Digital BW, The Print

If you missed it there's a great article in today's New York Times on 
digital printing of Walker Evans work.

If you're in New York City, be sure to drop by the IBM building for 
the free exhibit.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/25/arts/design/25evan.html?
_r=1&oref=slogin


Cheers,

Tom O'Connell

Sorry to say it's a very negative, anti-digital article though. In the
mind of the reviewer, it seems, once a negative has been printed on
silver it may never be printed as a carbon inkjet print. Also,
apparently, once it's been printed small it can never be printed large. 


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Tom OConnell"
<tomoc@...> wrote:

>
> If you missed it there's a great article in today's New York Times on 
> digital printing of Walker Evans work.
> 
> If you're in New York City, be sure to drop by the IBM building for 
> the free exhibit.
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/25/arts/design/25evan.html?
> _r=1&oref=slogin
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Tom O'Connell
>

--- In 
DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "tchamber_qimage" 
<tchamber_qimage@...> wrote:
>
> Sorry to say it's a very negative, anti-digital article though. In 
the
> mind of the reviewer, it seems, once a negative has been printed on
> silver it may never be printed as a carbon inkjet print. Also,
> apparently, once it's been printed small it can never be printed 
large. 
> 

Not to be argumentative, but I thought it was pretty neutral. We're 
extremely one sided here in the forum (and justly so <g>) but the 
real world isn't really there (yet).

This exhibit is more than just a digital photog exhibiting prints 
and claiming them equal...this is going into a whole new realm of re-
conceptualizing the work of a dead artistic giant and the author 
doesn't trash the concept...

he ends with a backhanded complement:

"These latest prints, beautiful though they are, will no doubt be 
superseded by further technological inventions claiming to extract 
still more signs of the artist's genius.

They will come and go. Technology isn't timeless. Evans is."


Anyhow, I sure wish I was able to get to nyc and see this exhibit.

cheers,

Tom O'Connell

--- In 
DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "tchamber_qimage" 
<tchamber_qimage@...> wrote:
>
> Sorry to say it's a very negative, anti-digital article though. In 
the
> mind of the reviewer, it seems, once a negative has been printed on
> silver it may never be printed as a carbon inkjet print. Also,
> apparently, once it's been printed small it can never be printed 
large. 
> 

Not to be argumentative, but I thought it was pretty neutral. We're 
extremely one sided here in the forum (and justly so <g>) but the 
real world isn't really there (yet).

This exhibit is more than just a digital photog exhibiting prints 
and claiming them equal...this is going into a whole new realm of re-
conceptualizing the work of a dead artistic giant and the author 
doesn't trash the concept...

he ends with a backhanded complement:

"These latest prints, beautiful though they are, will no doubt be 
superseded by further technological inventions claiming to extract 
still more signs of the artist's genius.

They will come and go. Technology isn't timeless. Evans is."


Anyhow, I sure wish I was able to get to nyc and see this exhibit.

cheers,

Tom O'Connell

I too, view this review as somewhat negative.  In the curatorial art world
the ³vintage² print is always king.  I¹ve seen some really bad vintage
prints by blue chip photographers including Walker Evans and Andre Kertesz
just to name two.  Lots of classic photographers were not very good in the
darkroom.  I¹ve seen vintage Evan¹s prints that were brown and yellow due to
poor processing at auction, and collectors preferred them to more modern
prints that were not only printed better, but also processed properly.
If the ease of making larger prints existed years ago ( during the heyday of
Evans, Stieglitz, Strand, and the other classic photographers), I¹m sure
many of them would have opted for making larger prints.  There are some
great Steichen gum bichromate prints that are in the 16 x 20 size range that
date to the very early part of the 20th century.
Of course different size prints are viewed differently, and just making a
mediocre print as big as a wall certainly doesn¹t help it.
Just my 2 cents.
David Aschkenas

