Original negatives- underrated? Show yours

[mikejanesphotography]

Originally Posted by thecatspajamas

That may well have been the case with the Conlons. I know he had some sort of shared profit agreement with The Sporting News for the marketing of the Conlon images. That may have required him to keep the Conlon collection intact as well, but I just don't know.

Even with fan/collector participation, such a project would never approach replicating the original archive. Even if one could contact every collector who has a portion of the archive, there are too many with the "1/1" attitude of wanting to be the only one who has a particular image that would not participate. The early negatives are also large enough that most desktop scanners cannot accommodate them, meaning the vast majority of collectors do not have a way of scanning the negatives, even if they are inclined to contribute to such a project.

Conlon - could be, never did see much of a follow up on the story to know more.

Brace/Burke - definitely, that's what would make it extremely expensive. Plus you couldn't just rely on negatives but would have to scan prints as well because those negatives may be lost in private collections or just gone (or 1/1 attitude). Guess that's kind of what the LOC did with the Bain collection, they have if it was scanned from the original negative or a print since some of the negatives ended up in collections. Even with a large amount of them scanned/restored and on a site, not sure what could do with it...except list who owns the original negative, or the print that it came from, if for sale, etc. Mary Brace probably still owns the copyrights to them all is my guess.