[Archive]

Posted By: Corey R. Shanus

An original negative of an important image, being a unique piece, will always have significant value. However, Josh's point is well-taken. A period first generation print of the image, displaying good contrast and otherwise not having major condition issues, assuming there are few known originals, will usually sell for more simply because it displays better. An exception could be where the image is so special that owning the original negative would allow prints to be generated that (i) have commercial value or (ii) otherwise could not (e.g., the original negative is needed to generate adequate photo quality or because copyright rights are acquired along with the original negative). Another exception would be a negative that also displays as a positive image (e.g., a collodion negative). Josh also is correct that more and more collectors are shelling out the big bucks for an image with special artistry/spontaneity. The Ruth photo Lelands just sold for $26k is a great example of such an image.