Quote:
Originally Posted by drc
I do think it's interesting that the three images match up like that. That's unusual. As it is, it's an interesting matching trio, except, as Scott noted, the negative was misdescribed.
|
Obviously all three items' images can trace their lineage back to the same original Conlon negative (print-more image on right,negative-more image on left), but this negative was made from a print, and was then used to create the image on the publication (or doubtfully, vice-versa). So the print they auctioned off is actually a cousin of the other two. When I was researching the Johnson print I won last night, I also researched this one, and while I also think it's a Conlon, I couldn't find any reference tying them together.
Oddly, the print I won was NOT described as a Conlon, but definitely is. John Roger's website
https://www.theconloncollection.com/ is a great place to look and see if your photo is a Conlon - of course, not finding it there doesn't rule things out.