-- 
David Aschkenas
915 N. Euclid Ave.
Pittsburgh, PA 15206
412-363-3458

www.daschkenasphoto.com



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Reading the article I can see the somewhat negative overtones.   But I view it more
as an observation that photography is a two stage process.  Stage one is clicking
the shutter -- capturing the image in the camera.  Whoever does this stage is given
credit for the image.  He/she is the one who owns the copyright, whose name is 
forever attached to the image.  Stage two is making a print from the negative or 
the memory card.   Many photographers insist on doing both stages but many
others let others do this part of the task.  This isn't a digital vs film issue it's just a
direct result of how photography is done.  Cole Weston printed many of his father
Edward's negatives, Alan Ross still prints 1000's of Ansel Adams' Yosemite images.
Many just send their work out for printing as a general rule.

There certainly is something special about having a print that was produced entirely
by the photographer.  But I don't see it as a requirement.
In the Walker Evan's case the digital process makes it particularly easy for prints 
to be made by others.  The images are public domain so there isn't a copyright
problem and digital scans are easy to distribute rather than the negative.

The writer makes a deal about the prints being larger that Evan's original prints.
Admittedly digital has a tendency to encourage large prints because it's so easy,
but that it probably also has a lot to do with how the prints are to be exhibited.

Roy
  

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, David Aschkenas 
<Daschkenas@...> wrote:

>
> I too, view this review as somewhat negative.  In the curatorial art world
> the ³vintage² print is always king.  I¹ve seen some really bad vintage
> prints by blue chip photographers including Walker Evans and Andre Kertesz
> just to name two.  Lots of classic photographers were not very good in the
> darkroom.  I¹ve seen vintage Evan¹s prints that were brown and yellow due to
> poor processing at auction, and collectors preferred them to more modern
> prints that were not only printed better, but also processed properly.
> If the ease of making larger prints existed years ago ( during the heyday of
> Evans, Stieglitz, Strand, and the other classic photographers), I¹m sure
> many of them would have opted for making larger prints.  There are some
> great Steichen gum bichromate prints that are in the 16 x 20 size range that
> date to the very early part of the 20th century.
> Of course different size prints are viewed differently, and just making a
> mediocre print as big as a wall certainly doesn¹t help it.
> Just my 2 cents.
> David Aschkenas
> 
> -- 
> David Aschkenas
> 915 N. Euclid Ave.
> Pittsburgh, PA 15206
> 412-363-3458
> 
> www.daschkenasphoto.com
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

\
> > Sorry to say it's a very negative, anti-digital article though. 
In 
> the
> > mind of the reviewer, it seems, once a negative has been printed 
on
> > silver it may never be printed as a carbon inkjet print. Also,
> > apparently, once it's been printed small it can never be printed 
> large. 

On the contrary, I thought the article was very balanced - with some 
of the pros and cons on both sides. In fact the negative aspects were 
mainly very specific to issues with Evan's work in particular.

(Though the article ignores a couple of its own points - probably the 
majority of Evan's prints weren't made by him, so the part about Bach 
being Bach doesnt quite hold up. As well, many of the vintage FSA 
period prints around were made by FSA/OWI lab printers and the choice 
of printing "style" was not always Evan's choice)

tim a

BTW - you can download and print many of the files yourself from the 
LOC - or else order your own scans or prints quite cheaply.

I have a few on my wall I printed a number of years ago now. (might 
be a good ebay business - though I see someone is already kinda doing 
it)

Oh sure, the whole preciousness gallery vintage criteria would amuse
Evans since he was never interested in process in the first place.
History, politics, and literature, yes, process, no.

The fact is his lenses were never that sharp and his technique never
that refined. His genius was in his commitment to social issues, the
connection to American literature, and European innovations like
Surrealism. He was never a fine print guy and the brilliance of his
work had nothing to do with that.

