been the exclusive printer of this series since 1975. Each of the prints in this limited series bears an identifying stamp. Yosemite Special Edition Photographs are available only from The Ansel Adams Gallery."

[Kerik Kouklis]

I stand corrected. I still wish that one guy at the AA gallery right now was offering some sort of offset non limited print that one could afford a little easier. :D What's that guy's name?

I can never remember my name, either. With a little luck, there may be a book of my collodion work coming out in 2009...

[Brian_A]

I can never remember my name, either. With a little luck, there may be a book of my collodion work coming out in 2009...

Keep us updated on that one. I'm sure I'll buy a copy of that. I wish I could have stayed longer in CA to make one of your workshops... Come on out East and do one out here. I'm sure you'll fill it up!

-B

[Merg Ross]

There was an article by or about Alan Ross in one of the photography publications a few years ago, I think Photo Techniques but possibly View Camera or LensWork. He talked a lot about making the special edition prints, particularly Moonrise (IIRC) which he said he had made thousands of times and was at a point where he could do all the dodging and burning in his sleep. I frankly am very surprised that the original negative of Moonrise or any other of Adams' most famous photographs would be used for this purpose, especially since Adams supposedly wanted his negatives used only by students and only at the Center for Creative Photography at the University of Arizona (at least according to Mary Alinder in her biography of Adams). There seems to be a big disconnect between what she says Adams wanted and what's actually going on.

Brian, my guess is that the Special Edition prints are being made under terms of the Trust, details of which Mary may not have been privy to. The rear of each print is stamped to read: "Special Edition Prints printed by Alan Ross from Ansel Adams' original negative to his exacting specifications under the supervision of the Ansel Adams Publishing Rights Trust". Each is then initialed by Alan. As noted, the Special Edition prints do not include Ansel's most popular images, such as Moonrise.

[Brian Ellis]

Brian, my guess is that the Special Edition prints are being made under terms of the Trust, details of which Mary may not have been privy to. The rear of each print is stamped to read: "Special Edition Prints printed by Alan Ross from Ansel Adams' original negative to his exacting specifications under the supervision of the Ansel Adams Publishing Rights Trust". Each is then initialed by Alan. As noted, the Special Edition prints do not include Ansel's most popular images, such as Moonrise.

Thanks Merg. I could have sworn Alan was talking about Moonrise - might he have made prints of it for some other purpose? Then again, my memory isn't what it used to be either so who knows.

[redrockcoulee]

I believe that Alan Ross's description of printing AA's work was in Lenswork as I am under the impression that I have a copy of that interview. I first saw Adam's work in quantity at Mono Lake one May and have since been to Yosemite and Carmel and truly enjoyed seeing his masterful work. When I knew I was going to Yosemite I decided to purchase one of Alan Ross's printing of AA's work. For the relatively low price of a Special Edition one should never expect to aquire one of the high priced images, that would be totally unreasonable.

One can purchase Adam's originial work, a Ross printed Special Edition, poster, calendars and postcards. I think the most important thing is for those producing and marketing the images that they are totally honest with what is for sell. The Special Editions are and the posters and postcards are obvisious. If digital edtiions are produced as long as they specifiy what it is and if limited of what the limitations are then it seems like a fair business decision.

It is the marketing of "limited edition" prints that are in reality a reproduction of another art form, like the Robert Bateman ones that are IMHO dishonest. They are just reproductions of paintings. But in the case of Adam's work, what would be the difference of digital inkjet prints from his negs compared to digital prints from photographers on this form? Even AA changed his interpretations of a negative over time.

[Arne Croell]

Thanks Merg. I could have sworn Alan was talking about Moonrise - might he have made prints of it for some other purpose? Then again, my memory isn't what it used to be either so who knows.

As far as I remember, he talked about Moon and Half Dome, which is also quite popular. The SEP's only show Yosemite scenes, including some older ones no longer offered, never any of Ansel's other prints like Moonrise or Denali.

