Original negatives- underrated? Show yours

[GKreindler]

I have the Lelands catalog for the Harry M. Stevens collection, but I'm pretty sure the negatives offered therein are from Francis Burke, rather than George (though I'll double check today). It's a shame that he was replaced when they found the latter, as his work was absolutely stellar. I really think his work was on par with people like Bain and Conlon, though we'll never know whether it approached the same breadth.

And, I hate to say it, but whomever wins the Conlon negatives, well, I hope they actually do decide to have them rescanned. I know, I know, it's a monumental undertaking and seems pointless. However, I'm absolutely convinced that JR's people really screwed the pooch when they did just that. I'd say a lot of the scans turned out nicely, but there are so many that had piss-poor retouching done to them, and as a result, really detract from the overall image.

One of the harshest victims was Paul Waner:







Yeeeeeaaahhh. I'm sorry, but the original negatives do NOT look like this. Perhaps there are imperfections here and there, but by I can't see why they were altered this drastically in Photoshop. And believe me, there are a LOT more where that came from (though Waner's are probably the worst).

Excuse me while I go have some nightmares.