I wish I had some of those Library Of Congress 8x10 negatives to scan
and output. Now that would be fun.

john

> majority of Evan's prints weren't made by him, so the part about Bach 
> being Bach doesnt quite hold up. As well, many of the vintage FSA 
> period prints around were made by FSA/OWI lab printers and the choice 
> of printing "style" was not always Evan's choice)
> 
> tim a
> 
> BTW - you can download and print many of the files yourself from the 
> LOC - or else order your own scans or prints quite cheaply.
> 
> I have a few on my wall I printed a number of years ago now. (might 
> be a good ebay business - though I see someone is already kinda doing 
> it)
>

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "john dean"
<deanwork2003@...> wrote:

> I wish I had some of those Library Of Congress 8x10 negatives to scan
> and output. Now that would be fun.
> 
> john


What little I read said those images were from the FSA library, so the
scans should be available for download. Tha said I haven't checked for
them.

Many big printable files of the FSA photos are
available for download.
Check here:
http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/fsowhome.html
It takes a little digging and many of the photos only
come in unusable small file sizes, but its real great
stuff.
Right On
John E

--- Greg <dfaprinting@...> wrote:

> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com,
> "john dean"
> <deanwork2003@...> wrote:
> 
> > I wish I had some of those Library Of Congress
> 8x10 negatives to scan
> > and output. Now that would be fun.
> > 
> > john
> 
> 
> What little I read said those images were from the
> FSA library, so the
> scans should be available for download. Tha said I
> haven't checked for
> them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
>

Hi all,

Just a quick side-note about the author of this article.

Kimmelman's an interesting, thoughtful guy. He's been willing,
in the past, to spend long hours watching and documenting art 
actually being made, not simply judging it in a gallery environment.
His book "The Accidental Masterpiece: On the Art of Life and Vice 
Versa" is worth reading. 

I have mixed reactions to the article. I wish he'd have had
more space to explore the topic. This seemed to barely scratch the
surface, then a quick, punchy conclusion. He's done much better; 
that could be a function of how many column inches he had
available. 

-David

On Aug 25, 2006, at 8:22 PM, Roy Harrington wrote:

>
> Reading the article I can see the somewhat negative overtones. But  
> I view it more
> as an observation that photography is a two stage process.





Yes.  It's like songwriter and performer.  Some are one or the other,  
and some are both.  I for one first fell in love with printing.  My  
idea of photography was to get a negative to print :  )   And I  
quickly became a better printer than I was a photographer, which  
realization raised my consciousness about just what's involved in  
seeing as a photographer- or rather, how my planning and seeing were  
lacking at the photographing stage.  And so I worked on my image  
taking skills, both the visual and the technical aspects of getting  
better negatives.  And as my images improved, the prints were both  
the proof (no pun) of the pudding, and the inspiration to do more.   
The more I thought about how to see as a photographer, the more I  
thought about how the photographer saw in the inspiring images of  
others.  It's the same in music:  one can make a distinction between  
the music and the technique of the music.  One can point to rough  
performers who have a musical spirit with depth; and one can point to  
musical athletes who have stunning but empty technique. Neither  
extreme is ideal.  However, musicality and technique inform each  
other.  The desire to flesh out one's musical ideas leads to the  
improving of technique, and the  practicing of newly improved  
technique leads  to new musical ideas  which would not otherwise have  
come to life.  I think this staggered ladder pattern of idea, need  
for technique, and new idea springing from that technique is probably  
inherent in the arts in general, and maybe in many other endeavors as  
well.  The dual hats of being both photographer and printer may not  
be an exact analogy, but yet it is like that in many ways.  And it's  
also refreshing to approach the creative photographic process from  
first one, then the other stage of it.

