Recent content by MurrayMinchin

Like comparing an unmanipulated max black time enlarged print on grade 2 paper in normal developer at a normal dilution at normal development time, temperature, and agitation to the fine print.

I used 4x5 gear and sheet film because they allowed me to tailor each negative for the print I wanted. Roll film didn't allow this, especially when photographing in Nature where light and subjects are constantly changing. My digital camera is better. (I now only make hand coated alt process...

People who poo-poo the Zone System as too confining or regimented do not understand it. Once testing has been completed, processes dialled in and materials understood, it allows for greater creative control. An example might be: "If I apply a reciprocity factor of X, I must reduce development...

Just a guess, but most 10 year olds give little thought to purchasing a work of art, murdering the artist to greatly enhance the value of the work, then sit idly by for 70 years to cash in when they turn 80 years of age. Shortening the time frame increases the chance someone will start noodling...

2026-70=1956, so anything from artists who died in 1955 or earlier should be free of copyright, right?

Welcome aboard from up & to the left a ways 👍

Photo poached from Ansel Adams Gallery website: https://articles.anseladams.com/a-legend-in-light/ These are presumably early and later interpretations, so a straight print at max black time from the original (reportedly very thin) negative would be horrible. A colour photo would have looked...

It does nothing of the sort. It is a colourized version of a heavily dodge & burned B&W print. If a colour photo of the scene was taken at the same time as the original and a straight ‘proof print’ of it was made, it would be severely blocked up in the shadows or have blown out high values...

Pure genius 😁👍

Neil Young’s song about selling out: This Note's For You" Don't want no cash Don't need no money Ain't got no stash This note's for you Ain't singing for Pepsi Ain't singing for Coke I don't sing for nobody Makes me look like a joke This note's for you Not singing for Miller Don't sing for...

After an exhaustive 10 minute Internet search where I couldn't find the actual clause in Canada's Copyright Act, the automatic death + 70 years rule applies to foreign artists and their works as well. So, I'm guessing a Canadian gallery could be sued for making and selling such a print in...

Mushy in that there were different rules between certain dates, and variations within the variations. Life + 70 years is easier.

Interesting. In an earlier post I mentioned that US copyright gets 'mushy' somewhere between 1931 and 1978. In Canada it's much more civilized, where copyright is automatic and lasts 70 years after the artists death.

Has that been definitively established?

The US Supreme Court ruled that a vibrantly coloured Warhol silk screen print of a B&W photograph was derivative. The Warhol piece in question was essentially a high contrast copy of the original photograph, so even though it was presented via a completely different medium, was deemed...