On the other hand, going back several years, I was blown away by the quality and depth (especially in the B&W images) in the Robert Mapplethorpe show (the one that caused all the furor). I realize that he did not do his own printing, but he must have had one very sharp lab working with him. I bought the best poster I could find at the show, but it's a poor quality image compared to the print on exhibition. Most of the images were at least 11x14, although there were some very explicit images that were smaller, maybe 5x7. (Smaller because of subject matter? I don't know.) Great show, though. We don't seem to get many photography exhibits around here (Hartford, Connecticut, USA). -Bill On Monday, October 18, 2004, at 08:57 PM, Gregory Popovitch wrote: > Richard wrote > >> <snip> >> I must >> say that the very best reproductions of Ansel Adams images >> are often better than the originals and I have seen a great >> many original Adams prints. > > I also have been very disappointed by the large (16x20 or larger) > prints made by Ansel later in his life. They often seemed to me > overly contrasty, going for the chock instead of the subtlety. > Indeed book reproductions or posters often look better than these. > > By I also have seen (not often) some of his earlier 8x10 contact > prints which were among the most stunning prints I remember seeing. > But these are rarely shown in exhibits and museums. > > gregory > > ======================================================================= > ====================================== > To unsubscribe from this list, go to www.freelists.org and logon to > your account (the same e-mail address and password you set-up when you > subscribed,) and unsubscribe from there. > ============================================================================================================= To unsubscribe from this list, go to www.freelists.org and logon to your account (the same e-mail address and password you set-up when you subscribed,) and unsubscribe from there.