James Irelan

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

According to the LOC site, 8x10 copy negatives are available for $33.
Wouldn't hurt to inquire.  http://www.loc.gov/preserv/pds/photo.html#negreg

Ken

> -----Original Message-----
> From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Greg
> Sent: Saturday, August 26, 2006 12:00 AM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Terrific article on Walker Evans in today's New
> York Times
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "john dean"
> <deanwork2003@...> wrote:
> 
> > I wish I had some of those Library Of Congress 8x10 negatives to scan
> > and output. Now that would be fun.
> >
> > john
> 
> 
> What little I read said those images were from the FSA library, so the
> scans should be available for download. Tha said I haven't checked for
> them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as
> they are often being updated.
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> 
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
> unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
> page.
> 
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
> them short.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames.
> Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the
> membership without notice.
> - Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W
> printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from
> the membership.
> - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and
> guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner
> and Moderators. See "Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines" in the Files
> section:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
> 
> BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT
> YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE "OWNER" AND
> "MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO
> YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR
> EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF
> PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE
> "OWNER" AND "MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN
> ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE
> OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii)
> UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii)
> STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT
> YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE
> PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
> 
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 
>

I wasn't going to mention this but since they are actually encouraging
this I'll fess up.

About 5 years ago a friend of mine downloaded a digital file from LOC
of a very famous frame of Walter Evans from the FSA period and in the
book American Photographs, shot here in Atlanta. This was a very well
made digital scan but of fairly small file size. Too small to make a
first class inkjet print from. What he did was to have an 8x10 image
setter film negative made from this digital file. Then he made 8x10
contact prints from that on Ilfobrom Gallerie gelatin silver paper and
selenium toned those. The final prints were truely amazing
facsimalies. I have one framed in my studio. All kinds of people
including photo historians have asked me where I bought that Walker
Evans. I had to admit that it was free. 

In a similar situation a client of mine had me download an
architectural photo from the 19th century that was originally shot
with glass plate. I made a 8" x 24" print if it on William Turner and
it was surprisingly good quality for the small file. I noticed that
right beside it was a file of the same structure taken by William Heny
Jackson even earlier. That site is loaded with facinating stuff, but
don't go trying to sell prints from these files. They belong to the
American government. Like they said some of the files are too small
and some are borderline usable. Some are jpegs and some are tiffs. 
I'm going to look more into it.

John

AFIK the U.S. cannot assert copyright on its own works, so it should be OK
to sell them, in the U.S. at least.  BTW I just downloaded a 174mb file from
the site, though as you say most are too small.  In a number of cases they
have large tif files of scans from the original negative and the print
paired.  Fascinating stuff indeed.  

> Jackson even earlier. That site is loaded with facinating stuff, but
> don't go trying to sell prints from these files. They belong to the
> American government. Like they said some of the files are too small
> and some are borderline usable. Some are jpegs and some are tiffs.
> I'm going to look more into it.
> 
> John

Hello James,

>I think this staggered ladder pattern of idea, need for technique, 
>and new idea springing from that technique is probably inherent in 
>the arts in general...

Excellent analogy.  It's two sides of a coin, so to speak, they build
on each other.  I am both a musician and a photographer and have seen
that process at work in both disciplines over the years.  Well said.

Here's another thought - using the two sided coin analogy for vision
and technique, there's actually a 3rd dimension, the edge of the coin.
That would be the quality of the tools.  

The tools are an important 3rd dimension which affects the other two.
 The advent of digital printing gave new life to my photographic
inspiration and has allowed me to make far better prints than I ever
could with an enlarger.


Regards,
Clayton


Info on black and white digital printing at    
http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm

>  but
> don't go trying to sell prints from these files. They belong to the
> American government. Like they said some of the files are too small
> and some are borderline usable. Some are jpegs and some are tiffs. 
> I'm going to look more into it.
> 
> John
>

Not so - I as I understand it they are Public Domain  (especially so in 
the case of the other two works you mention)

LOC specifically says these are not copyrighted and in public domain. 