[QT Luong]

it seems like a fair business decision.

It is the marketing of "limited edition" prints that are in reality a reproduction of another art form, like the Robert Bateman ones that are IMHO dishonest. They are just reproductions of paintings.

What is dishonest about that ? It is quite clear that the original is a painting, and the print a reproduction. Other art objects offered as limited editions include books.

[redrockcoulee]

What is dishonest about that ? It is quite clear that the original is a painting, and the print a reproduction. Other art objects offered as limited editions include books.


Actually to the general public it is not clear. They do believe that they are getting original art work that will increase in value. They are not getting that. If you look at the way that the product is marketed as a limited edition print and that the same term is used for serigraphs, woodcuts etc. I have even had this discussion with a gallery owner selling these products and she did not know the difference between an original print like my wife produces and a reproduction print like the framing shops promote. When we were in business selling art among other things it was very apparent talking to customers that they did now know and did not understand that there were original prints and reproduction prints.

Sure there are limited edition books and cars etc but there for the public it is more understandable. The vast number of people have no idea about the different art types and the marketing of limited edition prints has capitalized on this. I have nothing against the product just the hype that has been used to sell it and the confusion it has caused.

[Keith S. Walklet]

Like Kerik, I had an opportunity to view these new prints while in Yosemite earlier this month. They were impressive, and for the price, will no doubt easily satisfy those individuals that choose to buy them.

Definitely a step above a poster and offered with a selection of frame options. No point in getting into comparisons between the processes used to create each. The bottom line is that they are beautifully rendered.

As for why they are offered, I recall in my college marketing days, the professor going on about a marketing mix, with different price points and products for the various audiences. In this respect, Ansel's SEPs currently printed by Alan have always been a means by which one with a smaller budget can own a silver gelatin version of one of AA's images.

The new series of prints is yet another alternative for the buyer to consider. It is a different selection of images than the SEPs, but just as powerful, and clearly Ansel who framed the scene.

BTW, though it is no surprise, Kerik's work on display there was stunning.

[Mike Castles]

I can never remember my name, either. With a little luck, there may be a book of my collodion work coming out in 2009...

That would be the best news I have heard this year Kerik, been waiting a long time to see your work in pirnt ;) Look forward to 2009 even more now.

[Don7x17]

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.

And lets not forget the John Sexton does the printing for Ansel Adams trust for the publications. No, these prints aren't sold, but do become the basis for the books that are printed. John's work is at the direction of the trust, using negatives on load from the Center for Creative Photography (where they reside) in Tucson.

regards
Don

[QT Luong]

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.


I think you are confusing the new inkjets with the offset reproductions. The new inkjets are priced like prints by contemporary landscape photographers:

http://www.anseladams.com/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWCATS&Category=113

[Matthew Adams]

As a point of verification, the digital reproductions are made from Ansel's original prints. As mentioned previously, Ansel considered the print to be the performance and the negative the score. Going from a scan of the negative would leave a great deal to "artistic" re-interpretation, and could hardly be considered a "replica" of the original.

[Matthew Adams]

One can purchase Adam's originial work, a Ross printed Special Edition, poster, calendars and postcards. I think the most important thing is for those producing and marketing the images that they are totally honest with what is for sell. The Special Editions are and the posters and postcards are obvisious. If digital edtiions are produced as long as they specifiy what it is and if limited of what the limitations are then it seems like a fair business decision.

It is the marketing of "limited edition" prints that are in reality a reproduction of another art form, like the Robert Bateman ones that are IMHO dishonest. They are just reproductions of paintings. But in the case of Adam's work, what would be the difference of digital inkjet prints from his negs compared to digital prints from photographers on this form? Even AA changed his interpretations of a negative over time.

