Does it concern you that you can not hold a digital image?

[sepiareverb]

I prefer the negative, not solely for the fact that I can hold it, but for the ease of getting a particular look. I find digital archiving & searching tedious, but the analog method is second nature to me. Partly my age I suppose, and partly that I've not found a simple digital means of duplicating my negative & proofsheet books.

 

[MartinL]

Here's a story loosely related to a long thread--for anyone still paying attention:

15 years ago, I bought an "architecturally-significant" home in Los Angeles: a fusion of rural Japanese, F.L. Wright prairie, and 1950s modern. I learned that Julius Schulman had photographed the house extensively soon after it was built; I found his number through 4-1-1, called, and he invited me up to his Laural Canyon home.

Schulman was then in his 90s. He recalled stories and gossip about the house, the owner-builder, the architect. He was gracious and interested in my plans for the house. We spent nearly 2 hours with him. I asked if he had negatives and (impolitely and stupidly) if I could have prints.

But he told me to wait, climbed (bounded up)a flight of stairs, and returned in 3-5 minutes with a packet of negatives. He explained that he'd donated his negatives to several archiving instutitions (UCLA, JP Getty, and maybe others) and was obliged not give or sell his older works. However, he said he'd give me contact prints of his medium format negatives if I'd pay for his assistant's time to have that done.

I cherish those prints and the period-appropriate staging of them. I suspect that this would be a different story if Schulman had shot digital. Personally, I'm OK with my digital format. But I knew Julius Schulman, and I'm no Schulman.

end of story: A nice opportunity arose that moves me from LA to NYC. Sold the house to a couple who plan to tear down the house and build (most likely) a McMansion.

FYI
http://www.usc.edu/dept/architecture/shulman/

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

I am very concerned I cannot compress my negatives.

 

[photogdave]

Here's a story loosely related to a long thread--for anyone still paying attention:

15 years ago, I bought an "architecturally-significant" home in Los Angeles: a fusion of rural Japanese, F.L. Wright prairie, and 1950s modern. I learned that Julius Schulman had photographed the house extensively soon after it was built; I found his number through 4-1-1, called, and he invited me up to his Laural Canyon home.

Schulman was then in his 90s. He recalled stories and gossip about the house, the owner-builder, the architect. He was gracious and interested in my plans for the house. We spent nearly 2 hours with him. I asked if he had negatives and (impolitely and stupidly) if I could have prints.

But he told me to wait, climbed (bounded up)a flight of stairs, and returned in 3-5 minutes with a packet of negatives. He explained that he'd donated his negatives to several archiving instutitions (UCLA, JP Getty, and maybe others) and was obliged not give or sell his older works. However, he said he'd give me contact prints of his medium format negatives if I'd pay for his assistant's time to have that done.

I cherish those prints and the period-appropriate staging of them. I suspect that this would be a different story if Schulman had shot digital. Personally, I'm OK with my digital format. But I knew Julius Schulman, and I'm no Schulman.

end of story: A nice opportunity arose that moves me from LA to NYC. Sold the house to a couple who plan to tear down the house and build (most likely) a McMansion.

FYI
http://www.usc.edu/dept/architecture/shulman/

If you sell a house like that don't you have some sort of obligation, moral or legal, to ensure it doesn't get torn down? Don't architectural landmarks have any protection?
One of Vancouver's famous architects, Arthur Erickson, recently died. One of his masterpieces was recently sold to someone who was going to tear it down. There were protests, petitions etc. Not sure what happened...

 

[Al Kaplan]

These situations happen all the time. If some bayfront land is zoned "50 story multi-family" it's kind of difficult to preserve a cute little waterfront cottage where some famous writer wrote some of her best known novels. The concept is called "highest and best use" of the land. Unless there's some existing local ordinance concerning historical property there's not much that can be done to stop the project short of buying the development rights from the developer.

I've spent over twenty-five years on the City of North Miami's Planning Commission deciding land use issues, and the city's Board of Adjustment deciding on exemptions to the plan. A few miles to the south of here land speculators were buying up wharves and fish houses and small freight terminals along the Miami River with plans to build high-rises. The impact this would have on the fishing industry or the small companies shipping freight to and from the various Carribean islands, while part of the discussion, held no importance.

In the current economy it isn't easy to get people fired up about preserving historical buildings. It's bad enough when these places get torn down. What's happening now is that they sit vacant and aren't being maintained, or they've been replaced by half built projects that have been abandoned. Picture opportunities? Maybe!

 

[Bob Michaels]

If you sell a house like that don't you have some sort of obligation, moral or legal, to ensure it doesn't get torn down? Don't architectural landmarks have any protection?
One of Vancouver's famous architects, Arthur Erickson, recently died. One of his masterpieces was recently sold to someone who was going to tear it down. There were protests, petitions etc. Not sure what happened...

The other side of the story:

A few months ago, I photographed inside a historical old citrus packing house in DeLeon Springs FL. It is almost just as it was when they never reopened for the orange packing season in the early 1970's following back to back freezes that killed all the citrus trees. It is listed on the National Register of Historic Places but still privately owned.

The owner, great grandson of the original builder, is a very bitter man. So bitter, it took me almost two hours to convince him to allow me access. He is not a wealthy man and this is a large part of his personal assets. He continually catches grief from historical groups because he cannot maintain it so it is deteriorating. No historical group has funding to buy it even at a bargain price. He cannot tear it down because it is listed on the National Register. Even self inflicted arson is out of the question because it is a steel building. It will never function as a citrus packing house because they do not grow citrus around there any more. It is a financial albatross. His approximate 40 acres of land are worth less than a nearby tract that is used to grow pine trees. Personally I would like to see it preserved but understand his realities.

So I am not completely hijacking the thread, I threw all my negatives away about 25 years ago when I gave up photography. Even threw all the prints away except a box of about 100 8x10 family photos. Each of my sisters has a framed art print from that era but that is all. You know I don't regret doing what I did. Now I view it as the ultimate in critical editing.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

I am very concerned about architectural conservation.