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Ken Carney"
<kcarney1@...> wrote:
>
> AFIK the U.S. cannot assert copyright on its own works, so it should
be OK
> to sell them, in the U.S. at least.  BTW I just downloaded a 174mb
file from
> the site, though as you say most are too small.  In a number of
cases they

> have large tif files of scans from the original negative and the print
> paired.  Fascinating stuff indeed.  
> 
> > Jackson even earlier. That site is loaded with facinating stuff, but
> > don't go trying to sell prints from these files. They belong to the
> > American government. Like they said some of the files are too small
> > and some are borderline usable. Some are jpegs and some are tiffs.
> > I'm going to look more into it.
> > 
> > John
>

I think disclosure of the facts is required for the sale of these prints to
be non-deceptive.  If all is disclosed - which really should not be a
problem - then making these images available more widely appears to be legal
and ethical - maybe even beneficial.  They are a public archive of our
history.  That they were photographed by famous people is irrelevant.  Those
photographers knew what they were doing when they were working for the
government.

 

(The work I did in government was and remains public.  In fact, the
gathering and dissemination of information that helps guide the society was
and remains the main point of some of the most important work I or other
government employees do.  If you're really into public service, it's just
not about money.  It's about making a better world.  I think the
photographers had that in mind when, for example, they helped publicize the
plight of the depression dust bowl victims or the Japanese Americans in
internment camps.  This democracy can only correct problems if the voters
know about them.  Sorry about the OT editorial.)

 

Paul

www.PaulRoark.com <http://www.paulroark.com/>  

 

 

  _____  

From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Bob
Michaels
Sent: Saturday, August 26, 2006 1:48 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Terrific article on Walker Evans in today's New
York Times

 

LOC specifically says these are not copyrighted and in public domain. 

--- In DigitalBlackandWhit
<mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com>
eThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Ken Carney"
<kcarney1@...> wrote:
>
> AFIK the U.S. cannot assert copyright on its own works, so it should
be OK
> to sell them, in the U.S. at least. BTW I just downloaded a 174mb
file from
> the site, though as you say most are too small. In a number of
cases they
> have large tif files of scans from the original negative and the print
> paired. Fascinating stuff indeed. 
> 
> > Jackson even earlier. That site is loaded with facinating stuff, but
> > don't go trying to sell prints from these files. They belong to the
> > American government. Like they said some of the files are too small
> > and some are borderline usable. Some are jpegs and some are tiffs.
> > I'm going to look more into it.
> > 
> > John
>

 



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

While I wouldn't presume to know what any of the FSA photographers would think of their work being used as discussed, I'd second Paul's position on this. Like Paul, in the past I did a considerable amount of photographic work for the Texas State Archives (we completed a $200 million renovation and extension of our capitol building a few years back and I was contracted to provide the documentation). All the work belongs to the citizens of Texas. However, on a practical note, access is limited by state regulation.
 
 This discussion reminds me of a related topic, though. It was my understanding, both from what I recall reading at the time and from conversation with Ansel Adams, that he intended for his negatives to be accessable to qualified graduate students. He anticipated digital printing (calling it "electronic photography", if memory serves me) and actually looked forward to his work being re-interpreted as technology moved forward.
 
 I've often wondered about this. I've yet to see, or hear, of anything coming from this.
 
 Bill Kennedy
 Austin, Texas

 -----Original Message-----
 From: paul.roark@verizon.net
 To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
 Sent: Sat, 26 Aug 2006 7:45 PM
 Subject: [Digital BW] Public Domain photos (was Terrific article on Walker Evans in today's New York Times)
 
     I think disclosure of the facts is required for the sale of these prints to
 be non-deceptive. If all is disclosed - which really should not be a
 problem - then making these images available more widely appears to be legal
 and ethical - maybe even beneficial. They are a public archive of our
 history. That they were photographed by famous people is irrelevant. Those
 photographers knew what they were doing when they were working for the
 government.
 
 (The work I did in government was and remains public. In fact, the
 gathering and dissemination of information that helps guide the society was
 and remains the main point of some of the most important work I or other
 government employees do. If you're really into public service, it's just
 not about money. It's about making a better world. I think the
 photographers had that in mind when, for example, they helped publicize the
 plight of the depression dust bowl victims or the Japanese Americans in
 internment camps. This democracy can only correct problems if the voters
 know about them. Sorry about the OT editorial.)
 
