The Print or the Negative?

[Joe AC]

Lately, there has been some discussion here about destroying negatives whether by shredding or burning. This makes me wonder, what is actually more valuable? Lets say for example an original Ansel Adams print done by the man himself, or the original negative. Some would argue that based on Adams legendary dark room work, the print would be more valuable. What do you think? Adams is just an example. We could be talking about anyone.

 

[Andrea Taurisano]

I consider the negative as a mere sketch, an unfinished product. The negatives of the photographers I admire most - e.g. Moriyama - may be quite boring compared to the strong prints that were made from them, with heavy dodge & burn for instance. So if I had to choose between a negative and an original (or an "approved") print by Daido, I'd go for the print. But then it depends on what you mean by more valuable.

 

[Murchu]

In terms of monetary value, doesn't the art world already value prints far more than negatives..

 

[Joe AC]

I consider the negative as a mere sketch, an unfinished product. The negatives of the photographers I admire most - e.g. Moriyama - may be quite boring compared to the strong prints that were made from them, with heavy dodge & burn for instance. So if I had to choose between a negative and an original (or an "approved") print by Daido, I'd go for the print. But then it depends on what you mean by more valuable.

By more valuable I mean as an art form, as historical documentation, and monetary value.

Thanks
Joe

 

[Andrea Taurisano]

By more valuable I mean as an art form, as historical documentation, and monetary value.

Thanks
Joe

As I thought. Then I am still of the same opinion: The print, if made or approved by the photographer, reflects what he/she really wanted to show more than the negative does.

Of any piece of classical and especially ancient & baroque music, lots of pretty different performances and intepretations can be found today. The reason is that when writing their music sheets, composers of that time didn't bother too much with extra signs indicating intonation, "decorations" and so on. Neither did they leave behind any original sound record (the print, coming back to photography).

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

Interestingly, the art world assigns virtually no monetary value on negatives. Only the prints are seen to have any value.

 

[haempe]

So far I know, historical museums value negatives higher than prints. It shows a less manipulated view, I think.

 

[Pioneer]

Like most things in life, it kind of depends. If it were printed by St Ansel himself, I would save both. If it were printed by the Walgreen's tech onto 4x6 paper down the street then it would be the negative.

I don't own anything printed by St Ansel himself. 🙂

 

[Photo_Smith]

Interestingly, the art world assigns virtually no monetary value on negatives. Only the prints are seen to have any value.

That says more about the art world than the value of a negative, either historically or otherwise.

I'd be more interested in the negative, it would tell me of the skill of the photographer technically; obviously the print is a reflection of that negative and if you took five different printers they would come up with five versions of that negative as a print.

A print is if made or signed off by the photographer how he wanted the world to see his creation, the negative tells the story of the journey to get that print and any cropping and post treatment allows us to see a scene put in actual visualisation.

 

[Hosermage]

For historical/documentary purpose, I would say both because they give a more complete picture of how that print came about. For that matter, I would also include other shots took of the same scene that are not used, so all together show the artist's thought process and flow.

 

[Joe AC]

Like most things in life, it kind of depends. If it were printed by St Ansel himself, I would save both. If it were printed by the Walgreen's tech onto 4x6 paper down the street then it would be the negative.

I don't own anything printed by St Ansel himself. 🙂

From what I've read, many of his prints look nothing like the negatives, and that goes for other photographers work as well. This is one of the reasons many people feel that the print is ultimately what's worth having whether for art sake or historical sake.

Thanks
Joe

 

[Murchu]

From what I've read, many of his prints look nothing like the negatives, and that goes for other photographers work as well. This is one of the reasons many people feel that the print is ultimately what's worth having whether for art sake or historical sake.

Thanks
Joe

I think the reason people want the print, is because it is the artists fully realised vision. The negative is just the starting point, and I can see why posthumously made prints from a photographers negatives are not regarded in the same light as prints made from those same negatives during the photographers lifetime. A little like a novel finished posthumously from an authors notes, imo.

As a consumer of photography, if looking to dig deeper into an image I liked, I would be far more interested in seeing the associated contact sheet, earlier finished versions of that image, or even work prints of that image (if such a thing as preserved work prints exists) rather than the actual print negative.