| Runscott |
10-12-2017 03:13 PM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Forever Young
(Post 1709434)
RE: ANSEL ADAMS- I would still want one printed as close to when the shot was actually taken even if both were produced off the original neg.
|
Back in the early 1980's I bought two giant framed Ansel Adams posters, framed for about $50 each. They appeared to be crystal clear and hung on my walls for years. That was before I collected photographs.
But now, as a collector, I always watch the old super-clear Ansel Adams prints when they sell at auction. Yikes. Good thing the 1980's posters are super-clear and display well. Not so for many baseball images, but true for many others.
Rhys - regarding that little 3x4" snapshot of Ruth in Tacoma that you sold last month: It was a perfect example of a fabulous image that was very clear, that was actually a type I (I think?), even though it was a snapshot a fan in the stands took. And it was from 1924, which is pretty old for a Ruth, even though he was a Stankee by then.
So I ended up being the underbidder on that photo, but stole your jpeg image and blew it up and framed it. It is on my living room end table, complete with your watermark for free advertising.
...so I'm just saying that I love well-composed clear photos, even if they were printed yesterday and have an RMY watermark on them.
Here's a great photo that I just printed on nice paper and plan on putting on my wall. Not being political or anything :) |
