For Ansel Adams, A Rose is Still a Rose, Just Cost More

It was reported that some negatives from Ansel Adams, a renown photographer, have been discovered. They estimate the worth at approximately $200 million dollars.

The point I really wonder is, is a rose photographed by someone other than Adams, still as sweet? I love his subject and photographic style. I admire several famous photographers and I can clearly see that their talent at taking pictures truly is an art; in fact I went to a photographic museum in San Diego recently that featured Ansel Adams work beautifully. Yet I can't see my way clear to finding newly discovered pics to be as valuable, say as a painting, or a play or novel.

I may just be showing my ignorance (that's not rhetoric), but I have seen some beautifully artistic photographs in many creative people's hands who IMHOToday, could rival the best of photographers. I have met few who can sing like Pavarotti, paint like Van Gogh, or write like Vonnegut. But I think almost anyone who cared to apply themsleves to the Art could ultimately take pretty amazing pics.

I think it has a lot more to do with the price people might be willing to pay for a photo credited to be taken by a famous person more than the actual value of these pictures. John Lennon's art works have been sold for more than $50,000; can you imagine these same works done by you or I selling at any amount? Probably not.

I am not trying to deprecate this artist. I appreciate and clearly see the value of someone able to capture images artistically. I just wonder when 2/3 of the world is in need, do we need another $200 million in paper floating around? Even really pretty paper?

BTW, the picture above was taken by a teen aged friend of mine.