Just in case anyone is confused, these "Archival Replicas" are not limited edition digital reproductions. Our intent is to be able to have more people see and appreciate more of Ansel's work, beyond the iconic images that most are familiar with. Limiting the edition defeats this purpose. The digital technology is finally to a stage where it is possible to produce one-off or low volume reproductions at a level of quality that is acceptable to us, and at a price that is affordable to most.

[Merg Ross]

As a point of verification, the digital reproductions are made from Ansel's original prints. As mentioned previously, Ansel considered the print to be the performance and the negative the score. Going from a scan of the negative would leave a great deal to "artistic" re-interpretation, and could hardly be considered a "replica" of the original.

Thanks for the clarification. Ansel, himself, did a fair bit of re-interpretation of the performance over the years. Which interpretation of his prints was used for the reproductions, early or later interpretations? His printing changed over the years, as he acknowledged. The later interpretations were, in many cases, of increased contrast.

[Matthew Adams]

Yes, later prints tended to be have a greater contrast, greater range of values and were more dramatic/intense. We're period agnostic, chose prints with a mix of vintages. The image "Sierra Meadow" is from a 1930 vintage print, the Pt. Sur Storm is from a print from the 50s, the remaining are from later prints. As the collection develops, we'll be using more vintage and unusual pieces. There isn't a method or philosophy to it, other than adding images we like.

[Carlos R Herrera]

I'd think that "Maroon Bells" would look spectacular in 30x40. Hmm, but I do like the "Yosemite Valley, Thunderstorm." I always preferred that one and the vertical to the current SEP image.

CH

[Merg Ross]

Matthew, those are exactly the details I was seeking. Many thanks for your response.

[Richard K.]

I can never remember my name, either. With a little luck, there may be a book of my collodion work coming out in 2009...

Please place me down for a copy! Will you accept payment in Tim Hortons© doughnuts? :)

[Vaughn]

I think you are confusing the new inkjets with the offset reproductions. The new inkjets are priced like prints by contemporary landscape photographers:

http://www.anseladams.com/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWCATS&Category=113

Thanks for the correction...I am so easily confused!

Vaughn

[ignatiusjk]

The Ansel Adams gallery has just announced that they will be selling " Digital reproductions" of 7 of Ansel's images. My question is are the prints made by scanning his negs or are they going from a print? If these are from scanning his negs I would be curious to compare these to an original just to see if there is a difference. The prices aren't to bad either.

The new prints are made from Ansel's prints so that the artist's interpretation is preserved.

[lostcoyote]

$129 for a print that cost less than $3 to print on an inkjet printer???

what a ripoff!
galleries suk.

[Kerik Kouklis]

Art is not sold on a time and materials basis. How much do you think it cost Gursky to have this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/99_Cent_II_Diptychon) print made? Anywhere close to $3.3 Million??

[lostcoyote]

who received the 3.3M?

Gursky?
NOT!

Soethby's is a rip-off giant playing off the ignorance of humans who think a c-print's gonna last real long-like - lol.
Same with those AA copy off the printing mill prints. Give em' some humidity & watch the inks wash out like a watercolor - now THAT would be art in action - lol.

[lostcoyote]

Art is not sold on a time and materials basis. How much do you think it cost Gursky to have this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/99_Cent_II_Diptychon) print made? Anywhere close to $3.3 Million??

btw, you are comparing apples to oranges.

the AA prints are not even signed as originals like gursky did. AA's dead.
push a button, print it out on a machine, charge $129 - rip off!

[Deane Johnson]

Doesn't the marketplace decide these things? If they are "rip off" as you state, then they won't sell. On the other hand, if the public sees them as a reasonable value, they will.

[D. Bryant]

who received the 3.3M?

Gursky?
NOT!

Soethby's is a rip-off giant playing off the ignorance of humans who think a c-print's gonna last real long-like - lol.
Same with those AA copy off the printing mill prints. Give em' some humidity & watch the inks wash out like a watercolor - now THAT would be art in action - lol.
DFTT!