 Paul
 
 www.PaulRoark.com <http://www.paulroark.com/> 
 
 _____ 
 
 From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
 [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Bob
 Michaels
 Sent: Saturday, August 26, 2006 1:48 PM
 To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
 Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Terrific article on Walker Evans in today's New
 York Times
 
 LOC specifically says these are not copyrighted and in public domain. 
 
 --- In DigitalBlackandWhit
 <mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com>
 eThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Ken Carney"
 <kcarney1@...> wrote:
 >
 > AFIK the U.S. cannot assert copyright on its own works, so it should
 be OK
 > to sell them, in the U.S. at least. BTW I just downloaded a 174mb
 file from
 > the site, though as you say most are too small. In a number of
 cases they
 > have large tif files of scans from the original negative and the print
 > paired. Fascinating stuff indeed. 
 > 
 > > Jackson even earlier. That site is loaded with facinating stuff, but
 > > don't go trying to sell prints from these files. They belong to the
 > > American government. Like they said some of the files are too small
 > > and some are borderline usable. Some are jpegs and some are tiffs.
 > > I'm going to look more into it.
 > > 
 > > John
 >
 
 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
 
      
________________________________________________________________________
Check out AOL.com today. Breaking news, video search, pictures, email and IM. All on demand. Always Free.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Yep.  I am making a new exhibit for my office of these prints, instead of my
own stuff. If anyone asks about the prints and really relates to one, I will
explain the origin and give them one.  I will never sell one.  

> -----Original Message-----
> From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Paul
> Roark
> Sent: Saturday, August 26, 2006 7:46 PM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Digital BW] Public Domain photos (was Terrific article on Walker
> Evans in today's New York Times)
> 
> I think disclosure of the facts is required for the sale of these prints
> to
> be non-deceptive.  If all is disclosed - which really should not be a
> problem - then making these images available more widely appears to be
> legal
> and ethical - maybe even beneficial.  They are a public archive of our
> history.  That they were photographed by famous people is irrelevant.
> Those
> photographers knew what they were doing when they were working for the
> government.

>
> Yep.  I am making a new exhibit for my office of these prints, 
instead of my
> own stuff. If anyone asks about the prints and really relates to 
one, I will
> explain the origin and give them one.  I will never sell one.  


However, many entities do (not necessarily Evans' work - it's not 
like there's a clamouring market for it...).

Wire agencies re-distribute DoD photographs for a fee - you can go to 
the source for free, but that's an inconvenience for many of their 
clients. Many artwork reproductions for works that are out of 
copyright - even if held by a particular museum - are sold for profit 
(including by the institutions themselves). Plenty of old - out of 
copyright - photographic works - local history, civil war etc are 
sold as prints and postcards. 

Getty images and Corbis have huge amounts of such work (photographs 
from historic archives and art images) in their archives for sale. 
Yes, you could possibly find it for free somewhere, but essentially, 
the buyer is paying for the convenience.

that's one of the things about copyright - it's limited - 
essentially, once it's gone - well, it's gone (either by expiring, or 
by work being some form of Public Domain). The creators right to 
control copying of the work has ended.

>  This discussion reminds me of a related topic, though. It was my 
understanding, both from what I recall reading at the time and from 
conversation with Ansel Adams, that he intended for his negatives to 
be accessable to qualified graduate students. He anticipated digital 
printing (calling it "electronic photography", if memory serves me) 
and actually looked forward to his work being re-interpreted as 
technology moved forward.

among other things, from the introduction the The Negative (vol II of 
his famous three volume set):

"I eagerly await new concepts and processes. I believe that the 
electronic image will be the next major advance. Such systems will 
have their own inherent and inescapable structural characteristics, 
and the artist and functional practitioner will again strive to 
comprehend and control them."