Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2010/08/24

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]
Subject: [Leica] more on the Earl Brooks vs AA negatives
From: kcarney1 at cox.net (Ken Carney)
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2010 19:14:10 -0500
References: <E1905AA4-D0FF-43F5-B3A8-6629990892E7@mac.com>
 
  Interesting that a "digital" 16x20 print (inkjet?) is $1,500, but a 
"silver gelatin darkroom print" is $7,500.  Presumably both unsigned 
:).  Now I'm sorry I closed the darkroom.

Ken Carney

On 8/24/2010 3:16 PM, George Lottermoser wrote:
> <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/24/ansel-adams-trust-sues-ov_n_692750.html>
>
> Regards,
> George Lottermoser
> george at imagist.com
> http://www.imagist.com
> http://www.imagist.com/blog
> http://www.linkedin.com/in/imagist
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>
Replies: Reply from imagist3 at mac.com (George Lottermoser) ([Leica] more on the Earl Brooks vs AA negatives)
Reply from mark at rabinergroup.com (Mark Rabiner) ([Leica] more on the Earl Brooks vs. AA negatives)
 In reply to: Message from imagist3 at mac.com (George Lottermoser) ([Leica] more on the Earl Brooks vs AA negatives)